[adam79]

I'm running Pro Tools LE w/ the MBox 2. I know that the pre amps in the
MBox 2 aren't very good, as well as the A/D converter. I have some money
to invest in a Mic Pre(s). Since I don't have enough money to purchase
Pro Tools HD, I'd assume using a high priced pre-amp through the MBox
2's line in input would be counter productive. If I bought the RNP, and
used it in place of the MBox2's pres, would it be a noticeable enough
difference to invest in the RNP?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Fran Guidry]

On Sep 28, 12:33*pm, adam79 wrote:
I'm running Pro Tools LE w/ the MBox 2. I know that the pre amps in the
MBox 2 aren't very good, as well as the A/D converter. I have some money
to invest in a Mic Pre(s). Since I don't have enough money to purchase
Pro Tools HD, I'd assume using a high priced pre-amp through the MBox
2's line in input would be counter productive. If I bought the RNP, and
used it in place of the MBox2's pres, would it be a noticeable enough
difference to invest in the RNP?

Thanks,
-Adam


What problem are you experiencing with your existing preamp?
What do you hope to gain by purchasing a new preamp?

I've done a lot of preamp comparisons. I'm not a golden eared
audiophile or an experienced recording engineer, I'm just a simple
guitar player. I can't hear any difference between a $150 M-Audio
DMP3, a $700 RNP, and a $1500 John Hardy.

http://www.fxguidry.com/pblog/index....y070224-133138

Can you?

Fran

[Steve[_3_]]

"Fran Guidry" wrote in message
...
On Sep 28, 12:33 pm, adam79 wrote:
I'm running Pro Tools LE w/ the MBox 2. I know that the pre amps in the
MBox 2 aren't very good, as well as the A/D converter. I have some money
to invest in a Mic Pre(s). Since I don't have enough money to purchase
Pro Tools HD, I'd assume using a high priced pre-amp through the MBox
2's line in input would be counter productive. If I bought the RNP, and
used it in place of the MBox2's pres, would it be a noticeable enough
difference to invest in the RNP?

Thanks,
-Adam


What problem are you experiencing with your existing preamp?
What do you hope to gain by purchasing a new preamp?

I've done a lot of preamp comparisons. I'm not a golden eared
audiophile or an experienced recording engineer, I'm just a simple
guitar player. I can't hear any difference between a $150 M-Audio
DMP3, a $700 RNP, and a $1500 John Hardy.

http://www.fxguidry.com/pblog/index....y070224-133138

Can you?

Fran

Not meaning to hijack this thread but:

I owned a DMP3 and now two RNPs. Glad I listened to these samples. I am
not a trained engineer but as well just a hobbyist. I found the DMP3 pretty
harsh compared to the RNP. I found it hard to distinguish between the JH
and the RNP but could pick out the DMP3 as it stood out from the other two
before looking at the key. Happy I bought the RNP (and another) before
taking the dive into a $1500 John Hardy or a $2000+ Great River.

To the orig poster - Get the RNP! :-)

Fran - Thanks for posting this link.
Steve

[hank alrich]

Steve wrote:

Happy I bought the RNP (and another) before
taking the dive into a $1500 John Hardy or a $2000+ Great River.

RNP is a great deal. There are times when one may needs more gain than
it can provide quietly, and that's why there are Hardys and Great
Rivers. When you need the difference, it's a big deal.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[[email protected]]

On Sep 28, 9:55*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:

RNP is a great deal. There are times when one may needs more gain than
it can provide quietly, and that's why there are Hardys and Great
Rivers. When you need the difference, it's a big deal.


What Hank said. Plus, as with mics and guitars (and people) generally
it's not so much what's "better" than what fits. They all sound
different, although sometimes the difference is extremely subtle. But
if you're doing soft, flowing music, you might not want to pick a
preamp that has an upfront or aggressive sound, and vice versa. One
reason why I think the RNP is great is that while it isn't wildly
colored, it doesn't have a tame, sterile sound that some other
"better" preamps have, clean as they may be. I like its character
for acoustic instruments. It has won out over some expensive "clean"
preamps when things just sounded too sterile on those. Often sounding
"upfront" instead of receding is a sought after quality, and I
personally haven't heard another inexpensive preamp that delivers
instead of sacrifices that.

I'm a fan.

[Don Pearce]

Steve wrote:
"Fran Guidry" wrote in message
...
On Sep 28, 12:33 pm, adam79 wrote:
I'm running Pro Tools LE w/ the MBox 2. I know that the pre amps in the
MBox 2 aren't very good, as well as the A/D converter. I have some money
to invest in a Mic Pre(s). Since I don't have enough money to purchase
Pro Tools HD, I'd assume using a high priced pre-amp through the MBox
2's line in input would be counter productive. If I bought the RNP, and
used it in place of the MBox2's pres, would it be a noticeable enough
difference to invest in the RNP?

Thanks,
-Adam


What problem are you experiencing with your existing preamp?
What do you hope to gain by purchasing a new preamp?

I've done a lot of preamp comparisons. I'm not a golden eared
audiophile or an experienced recording engineer, I'm just a simple
guitar player. I can't hear any difference between a $150 M-Audio
DMP3, a $700 RNP, and a $1500 John Hardy.

http://www.fxguidry.com/pblog/index....y070224-133138

Can you?

Fran

Not meaning to hijack this thread but:

I owned a DMP3 and now two RNPs. Glad I listened to these samples. I am
not a trained engineer but as well just a hobbyist. I found the DMP3 pretty
harsh compared to the RNP. I found it hard to distinguish between the JH
and the RNP but could pick out the DMP3 as it stood out from the other two
before looking at the key. Happy I bought the RNP (and another) before
taking the dive into a $1500 John Hardy or a $2000+ Great River.

To the orig poster - Get the RNP! :-)

Fran - Thanks for posting this link.
Steve





That wasn't harshness you were hearing - Sample 3 has a massive low cut
applied that knocked half a dozen dB off the fundamental of the guitar.

Any preamp that has a sound is broken.

d

[[email protected]]

On Sep 29, 11:20*am, Don Pearce wrote:

Any preamp that has a sound is broken.


I understand the thinking, Don, but I'd hate to think that all of the
preamps that are not broken sound exactly the same. The best ones
touted as transparent don't sound the same, even if I couldn't tell
which was which. I'm of the mind that the preamp that doesn't have a
sound has yet to be attained. Certainly never been used yet.

Best,

v

[Don Pearce]

wrote:
On Sep 29, 11:20 am, Don Pearce wrote:
Any preamp that has a sound is broken.


I understand the thinking, Don, but I'd hate to think that all of the
preamps that are not broken sound exactly the same. The best ones
touted as transparent don't sound the same, even if I couldn't tell
which was which. I'm of the mind that the preamp that doesn't have a
sound has yet to be attained. Certainly never been used yet.

Best,

v

Long since a done deal. Electronics is now an essentially transparent
medium.

d

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce wrote:


wrote:
On Sep 29, 11:20 am, Don Pearce wrote:
Any preamp that has a sound is broken.


I understand the thinking, Don, but I'd hate to think that all of the
preamps that are not broken sound exactly the same. The best ones
touted as transparent don't sound the same, even if I couldn't tell
which was which. I'm of the mind that the preamp that doesn't have a
sound has yet to be attained. Certainly never been used yet.

Best,

v

Long since a done deal. Electronics is now an essentially transparent
medium.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

People choose preamps like painters choose color, if they have a
pallette of such from which to select.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar