Great River ME-1NV or FMR RNP

[Matt Hepworth]

I absolutely love my P1 (500 series format Pacifica). It's awesome on vocals, guitars, and I really like it on snare as well. It's very upfront and present with great color. It kind of jumps out in a mix. On distorted guitar it's huge. If you're used to a 312 or 512 on a guitar, the P1 is less smiley face - less metal. It's bigger, wider (somehow), and very present.

 

The Great River is very appealing to me. It's not meant to really be a Neve clone, but is Neve-ish. I'll be trying the 500 series GR in a few days.

[UstadKhanAli]

Yeah, but a Portico doesn't sound like a 1970s Neve either. I wasn't trying to knock the RNP, I like the RNP, it's just that after trying out Neves, SSL, Grace and APIs the RNP doesn't match up. It's not an insult against it, just my opinion. To the original poster, if you're thinking something on the clean side, check out a Grace 101.

 

Have you heard a Portico go head-to-head with a 1970s Neve, and if so, what kind? I haven't, which is why I am asking. Larry Crane from TapeOp thinks the Portico sounds noticeably better than a 1272.

 

And while the RNP might not match up to those other mic preamps, the mere fact that we might actually compare it to them really says something about a mic preamp that equates to $250/channel. Now, I've never compared it to an Avalon, but my friend thinks that my RNP smokes his Avalon after he recorded in my studio. He immediately ran out and purchased an RNP and can't believe how good it is.

 

I've heard very good things about Grace preamps.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Just two spaces. Great pre, though. I love mine. It can sound a little slick on distorted guitars.

 

 

So it's expanding in my head. Why do I keep thinking it's this monstrous thing? Maybe I keep imagining that it's turning into a Fairchild or a Pulteq.

 

They are really cool mic preamps, I think. I use mine on overheads and distorted guitars mostly.

[alphajerk]

you have to pay attention to what neve with what xformers... they all sound different.

[UstadKhanAli]

I believe Rupert Neve designed a new transformer for the Neve Portico, so it's going to sound a little bit different. Apparently TapeOp's editor feels it actually sounds better. I don't know. All I know is that I absolutely love the sound!!

[Phil O'Keefe]

I don't think there's been a bad preamp mentioned in this thread. What's "best" is always going to come down to the source and the sound you're after...

 

For a small hobbiest setup, with a SIAB (studio in a box) as your central piece of gear, I'd probably recommend the RNP. Here's my reasoning:

 

The Great River is an outstanding mic pre - very good stuff. But so is the RNP. The RNP is going to be a significant step up from the onboard preamps on the Korg. And having two channels is going to open up the world of stereo to you - not something to be flippantly discounted IMHO.

 

Of course, there is a significant price difference between those two preamps, and yes, the GR is worth every penny they charge for it... If you could afford two channels of the Great River, that would be a good choice... but OTOH, that's SO far above the rest of your gear that the price tag is probably not justified - again, IMHO.

 

When you are considering a gear upgrade, I think it's best to look at your entire system, decide where the weakest link is, and then take steps to correct that. However, as soon as you do, other problem areas may become apparent. If you spend a good chunk improving your studio's acoustic treatment, the weaknesses of your monitors may suddenly become more obvious and apparent. Improve the monitors, and then it's the converters...

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think a $1,000 preamp would be my first choice when you're going to be plugging it into a D1600 MkII. It's almost overkill, and IMO, you'll get similar improvements by getting the RNP, and the $500 you save can probably be put to better use improving something else - room acoustics, better microphones, etc. etc.

 

What I would NOT recommend in your situation is a single, highly colored sounding mic pre like the UA 610. Again, it's a very cool preamp, but if you start stacking overdubs, with everything going through a highly colored preamp like that, things will start to build up and get muddy sounding. If you want TWO preamp tonalities, and are on a tight budget, my usual recommendation is the Groove Tubes Brick and the RNP. Again, the pair will cost less than the GR, and IMO, would be more flexible and offer you more options than just the GR, and I think it would be more appropriate for your setup, budget and needs.

[scottso]

If you are handy with a soldering iron, check out the SC-1 also. The price/performance is awesome. Its based on the THAT1510 (or 1512 if you choose to use it instead). Its a completely transparent and even at highest gain its virtually silent. You can also buy it prebuilt but it costs a lot more that way.

 

http://www.fivefish.net/diy/sc1/

[UstadKhanAli]

 

When you are considering a gear upgrade, I think it's best to look at your entire system, decide where the weakest link is, and then take steps to correct that. However, as soon as you do, other problem areas may become apparent. If you spend a good chunk improving your studio's acoustic treatment, the weaknesses of your monitors may suddenly become more obvious and apparent. Improve the monitors, and then it's the converters... I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think a $1,000 preamp would be my first choice when you're going to be plugging it into a D1600 MkII. It's almost overkill, and IMO, you'll get similar improvements by getting the RNP, and the $500 you save can probably be put to better use improving something else - room acoustics, better microphones, etc. etc.

 

 

Agreed.

 

The preamp that you should get should be appropriate for the other kind of equipment you have or intend on using. And it should be appropriate for what you want to do.

 

And also, the RNP, quite frankly, is good enough that even if you decide to throw thousands of dollars into your studio in the next few years, upgrading converters, sound treatment, mic preamps, monitors, etc. etc., you'll still want to keep the RNP. I know I have. In fact, I own two.

[bcab17]

Thanks so much for taking the time to help me out folks! Phil, as he usually does, has so elquently brought the big picture into focus. I am not running a pro studio (or anything even close), but as with any thing I love to do, I am always striving to do it better. Recording into a Korg D1600mkll in an untreated room, I agree that there are many issues I will eventually need to address. For now, I think spending what I have to step up from my entry level condensor mic and preamp would be a good move. I've arranged a deal for a AT4050 and the FMR RNP + RNC, all "new in box with warranty" for $985 delivered.

[UstadKhanAli]

Those are all really good things that you're buying. You're buying budget yet quality stuff. And if you upgrade later, you'll still be able to use those items because they're all still high-quality. I guarantee you'll be pleased with your purchase.

[Phil O'Keefe]

And also, the RNP, quite frankly, is good enough that even if you decide to throw thousands of dollars into your studio in the next few years, upgrading converters, sound treatment, mic preamps, monitors, etc. etc., you'll still want to keep the RNP. (snip) Those are all really good things that you're buying. You're buying budget yet quality stuff. And if you upgrade later, you'll still be able to use those items because they're all still high-quality. I guarantee you'll be pleased with your purchase.

 

 

Agreed on all points.

 

Please let us know how you like the new tools once you've had a chance to play with them a bit.

[bibleboy3]

phil,

tell me more about the GT brick .. what is it that you like about it?? I have not seen too much info on it...

[Kendrix]

FWIW- Ive been very happy with the GRNV as my main pre.

 

(GR's EQ is a killer)

 

IMHO- amongst the colored pres its about personal taste and subtle differences.

 

However, Im sure I wouldnt mind having a Pacifica or Chandler or some other high end pre.

Ive never had the pleasure of playing with them.

 

Its been suggested that a more cohesive sounding record can result from using only one type of pre throughout.

This is something to think about.

[UstadKhanAli]

Does that mean that you can get an even more cohesive sound if you only use one kind of microphone?

[Kendrix]

Does that mean that you can get an even more cohesive sound if you only use one kind of microphone?

 

 

That would be taking it a bit too far (although binaural recordings do benefit from this).

However, by running different mics through the same model pre you do get a certain consistency of texture and harmonic response that can help to glue the tracks together.

 

FWIW - the person promoting this idea is a multi-grammy winning engineer and producer.

 

Its noted that, in the days of old, all the mics went through the pres on-board a good desk. So, this commonality of pre is typical of many classic recordings.

[alphajerk]

 

However, Im sure I wouldnt mind having a Pacifica or Chandler or some other high end pre. Ive never had the pleasure of playing with them..

 

 

i have had them all in a M

[UstadKhanAli]

That would be taking it a bit too far (although binaural recordings do benefit from this).

 

So I can't sell all my other mics and just record everything with SM 57s?

[UstadKhanAli]

 

That would be taking it a bit too far (although binaural recordings do benefit from this). However, by running different mics through the same model pre you do get a certain consistency of texture and harmonic response that can help to glue the tracks together. FWIW - the person promoting this idea is a multi-grammy winning engineer and producer. Its noted that, in the days of old, all the mics went through the pres on-board a good desk. So, this commonality of pre is typical of many classic recordings.

 

 

Seriously, I am actually quite familiar with this. I don't really quite do it, but that's because I have three different kinds of mic preamps. But even so, I'll usually record most everything with the same mic preamps anyway, just because it sounds pretty good that way unless I really want something to stand out for whatever reason. And for the longest time, I used to record everything with Mackie mic preamps, simply because that's all I could afford, and before that, with the Akai MG1214 mic preamps.

[Matt Hepworth]

 

So it's expanding in my head. Why do I keep thinking it's this monstrous thing? Maybe I keep imagining that it's turning into a Fairchild or a Pulteq. They are really cool mic preamps, I think. I use mine on overheads and distorted guitars mostly.

 

 

Well, it's a heavy beast and almost as deep as it is wide. It is pretty large indeed.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Very true and good points Kendrix. Using nothing but board preamps didn't hurt a lot of classic 1960's / 1970's records... but then again, those boards were Neves, API's, Tridents, etc. And while a lot of studios of the era, and a lot of albums, used just the board preamps, I can recall studios with outboard preamps in them in the late 1970's, so it wasn't unheard of to have preamp options available, even back then.

 

As far as it being useful as "glue", I think that's a valid point. But one man's glue may be another man's mud. I think either application of the tools can have merit - one preamp type or several - depending on what you're going for, and I think you could get good results with either approach..

 

Now you've got my curiosity aroused - I'd love to know who the engineer is.

[MrJoshua]

Preamps are important. So are microphones, mic placement, other recording gear ... but I think we tend to get a little carried away with ourselves sometimes. Preamps aren't magic. Neither are microphones, or converters, or tape decks, or anything else.

 

If you want a great recording, you need decent gear. I'm not saying you don't. But the MOST important thing you need is great players with great instruments playing a great tune in a great room. If you have that, you can get fantastic recordings with a handful of decent mics and pretty much decent recording interface on the market today.

 

I think we tend to lose focus sometime, in part due to the amazing array of gear available on the market today. The fact is, all of this recording gear is supposed to help us CAPTURE a great sound. We're not supposed to be (at least in my opinion) trying to MAKE a great sound with a mic and a preamp. We just want to take a great sound from a room and put it on tape (er, hard drive ... you know what I mean).

 

Of course, I'm not making hit records, so what do I know?

[UstadKhanAli]

I actually don't think we lose focus. I mean, I think it's obvious that you need a great player with a great guitar that's well-intonated with new strings that are in tune and a great amp.

 

In fact, I believe earlier in this thread, I even said that I feel like if I have the above, I can place seemingly any mic in front and get a good recording.

 

But it's pretty obvious, isn't it? Because if you don't have the above, all you get is a really gorgeous recording of a crappy sound.

 

What we're trying to do with the mic and mic preamp and converters, ideally, is to either accurately capture what's going on in the (hopefully good-sounding) room, or enhance it - and in either case, not screw up the sound we've tried really hard to achieve out in the room. And sometimes, depending on the sound, that may take a room mic and a close-mic, a 57 shoved up to the grill, or whatever. It's an artistic choice, both in the mic placement and the choice of equipment.