"hank alrich" wrote

So, which is it "preamp that sounds good" or "not worry
about what technology it's built with" or IS IT the
technology "cheesy tube stage?" All mixed signals to
the consumer (original poster).

It's nice that you appreciate a sucky preamp for your
voiceovers; that's no reason for anybody seeking a
quality microphone preamplifier to use it.

You don't get it... there are no "quality" mic pre-amps
at the sub $500 level.

I do get it, because Mark McQuilken designed the RNP
peecisely to offer a "quality" pre in that price ballpark,
and he accomplished that.

If you say so.


Have you tried one? If it's not equal in some specifications
to pres that cost four or more times what it costs,

Please provide a complete specification sheet. The author
provides little to nothing on the web site.
http://www.fmraudio.com/.

Also please site specific makes and models of mic.
pre-amps (" four times the price") that the RNP blows
out of the water, which you personal have working
experience with?


it still sits in an entirely different league than the ART, and
that league is for many purposes not far from the big toys.

How would you know? What microphone pre-amp/s do
you own that you consider *state of the art*?


Have you ever heard any of Mark's recording and mixing work?

After the final mix you can discern the sonic signature
of specific mic. pre-amps used? Which works of Mark's
are you specifically referring to, which only use RNP's, and
how would I have access to them?


What I also get is that what passes for "detail" when doing
your voice over is not going to pass for that when recording
a fine acoustic instrument or collection thereof, say a string
quartet, etc.

What are you trying to say?


Voicingover and music recording may not have much
in common.

Reproduction of the human voice is the most
demanding aspect of audio production/reproduction.
The ear detects the most details and microdynamics
in this frequency range.

So your voice is the most complicated thing you have
ever recorded?

That's you come-back... oh, brother.


About those microdynamics - do you use compression
on that amazingly complex voice of yours?

There is no need. Nor do I need to normalize.


What don't they have in common (music/voice)?
Please provide a technically based list of
objections?

Have you ever used a stereo pair to record a jazz
ensemble, a choir, a stageband, a bluegrass band,
a chamber orchestra, a string quartet, a saxophone
quartet, a rock band? Or anything much at all except
your own voice?

Besides self-importance, do you have a point?


I have no quarrel with anybody wanting to use coloration,
but I take issue with the idea that tubes have some inherent
coloration that is at all represented by the likes of your
sucky preamp.

Please enlighten me then.

That task is beyond my meager skills.

Hehehe... yes, apparently quite so.



What empirical experiences
lead you to that conclusion? Have you personally auditioned
the PMA Pro Gold in you setup? Do you have something
to add that someone else didn't tell you (empirical)?

snip quacking


No, I haven't tried that particular ART. When I want something ****ty I
have the Rolls RP220. But I do listen to what folks I respect have to
say about kit. Scott Dorsey's comments led me to the Great River, which
I purchased from Mercenary Audio, an outfit I knew would take it right
back if I didn't appreciate it fully. You may or may not be interested
to learn how the MH version of that pre came to be.

Great River... I just reviewed the web site. The MP-2
looks interesting: "A 2 channel unit of pure, rich sound
that is accessible and truly affordable for all recording
professionals. I'm taken back by the words "rich
sounding." I don't want any alteration of the signal,
peroid. The fit and finish appears to be first rate,
however.


How about you? You ever recorded anything bigger
han your mouth? You got anything in your kit better
than that piece of ART? Tell your story.

Nope. I'm just asking simple questions of
self-labeled *experts* like yourself.