Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
Hello all -
On prior recommendations of this group, I added an FMR RNP to my setup and it works very well. I'm wondering about adding their RNC compressor, but not sure if it will be useful for what I'm trying to accomplish. I record acoustic guitar, mandolin, and banjo, along with vocals. Is there any benefit to adding a touch of hardware-based compression to "strictly acoustic music", while trying to preserve a [mostly] natural and uncolored result? I have always thought that acoustic music should be offered the greatest dynamic range possible - although when post-processing, I will adjust gain upward or downward manually, note-by-note, where necessary. Would the RNC, operating in their "Supernice mode", be worth experimenting with? Thanks, - John |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
On Apr 8, 10:32 am, John Albert wrote:
I record acoustic guitar, mandolin, and banjo, along with vocals. Is there any benefit to adding a touch of hardware-based compression to "strictly acoustic music", while trying to preserve a [mostly] natural and uncolored result? It would be OK on vocals, but I wouldn't mess with the instruments other than maybe to try it for "mastering" after you've mixed the song. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
In article ,
John Albert wrote: Hello all - On prior recommendations of this group, I added an FMR RNP to my setup and it works very well. I'm wondering about adding their RNC compressor, but not sure if it will be useful for what I'm trying to accomplish. I record acoustic guitar, mandolin, and banjo, along with vocals. Is there any benefit to adding a touch of hardware-based compression to "strictly acoustic music", while trying to preserve a [mostly] natural and uncolored result? I have always thought that acoustic music should be offered the greatest dynamic range possible - although when post-processing, I will adjust gain upward or downward manually, note-by-note, where necessary. Would the RNC, operating in their "Supernice mode", be worth experimenting with? If you have a computer with some available DAW software, try the compression function in software. If you like it, and you find it useful, consider buying the RNC. If you don't, don't bother. The RNC may do a better job than the software, but it will do a similar thing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
To: Mike Rivers
Hi Mike, Mike Rivers wrote: I record acoustic guitar, mandolin, and banjo, along with vocals. Is there any benefit to adding a touch of hardware-based compression to "strictly acoustic music", while trying to preserve a [mostly] natural and uncolored result? It would be OK on vocals, but I wouldn't mess with the instruments other than maybe to try it for "mastering" after you've mixed the song. I'd agree, but when you need a little something for compression on such instrument tracks the rnc is a good choice. USed to use it occasionally when playing 12 string guitar to even myself out just a bit, because my technique isn't the best. Regards, Richard use elspider at bellsouth dot net to email .... Amazing how much tape is on a 10" reel when it's not. --- timEd 1.10.y2k+ * Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901) --- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85 * Derby City Online - Louisville, KY - telnet://derbycitybbs.com |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , John Albert wrote: Hello all - On prior recommendations of this group, I added an FMR RNP to my setup and it works very well. I'm wondering about adding their RNC compressor, but not sure if it will be useful for what I'm trying to accomplish. I record acoustic guitar, mandolin, and banjo, along with vocals. Is there any benefit to adding a touch of hardware-based compression to "strictly acoustic music", while trying to preserve a [mostly] natural and uncolored result? I have always thought that acoustic music should be offered the greatest dynamic range possible - although when post-processing, I will adjust gain upward or downward manually, note-by-note, where necessary. Would the RNC, operating in their "Supernice mode", be worth experimenting with? If you have a computer with some available DAW software, try the compression function in software. If you like it, and you find it useful, consider buying the RNC. If you don't, don't bother. The RNC may do a better job than the software, but it will do a similar thing. --scott John: I was ready to reply to your post saying "GO RIGHT AHEAD" and use the RNC for acoustic guitar and similar instruments. Scott: Thanks very much for beating me to following up, and providing advice that is much more tempered. I put off getting an RNC for the longest time, because I was unsure whether it could handle the transients from my electric guitar, that I've customized heavily, and has a very clear sound not much different than acoustic. (Don't try to make sense of that, it won't work. ;-P) Recently, my old compressor died, and I replaced it with an RNC, and was amazed. I'd been reading about it for years here in RAP, but still had no idea of how smoothly it functions. It handles both my guitar and electric bass easily. (I can almost hear it thinking, "Ha, piece of cake!") I'm using up to about 8 dB of compression and still liking the sound. (But usually I keep it in the 4-6 dB range.) Previously, the most I'd gotten from any compressor I'd tried (dbx 1066 and several audio plugins) was about 3 dB. Scott's idea of trying software plugins is a very good one. If you don't have any compressor plugins yet, go to http://kvraudio.com and search their plugin database for free compressor ("dynamics") effects. And if you don't have any recording software, there are free VST hosting apps there, too. (You can turn your computer into a very classy digital effects "pedal" for free, no joke!) And of course, see if you can get demo versions of the commercial apps (e.g., Waves, http://www.waves.com). If you like what any of the plugins do, then I'd encourage you to get an RNC. It's so simple and easy to use, it's almost "unreal", and works so much better, even better than the Waves compressors I tried out - just press the "Super Nice" button and play with the knobs. Don't get too crazy with it, and I think you'll be fine. And BTW, just so that no one gets the wrong idea, I'm *not* an advocate of overuse of compression. I'm using 6 dB of compression for playing live, not recording a track in a mix that will be further compressed later in production. And as a side note, it's possible to get amazing sustain from a guitar using the RNC more aggressively, as an "effect" rather than for delicate modifification of dynamics. Jay Ts -- To contact me, use this web page: http://www.jayts.com/contact.php |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
"Jay Ts" wrote in message
ng.com... If you like what any of the plugins do, then I'd encourage you to get an RNC. It's so simple and easy to use, it's almost "unreal", and works so much better, even better than the Waves compressors I tried out - just press the "Super Nice" button and play with the knobs. Don't get too crazy with it, and I think you'll be fine. One oddity: it can occasionally get sibilant on vocals. If that happens, lengthen the release time a bit and it should go away. (I haven't heard this on other compressors, and don't know why it happens, but...) Peace, Paul |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
One thing very useful about adding a RNC to the RNP is that, with a
single cable into the insert, you can fine tune the level better than the with the RNP alone pretty transparently. One thing (well two) about the RNP is that in keeping the cost so low, the input gain is fairly widely stepped, and there is no output control. So used alone one might find that keeping a safe headroom makes for a lowish output, because the wide step might put it lower than you'd put it otherwise. With the RNC chained in you not only can give it the tiniest lick of clean, barely perceptible compression, but you can fine tune the output cleanly since its knob isn't stepped. And boost it quite a bit, if needed. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
On Apr 9, 9:47 am, wrote:
One thing very useful about adding a RNC to the RNP is that, with a single cable into the insert, you can fine tune the level better than the with the RNP alone pretty transparently. One thing (well two) about the RNP is that in keeping the cost so low, the input gain is fairly widely stepped, and there is no output control. So used alone one might find that keeping a safe headroom makes for a lowish output, because the wide step might put it lower than you'd put it otherwise. With the RNC chained in you not only can give it the tiniest lick of clean, barely perceptible compression, but you can fine tune the output cleanly since its knob isn't stepped. And boost it quite a bit, if needed. That's good to know since I was planning on purchasing the RNP. thanks |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
wrote:
One thing very useful about adding a RNC to the RNP is that, with a single cable into the insert, you can fine tune the level better than the with the RNP alone pretty transparently. One thing (well two) about the RNP is that in keeping the cost so low, the input gain is fairly widely stepped, and there is no output control. While in the case of the RNP one might attribute the larger finite gain steps and lack of output level control to low cost, in the case of pres like the Millennia HV-3 and the Gordon this is done for different reasons, since neither of those are truly low cost units. So used alone one might find that keeping a safe headroom makes for a lowish output, because the wide step might put it lower than you'd put it otherwise. I've gotten over this. I try to stay far below 0 dBFS nowadays, as in peaking no higher than -12 or so, and sometimes -20. It took me a long time to get here and I am finally happy with and relaxed about the sounds I'm getting in the digital audio realm. With the RNC chained in you not only can give it the tiniest lick of clean, barely perceptible compression, but you can fine tune the output cleanly since its knob isn't stepped. And boost it quite a bit, if needed. -- ha Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
Paul Stamler wrote:
"Jay Ts" wrote in message ng.com... If you like what any of the plugins do, then I'd encourage you to get an RNC. It's so simple and easy to use, it's almost "unreal", and works so much better, even better than the Waves compressors I tried out - just press the "Super Nice" button and play with the knobs. Don't get too crazy with it, and I think you'll be fine. One oddity: it can occasionally get sibilant on vocals. If that happens, lengthen the release time a bit and it should go away. (I haven't heard this on other compressors, and don't know why it happens, but...) The short release times of the RNC perform to their stated spec, while many other comps come nowhere near the same level of nearly instantaneous attack. This is the same thing that can have users commenting that an RNP isn't working on their bass signals. It's tracking the actual waveform because the attack is set way too fast. -- ha Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
"Paul Stamler" writes:
"Jay Ts" wrote in message ing.com... If you like what any of the plugins do, then I'd encourage you to get an RNC. It's so simple and easy to use, it's almost "unreal", and works so much better, even better than the Waves compressors I tried out - just press the "Super Nice" button and play with the knobs. Don't get too crazy with it, and I think you'll be fine. One oddity: it can occasionally get sibilant on vocals. If that happens, lengthen the release time a bit and it should go away. (I haven't heard this on other compressors, and don't know why it happens, but...) ....entering this thread late... The RNC is an interesting box, and a good value for the money. The control section is exceptionally good. It's downfall for us, however -- and the reason that I sold ours after a few months -- is that the analog path isn't very transparent compared to other segments of our signal chain. (We do mostly location classical and acoustic music so transparency is generally preferred.) Even with NO gain reduction, simply having the RNC in the signal path noticeably "dulled and darkened" what I was hearing. How much you notice this will depend on the application, and there will be some tradeoff in using another compressor with a better analog path, but a less-capable control section. In many applications, such as pop vocal or a mic'd guitar cabinet, it's not likely you'll notice this problem -- but you might with a classical singer mic'd at, say, six feet with a good mic and pre, or a concert harp or piano similarly mic'd -- not that we routinely compress such sources, though occassionaly very gentle comp is used to make such spot mics sit better with a main stereo pair. Given the good control section, I'd like to see the RNC folks perhaps offer a model with an upgraded analog path (for more $$$ of course). Frank Stearns Mobile Audio -- |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
Frank Stearns wrote:
"Paul Stamler" writes: "Jay Ts" wrote in message ing.com... If you like what any of the plugins do, then I'd encourage you to get an RNC. It's so simple and easy to use, it's almost "unreal", and works so much better, even better than the Waves compressors I tried out - just press the "Super Nice" button and play with the knobs. Don't get too crazy with it, and I think you'll be fine. One oddity: it can occasionally get sibilant on vocals. If that happens, lengthen the release time a bit and it should go away. (I haven't heard this on other compressors, and don't know why it happens, but...) ...entering this thread late... The RNC is an interesting box, and a good value for the money. The control section is exceptionally good. It's downfall for us, however -- and the reason that I sold ours after a few months -- is that the analog path isn't very transparent compared to other segments of our signal chain. (We do mostly location classical and acoustic music so transparency is generally preferred.) Even with NO gain reduction, simply having the RNC in the signal path noticeably "dulled and darkened" what I was hearing. Frank, Any chance anybody overlooked that the RNC is unbalanced and failed to take that into consideration while interfacing it with other gear? Because the RNC is reasonably flat to far beyond what you or I can hear. This from the specs page: "Frequency response 10 - 100k Hz ±0.5dB @ 0dBu, no gain reduction" I don't see how an RNC can dull and darken a signal if it is both connected properly and operated sensibly. How much you notice this will depend on the application, and there will be some tradeoff in using another compressor with a better analog path, but a less-capable control section. In many applications, such as pop vocal or a mic'd guitar cabinet, it's not likely you'll notice this problem -- but you might with a classical singer mic'd at, say, six feet with a good mic and pre, or a concert harp or piano similarly mic'd -- not that we routinely compress such sources, though occassionaly very gentle comp is used to make such spot mics sit better with a main stereo pair. Given the good control section, I'd like to see the RNC folks perhaps offer a model with an upgraded analog path (for more $$$ of course). With respect, this has not been previously reported and has never occurred for me while using an RNC on all kinds of signals, including cello, viola, violin, flute, clarinet, etc., stuff that has little to do with guitar cabinets or pop vocals. I don't think the RNC, in and of itself, caused the problem you perceived, unless there was something wrong with the unit you had. -- ha Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
Frank Stearns wrote:
The RNC is an interesting box, and a good value for the money. The control section is exceptionally good. It's downfall for us, however -- and the reason that I sold ours after a few months -- is that the analog path isn't very transparent compared to other segments of our signal chain. (We do mostly location classical and acoustic music so transparency is generally preferred.) Even with NO gain reduction, simply having the RNC in the signal path noticeably "dulled and darkened" what I was hearing. Hi Frank. This hasn't matched my experience at all, so I looked up your posts here on the topic from a few years ago. You said that you gave up on the RNC because it was too dark (distorted) and used a dbx 1066 instead. I used to own a 1066, and I definitely found *that* to have a very noticeably darkish sound, that just happened to sound good with my guitar. When I got my RNC, the most obvious, and immediately noticeable difference to me was that it is so clear and clean by comparison! (In fact, I sometimes wish I had a button to press to get the low-fi 1066 sound, to use as an effect.) We have very different applications - I don't record classical or acoustic - but after reading your posts, I have to concur with others who told you that you may have gotten a bad RNC. I was curious to see the innards of my RNC to see if I could discern anything about its design. It uses a THAT2181 trimmable VCA, that has a very similar design to the dbx VCAs. THAT Corp. says that the 2181 is a "successor" to the dbx VCAs, and has been designed for lower distortion, at high frequencies anyway: http://thatcorp.com/2181-series_Trim...er_IC_Voltage- Controlled_Amplifiers.html In order to reach minimum distortion, it needs a trimmer potentiometer to be properly adjusted. I have no idea if improper adjustment would result in distortion that would be audible, but maybe you got a unit that escaped the trimming procedure somehow. (?) That's about all I can think of that would explain it, aside from a bad 2181 chip. Of course, I still could be missing something ... maybe a lot. Oh, and there other possibilities that would explain our opposite impressions of the 1066 vs. RNC. I might have gotten a bad 1066, or maybe our ears just work differently! Jay Ts -- To contact me, use this web page: http://www.jayts.com/contact.php |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
Jay Ts writes:
Frank Stearns wrote: The RNC is an interesting box, and a good value for the money. The control section is exceptionally good. It's downfall for us, however -- and the reason that I sold ours after a few months -- is that the analog path isn't very transparent compared to other segments of our signal chain. (We do mostly location classical and acoustic music so transparency is generally preferred.) Even with NO gain reduction, simply having the RNC in the signal path noticeably "dulled and darkened" what I was hearing. Hi Frank. This hasn't matched my experience at all, so I looked up your posts here on the topic from a few years ago. You said that you gave up on the RNC because it was too dark (distorted) and used a dbx 1066 instead. Something along those lines, though we've not used the 1066 in that application for a quite a while now. I used to own a 1066, and I definitely found *that* to have a very noticeably darkish sound, that just happened to sound good with my guitar. When I got my RNC, the most obvious, and immediately noticeable difference to me was that it is so clear and clean by comparison! (In fact, I sometimes wish I had a button to press to get the low-fi 1066 sound, to use as an effect.) Interestingly, the non-GR "pass-through" on our 1066 was pretty good (better than the RNC), but it did *definitely* start getting crunchy during GR. You can finess around this somewhat by not getting overly aggressive with it. The RNC did not get crunchy during GR, but it did retain that "darkness" I've mentioned. BOTH problems (here at least, for our applications) were solved by using dynamics in the digital domain. We have very different applications - I don't record classical or acoustic - but after reading your posts, I have to concur with others who told you that you may have gotten a bad RNC. I was curious to see the innards of my RNC to see if I could discern anything about its design. It uses a THAT2181 trimmable VCA, that has a very similar design to the dbx VCAs. THAT Corp. says that the 2181 is a "successor" to the dbx VCAs, and has been designed for lower distortion, at high frequencies anyway: http://thatcorp.com/2181-series_Trim...er_IC_Voltage- Controlled_Amplifiers.html In order to reach minimum distortion, it needs a trimmer potentiometer to be properly adjusted. I have no idea if improper adjustment would result in distortion that would be audible, but maybe you got a unit that escaped the trimming procedure somehow. (?) That's about all I can think of that would explain it, aside from a bad 2181 chip. Of course, I still could be missing something ... maybe a lot. Oh, and there other possibilities that would explain our opposite impressions of the 1066 vs. RNC. I might have gotten a bad 1066, or maybe our ears just work differently! Always possible: one man's distortion is another man's premium effect! (and vice versa) g I never opened the box, but I'm guessing that other aspects of the RNC account for what I heard (assuming it was properly adjusted -- all bets are off if it had, as you note, missed the VCA adjustment). The thing was designed to a phenominal price point, and I don't expect it to match spendier offerings -- parts budget simply isn't there). As noted, I was happily surprised by the control section. In general, I've had reasonable successes taking good designs that have not been fully realized due to parts budget limitations, and making them "come alive" by doing pretty basic things (better ICs, caps, ground), things that while not terribly expensive would kill a budget of many mass products. Just moving from 10 cent i/o interface ICs to better sounding $2 ones is a deal breaker for most of the lower price-point products. (And you can go crazy and get $6+ parts if you want. Diminishing returns at that point, IME, and really out of sight for a mass builder.) I didn't get into modifying this unit; figured it was SMD and possibly somewhat fragile (from a rework point of view). About the same time, I'd gotten much better at setting digital comps to do what I wanted, so this became less of an issue. But perhaps you've cleared the issue: make sure the VCA is properly trimmed! Does RNC offer a test/adjustment procedure? Thanks, Frank Stearns Mobile Audio -- |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
Frank Stearns wrote:
As I said, this was noticed with NO gain reduction, unbalanced I/O at probably -2 on the signal peaks. The RNC also benefitted from BRAND NEW Nuetrik TRS connectors installed at the insert points in the console. Starting to sound more and more like psychological effects by now.... geoff |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
geoff wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote: As I said, this was noticed with NO gain reduction, unbalanced I/O at probably -2 on the signal peaks. The RNC also benefitted from BRAND NEW Nuetrik TRS connectors installed at the insert points in the console. Starting to sound more and more like psychological effects by now.... I wonder... One of the things I noticed after opening mine up is that the 1/4" jacks are not Neutrik. At first glance, they look just like them, but I had to look up close to see that they are look-alikes. According to my notes, they are made by Cliffuk, and I think they are the T3 model. And then it dawned on me that it might have explained why I was having trouble with one of them. The plug wouldn't go in without using a lot more force than with the others. Not quite up to Neutrik standards. Beyond that, I also wouldn't think the cheaper connectors would influence the audio quality. And I don't want to discuss this particular matter much more! ;-) ;-) Jay Ts -- To contact me, use this web page: http://www.jayts.com/contact.php |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
First I want to say that when I opened my RNC the first time,
I was thinking that maybe some folks here might like a photo of the innards along with some comments from me on the design. I don't know if I'll have time and/or interest to do all that, but I do plan to open it up again and take another look sometime to check a couple of things I missed the first time. It's easy to do, and I've already voided the warranty, I assume. So if anyone would find that interesting, drop me a note (use the link below my name) and say so. I'd just like to know if there is interest, and if so, how much. Frank Stearns wrote: I never opened the box, but I'm guessing that other aspects of the RNC account for what I heard (assuming it was properly adjusted -- all bets are off if it had, as you note, missed the VCA adjustment). I looked around some more at the THAT Inc. website, and read some of the data sheet and application notes for the VCA. There's some interesting information in there, and it looks like if the trim hadn't been set, the distortion could end up pretty high by audiophile standards. But, they say even if you don't trim at all, THD will still be less than 1%. That's in the region where trained ("golden") ears can hear it, and it might be why you ran into problems on classical and acoustic sources. There are other things that could cause high distortion, but those would not appear in a good design, and they seem to be falling over themselves helping the designers get good results. The thing was designed to a phenominal price point, and I don't expect it to match spendier offerings -- parts budget simply isn't there). As noted, I was happily surprised by the control section. Many RNC afficinados have pointed out that it's not a match for the really classy and expensive compressors. It's strength as a product is that it delivers so much for so little, and that the quality is more than sufficient to please many demanding users -- at least for tracking many kinds of sources. Upon studying the innards, I developed a respect for Mark McQuilken's design skills: - It's one thing to design something at a low quality point to sell at a low price point. - It's another thing to design at a top quality point regardless of cost, and pass the costs to the customer. But, IMO, Mark has done something much more challenging. He has designed for a high (but not top end) quality point, while keeping the price well within reason. It's not easy to get the balance of that just right! Keeping close watch over the costs while maintaining good quality is a very complex task. It requires thinking out every part, how much quality you can miss without it mattering significantly, in a design with interdependent parts and complex relationships among them. The main danger is unknowingly letting weak links creep in, so you have to understand everything fully. There are a few things about the RNC that I'd like done just a little better. Like Neutrik connectors, and I'd use something that I personally like more than TLC072's. But, Mark uses the OP275's that are recommended by THAT, on the outputs of the VCA, where it really matters, and the analog signal chain is otherwise simple. From what I've figured out so far, there's not much to go wrong. And I actually like TI's TLC op amps a lot, it's just that the 072 isn't my personal favorite. Here's a really good example of the design: the VCA comes in 3 grades: A, B, and C. the difference is mainly that A has the lowest distortion spec and highest price, while C is on the other end. Mark chose C and saved a few dollars. That might sound horrible to people here, but you have to consider the the distortion spec (typical): A is 0.0025% and C is .005%. Both are really low! And almost equally inaudible. Now for the prices: I just checked at Mouser.com, and the A-grade part is about $10, while the C-grade part is about $5 (in single quantity). There are two 2181s in the circuit. If you really think you need the A part, I suppose you can buy a couple and test your soldering skills. Not me!!! I wonder about using the A/D converters onboard the microcontroller to sample the signal for the control circuit, but IIRC, Mark said once (either in RAP or in an email to me) that because the control is all digital, that part of the signal chain either doesn't matter so much or can easily be worked around in software. I can't be critical of this, since I don't know enough about how the circuit works to say that doing that would be a limitation. I do not have a schematic. One thing I'm really unsure about is the capacitors. I didn't see any Vishay/Sprague or Panasonic polypropylene caps. Mark might have used a DC-coupled signal chain (not easy). And I hope he didn't use SMD caps in the signal chain. I wasn't thinking of this when I had the case open, and that's one of the things I want to look at more closely. (With no schematic and a multi-layer PCB, I might not get far.) I was really interested in other things, like what microcontroller he chose, and also which VCA. And how he spec'd the inputs and outputs at ~22.5 dBu when the power supply is a 9VAC wallwart. (There are +/- 15 VDC regulated supplies for analog, and a +5 VDC regulated supply for the digital section.) The whole thing uses far too few parts to look like it works, and IMO is a very clever design. While studying it, I kept mentally adding up parts costs and realizing how he was able to keep the final price under $200 while still using components of good quality. All that, and the guy does microcontroller programming too. Is that real? Must have had help. In general, I've had reasonable successes taking good designs that have not been fully realized due to parts budget limitations, and making them "come alive" by doing pretty basic things (better ICs, caps, ground), things that while not terribly expensive would kill a budget of many mass products. Same here. I like unsoldering op-amps and inserting sockets and better op amps. Honestly, I've never noticed much difference. I probably should go for the coupling caps first! I didn't get into modifying this unit; figured it was SMD and possibly somewhat fragile (from a rework point of view). Correct regarding SMD. As I indicated above, I wouldn't touch it. But perhaps you've cleared the issue: make sure the VCA is properly trimmed! Does RNC offer a test/adjustment procedure? You'd have to ask. I assume they offer repairs. Mark McQ seems very fair, and if it's obvious it's his/their fault, maybe he would extend the warranty. Can't speak for him, though. If you want, you can look over the design info at the That, Inc. website (I already provided the URL), and do it yourself. I haven't read that yet, so I don't know what equipment is involved, or the difficulty. Seems like it can't be too complicated, because the idea is that every one gets trimmed on the assembly line. If you have a signal generator and THD analyzer, hey, just run a signal through it and turn the screws until the THD is minimized. Simple, right? :-) Feel lucky? I was **lightly** considering that as a way to intentionally get some dbx-style "color" into the sound. (But I'm scared to; I might not be able to get the original back, which would really suck.) If I were the manufacturer, I'd really want that "dark sound" unit back to give it a full checkout, because it might be a manufacturing defect, that could also be symptomatic of a production problem that needs attention. Jay Ts -- To contact me, use this web page: http://www.jayts.com/contact.php |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
FMR RNC for acousitc instruments?
Jay Ts wrote:
Beyond that, I also wouldn't think the cheaper connectors would influence the audio quality. And I don't want to discuss this particular matter much more! ;-) ;-) They could, if they have a layer of corrosion on them and aren't making good solid contact. There's a BSTJ journal from the thirties about parasitic copper-oxide rectifiers being generated by corroded 1/4" phone plugs, even. Modern plating makes this less of an issue, but contact plating can wear down and expose the phosphor-bronze underneath. It's interesting... you can get a couple percent harmonic distortion added because of the nonlinearity of the junction. Wiggle the connector and it goes away.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Strange Musical Instruments | Audio Opinions | |||
Instruments wot should be banned... | Pro Audio | |||
Musical Instruments | Vacuum Tubes | |||
VST instruments -- run through a good Mic Pre? | Pro Audio | |||
Ears vs. Instruments | High End Audio |