[John Albert]

hank wrote:
Why would you seek to spend twice the cost of an RNP on a vocal mic that'll
you'll plug into a lousy preamp? I'm not trying to be an asshole (I am, in
fact, an asshole - I don't even need to try), but I am trying to get you to
realize that whatever mic you get is going to be compromised by the preamp of
your choice. Have you heard an SM57 through an RNP? If not, looking to spend
nearly a grand on a mic you expect is going to make a big difference is not
sensible given the rest of your chain, in my own arrogant opinion. An RNP
_will_ make a big difference to all the mics you already have, and you'd still
have half your budget for another mic.

Hank, I assume you've used an RNP with various mics (my assumption might very
well be wrong).

If that's the case, have you discovered any mics that seem to work particulary
well with the RNP for "acoustic music" situations?

It's possible that the RNP is transparent enough so that my question has no relevance.

I have an RNP (bought after hearing good things about it in this group)... and
although I have a couple of mics that work OK with it, I might like one or
two more (I don't have the ability to do a lot of auditioning before I buy).

Thanks,
- John

[anahata]

John Albert wrote:
hank wrote:
[snip]
... Have you heard an SM57 through an RNP?
[snip]

Hank, I assume you've used an RNP with various mics (my assumption might very
well be wrong).

If that's the case, have you discovered any mics that seem to work particulary
well with the RNP for "acoustic music" situations?

Several people have discovered the RNP works exceptionally well on a
SM57, (e.g. see Harvey Gerst on http://www.mojopie.com/rnp.html). Hank's
suggestion quoted above was far from random.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[hank alrich]

anahata wrote:

John Albert wrote:
hank wrote:
[snip]
... Have you heard an SM57 through an RNP?
[snip]

Hank, I assume you've used an RNP with various mics (my assumption might
very well be wrong).

If that's the case, have you discovered any mics that seem to work
particulary well with the RNP for "acoustic music" situations?

Several people have discovered the RNP works exceptionally well on a
SM57, (e.g. see Harvey Gerst on http://www.mojopie.com/rnp.html). Hank's
suggestion quoted above was far from random.

McQ went after that and nailed it. Facing reality, people paying
attention and who have hooked SM57's to good pres with transformer front
ends realize that the SM57 can deliver nicely in some contexts. Mark's
challenge was getting that without input iron, which would have driven
the cost above his target.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[Roger Norman]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

McQ went after that and nailed it. Facing reality, people paying
attention and who have hooked SM57's to good pres with transformer front
ends realize that the SM57 can deliver nicely in some contexts. Mark's
challenge was getting that without input iron, which would have driven
the cost above his target.


Yep. One only has to hook up a 57 with a Hardy M1 with Jensen 990s to find
an amazing microphone hidden deep in the 57. I don't know, but I believe
Mark may have decided to go after a superb 57 sound due to the fact that
most Mackie products don't do the mic justice. For a small fee, McQ makes
the 57 viable in a lot of studio and live situations. I don't know how
Shure did it what with most early 57s being pumped into Shure Vocalmasters
and little Bogens, but the mic certainly has more soul than most people will
know with the average mic pre these days.

And just to plug a little mixer, my Crest XR20 shows off a 57 very well. In
fact, most of my dynamics have taken a turn for the better since I bought
that beast 6+ years ago. JohnnyV and I have done all SM57 shows (by request
for vocals) and they can sound surprisingly full and natural. Far better
than a $99 price tag would suggest. So there are two mic pres I know of and
have used that show the true colors of inexpensive mics, so if the RNP fits
McQ's reputation for inexpensive quality products, I'd have to side with
Hank.

But, there's no guarantee that using one mic pre over another will do
anything good for you if attention isn't paid to other details like
placement.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

[Scott Dorsey]

Roger Norman wrote:
Yep. One only has to hook up a 57 with a Hardy M1 with Jensen 990s to find
an amazing microphone hidden deep in the 57. I don't know, but I believe
Mark may have decided to go after a superb 57 sound due to the fact that
most Mackie products don't do the mic justice. For a small fee, McQ makes
the 57 viable in a lot of studio and live situations. I don't know how
Shure did it what with most early 57s being pumped into Shure Vocalmasters
and little Bogens, but the mic certainly has more soul than most people will
know with the average mic pre these days.

Those Vocalmasters were pretty crappy, but they presented the SM-57 with
about the right load that they expect.... something around 600 ohms and
slightly inductive. Folks forget that everything, even the crappiest
equipment from that era, all used input transformers. That makes a big
difference with the SM-57.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Roger Norman" wrote ...
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
William J. Clinton