I've searched RAP on Google to see if I could find any direct comments
about how the FMR Audio RNP compares with the preamps in Mackie and
Behringer mixers. While I found some posts the threads seem to wander
off in different directions. I have a very basic system for recording
acoustic guitar and vocal and I'd like to upgrade a bit within a $500
budget. Currently I have:

Behringer 802
MXL 603
MXL 2001
AT 831B (2)
Shure SM57
M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card

I've been told a good preamp will improve things. I came across some
good comments about the M-Audio DMP-3 (more within my budget) but one
review said it wouldn't be an improvement over Mackie preamps. I have
no idea how it would compare to Behringer mixer preamps. That leaves
the RNP. I'd appreciate any comments on whether this would be much
improvement over what I'm using now? Any links would be helpful too.

Thanks.

G.

An RNP will kick the **** out of Behringer or Mackie pre's.

In article , George W.
writes:

I've searched RAP on Google to see if I could find any direct comments
about how the FMR Audio RNP compares with the preamps in Mackie and
Behringer mixers.

Completely different league. The RNP is a professional peice.
Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

In article writes:

I've searched RAP on Google to see if I could find any direct comments
about how the FMR Audio RNP compares with the preamps in Mackie and
Behringer mixers.

I came across some
good comments about the M-Audio DMP-3 (more within my budget) but one
review said it wouldn't be an improvement over Mackie preamps.

Was that a review, or was that someone's opinion, perhaps bolstered by
someone else? These things are so subjective, and it's easy to jump on
a bandwagon, particularly if one doesn't have to spend any money to
agree with another "review."

I wouldn't recommend that anyone buy a low priced Behringer product as
an upgrade because I think that there's a pool of low priced gear that
all sounds a little different, but nothing is clearly "best" for
everything. It's not surprising that when someone finds an application
that sounds better than with another setup, it gets reported.

I also believe that when you take a jump in price, that there will be
enough things better all across the board that if it doesn't
immediately appear better to you, it eventually will. You really do
get what you pay for in this business, but it isn't always immediately
obvious. (and sometimes it is)

I'd suggest that you give it a try. There are dealers who will allow
you to return it if you're not impressed. The only risk is that even
if you like it, you'll worry that somethine else in your price range
might be even better. That's the chance you'll have to take unless
you're willing and able to do your own personal shootout. This isn't
as easy as it sounds, even if you have the equipment available.

Try it. If you don't like it, send it back and get something else. And
if you like it, keep it, use it, and then start looking for something
different, which at times may be better. You might even find some
times when your present gear sounds better. Engineering is about
making choices, and if you don't have anything to choose between, you
can't do that.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

George W. wrote:

I've searched RAP on Google to see if I could find any direct comments
about how the FMR Audio RNP compares with the preamps in Mackie and
Behringer mixers. While I found some posts the threads seem to wander
off in different directions. I have a very basic system for recording
acoustic guitar and vocal and I'd like to upgrade a bit within a $500
budget. Currently I have:

Behringer 802
MXL 603
MXL 2001
AT 831B (2)
Shure SM57
M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card


Get an RNP with the right to return or as an eval. Plug your SM-57 into
it. Hear things you never heard from the mic before (really.)

I have a small Behringer mixer, and an FMR RNP, and I wouldn't **** on
the behringer pre if it was on fire. I read extensively before buying
it, and other cheap pres that seemed to be well thought of we
Sytek..uh, something. Symetrix 202. The peavey VMP-2. The clean side
of the Studio projects pre. The Audio buddy. after weeks of reading it
became apparent that the bang for bucks choice was the RNP. I like my
RNC as well.

d

George W. wrote in message . ..
I've searched RAP on Google to see if I could find any direct comments
about how the FMR Audio RNP compares with the preamps in Mackie and
Behringer mixers. While I found some posts the threads seem to wander
off in different directions. I have a very basic system for recording
acoustic guitar and vocal and I'd like to upgrade a bit within a $500
budget. Currently I have:

Behringer 802
MXL 603
MXL 2001
AT 831B (2)
Shure SM57
M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card

I've been told a good preamp will improve things. I came across some
good comments about the M-Audio DMP-3 (more within my budget) but one
review said it wouldn't be an improvement over Mackie preamps. I have
no idea how it would compare to Behringer mixer preamps. That leaves
the RNP. I'd appreciate any comments on whether this would be much
improvement over what I'm using now? Any links would be helpful too.

Thanks.

G.

George W. wrote:

.. how the FMR Audio RNP compares with the preamps in Mackie and
Behringer mixers....
Behringer 802
MXL 603
MXL 2001
AT 831B (2)
Shure SM57


I'll bet that the RNP makes the SM57 sound like a whole
new mic since the the RNP is the 1st gain stage that the
coil sees. But I'll bet the improvement isn't as dramatic
for the 603 and 2001, since their 1st gain stage is builtin.
And I bet they are your current favorite for guitar & voice.
Or do you prefer the omni on guitar and track vocals separatly?

... M-Audio DMP-3 ...

I've got an M-Audio Duo, with (nee) Burr-Brown INA163s as
the 1st gain stage ... pretty good sounding IC opamps. Does
anyone know if the DMP-3 uses them as well or is it discrete?

"George W." wrote in message
...
I've searched RAP on Google to see if I could find any direct comments
about how the FMR Audio RNP compares with the preamps in Mackie and
Behringer mixers. While I found some posts the threads seem to wander
off in different directions. I have a very basic system for recording
acoustic guitar and vocal and I'd like to upgrade a bit within a $500
budget. Currently I have:

Behringer 802
MXL 603
MXL 2001
AT 831B (2)
Shure SM57
M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card

I have a Mackie 1202, I've done a fair bit of recording through a Behringer,
and I just picked up an RNP. Doing some A/B listening tests the Behringer
stuck out like a turd in the living room - you didn't have to see it to know
it was there. On condenser mics the Mackie fared a lot better - but the
noise levels built up quickly as you increased the gain.

I haven't had a chance to really wring out the RNP yet, but so far it's
clear as a bell, and only picks up some noticeable noise at the very highest
gain setting. Plus it makes my old AT dynamic mics sound -good- for a
change, better than I've ever heard from them. I have very little experience
with outboard preamps, but I find it hard to imagine anything sounding
better under $500.

Sean

Gidney and Cloyd wrote:

I've got an M-Audio Duo, with (nee) Burr-Brown INA163s as
the 1st gain stage ... pretty good sounding IC opamps.

Is the INA-163 really the first gain stage, or is there a matched pair
out front handling most of the voltage gain?

In article ,
(Dan) writes:

I have a small Behringer mixer, and an FMR RNP, and I wouldn't **** on
the behringer pre if it was on fire.

Personally I wouldnt **** on anything plugged into the wall A/C socket
especially if its on fire!

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

"Garthrr" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Dan) writes:

I have a small Behringer mixer, and an FMR RNP, and I wouldn't **** on
the behringer pre if it was on fire.

Personally I wouldnt **** on anything plugged into the wall A/C socket
especially if its on fire!


Do you mean "if the thing itself is on fire" , or " if the wall socket is on
fire" ?

Just needed to clarify ....


geoff

now thats funny. i agree with the people. i love my rnp, it blows
away everything else i have (which isn't much...an old art tubepac,
old yamaha 1202, old altec). if you can afford it, check out an rnc
at the same time.

tony

Doing some A/B listening tests the Behringer
stuck out like a turd in the living room - you didn't have to see it to know
it was there.

In article ,
Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Gidney and Cloyd wrote:

I've got an M-Audio Duo, with (nee) Burr-Brown INA163s as
the 1st gain stage ... pretty good sounding IC opamps.

Is the INA-163 really the first gain stage, or is there a matched pair
out front handling most of the voltage gain?

It is... but it's not an op-amp, it's an instrumentation amplifier that
is designed for that sort of thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 30 Oct 2003 20:39:26 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:


In article writes:

I've searched RAP on Google to see if I could find any direct comments
about how the FMR Audio RNP compares with the preamps in Mackie and
Behringer mixers.

I came across some
good comments about the M-Audio DMP-3 (more within my budget) but one
review said it wouldn't be an improvement over Mackie preamps.

Was that a review, or was that someone's opinion, perhaps bolstered by
someone else? These things are so subjective, and it's easy to jump on
a bandwagon, particularly if one doesn't have to spend any money to
agree with another "review."

I wouldn't recommend that anyone buy a low priced Behringer product as
an upgrade because I think that there's a pool of low priced gear that
all sounds a little different, but nothing is clearly "best" for
everything. It's not surprising that when someone finds an application
that sounds better than with another setup, it gets reported.

I also believe that when you take a jump in price, that there will be
enough things better all across the board that if it doesn't
immediately appear better to you, it eventually will. You really do
get what you pay for in this business, but it isn't always immediately
obvious. (and sometimes it is)

I'd suggest that you give it a try. There are dealers who will allow
you to return it if you're not impressed. The only risk is that even
if you like it, you'll worry that somethine else in your price range
might be even better. That's the chance you'll have to take unless
you're willing and able to do your own personal shootout. This isn't
as easy as it sounds, even if you have the equipment available.

Try it. If you don't like it, send it back and get something else. And
if you like it, keep it, use it, and then start looking for something
different, which at times may be better. You might even find some
times when your present gear sounds better. Engineering is about
making choices, and if you don't have anything to choose between, you
can't do that.

Mike,

Thanks to you and all for the replies and advice. Sounds like the RNP
would definitely be a good step up for someone with a modest setup
like me. I see that buying it direct includes a 30 day evaluation
period so maybe that's the best way to go.

As for the DMP-3 review concluding that it might not be a step up from
a Mackie I found it he http://www.mojopie.com/dmp3.html

G.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 03:58:46 GMT, Gidney and Cloyd wrote:

George W. wrote:

.. how the FMR Audio RNP compares with the preamps in Mackie and
Behringer mixers....
Behringer 802
MXL 603
MXL 2001
AT 831B (2)
Shure SM57


I'll bet that the RNP makes the SM57 sound like a whole
new mic since the the RNP is the 1st gain stage that the
coil sees. But I'll bet the improvement isn't as dramatic
for the 603 and 2001, since their 1st gain stage is builtin.
And I bet they are your current favorite for guitar & voice.
Or do you prefer the omni on guitar and track vocals separatly?

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I do use the 603 and 2001. I'm not sure by
what you mean by an omni mic though. The AT831's are mini cardioids.
Which leads to what's probably a dumb question: These have 1/4"
connectors and are powered by battery. Will I need XLR adapters for
these and the RNP?

G.

I would of course unplug it before not ****ing on it!

d


"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...
"Garthrr" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Dan) writes:

I have a small Behringer mixer, and an FMR RNP, and I wouldn't **** on
the behringer pre if it was on fire.

Personally I wouldnt **** on anything plugged into the wall A/C socket
especially if its on fire!


Do you mean "if the thing itself is on fire" , or " if the wall socket is on
fire" ?

Just needed to clarify ....


geoff

What will be funny is that in ten years everyone is looking for the classic XDR
pres... this whole thing is so subjective. I say try something , you like it,
use it, and don't pay attention to every ones opinions. Make up your own
mind.Whatever works for you.

What will be funny is that in ten years everyone is looking for the classic
XDR
pres... this whole thing is so subjective. I say try something , you like it,
use it, and don't pay attention to every ones opinions. Make up your own
mind.Whatever works for you.

There's something to that, of course; this stuff is subjective in the end. The
problems comes when relatively new people in this game try it with no frame of
reference, because they've never heard really professional equipment, so they
have little or no idea what professional equipment sounds like. The difference
is non-trivial.

Peace,
Paul

With at that setup and that type of music, you should probably have a compressor
in mind for your next GAS attack. The RNC perhaps.
--
Phil Wilson

"George W." wrote in message
...
I've searched RAP on Google to see if I could find any direct comments
about how the FMR Audio RNP compares with the preamps in Mackie and
Behringer mixers. While I found some posts the threads seem to wander
off in different directions. I have a very basic system for recording
acoustic guitar and vocal and I'd like to upgrade a bit within a $500
budget. Currently I have:

Behringer 802
MXL 603
MXL 2001
AT 831B (2)
Shure SM57
M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card

I've been told a good preamp will improve things. I came across some
good comments about the M-Audio DMP-3 (more within my budget) but one
review said it wouldn't be an improvement over Mackie preamps. I have
no idea how it would compare to Behringer mixer preamps. That leaves
the RNP. I'd appreciate any comments on whether this would be much
improvement over what I'm using now? Any links would be helpful too.

Thanks.

G.

George W. wrote:

... I'm not sure by what you mean by an omni mic though.

I hallucinated an ECM8000 on your list.

The AT831's are mini cardioids.
Which leads to what's probably a dumb question: These have 1/4"
connectors and are powered by battery. Will I need XLR adapters for
these and the RNP?

RNP has 1/4" guzintas on the front.

Gidney and Cloyd ) wrote:
George W. wrote:

The AT831's are mini cardioids.
Which leads to what's probably a dumb question: These have 1/4"
connectors and are powered by battery. Will I need XLR adapters for
these and the RNP?

RNP has 1/4" guzintas on the front.

but be aware that they are unbalanced, high impedance inputs (1 M ohm)


- Brian

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:22:15 GMT, Brian Takei wrote:

Gidney and Cloyd ) wrote:
George W. wrote:

The AT831's are mini cardioids.
Which leads to what's probably a dumb question: These have 1/4"
connectors and are powered by battery. Will I need XLR adapters for
these and the RNP?

RNP has 1/4" guzintas on the front.

but be aware that they are unbalanced, high impedance inputs (1 M ohm)

Ok, thanks. Uhhh....so....will they work safely with these mics?

(I meant it when I said it was probably a dumb question.)

G.

In article writes:

As for the DMP-3 review concluding that it might not be a step up from
a Mackie I found it he http://www.mojopie.com/dmp3.html

In the context of that review, I concur. It's in the same general
ballpark as a Mackie preamp - a way to save some money if you need to
get a mic level signal up to line level and don't need the features of
a mixer. On the other hand, I'd encourage all but the biggest diehards
to spring for the extra bucks for a Mackie mixer over a small preamp
like the M-Audio DMP-2. While the sound quality is about the same
either way, there are bound to be some reasons why it would be handy
to have a mixer around, and there it is.

Now I would NOT encourage someone to buy a "half-Mackie-price" mixer
instead of a DMP-3 for the same price. Because I don't think the mic
preamp would be as good as the DMP-3. But I'm sure there are those who
have "tested and compared" and will disagree. While I see no need to
be extravagant about the front end of my recording chain, I see no
reason to save $150 even though it may be half the price. There's a
point below which you just can't get the same performance for half the
cost. The closer you get to the bottom of the heap, the greater your
chance of getting something that will become useless faster.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

On 31 Oct 2003 15:53:26 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:


In article writes:

As for the DMP-3 review concluding that it might not be a step up from
a Mackie I found it he http://www.mojopie.com/dmp3.html

In the context of that review, I concur. It's in the same general
ballpark as a Mackie preamp - a way to save some money if you need to
get a mic level signal up to line level and don't need the features of
a mixer. On the other hand, I'd encourage all but the biggest diehards
to spring for the extra bucks for a Mackie mixer over a small preamp
like the M-Audio DMP-2. While the sound quality is about the same
either way, there are bound to be some reasons why it would be handy
to have a mixer around, and there it is.

Now I would NOT encourage someone to buy a "half-Mackie-price" mixer
instead of a DMP-3 for the same price. Because I don't think the mic
preamp would be as good as the DMP-3. But I'm sure there are those who
have "tested and compared" and will disagree. While I see no need to
be extravagant about the front end of my recording chain, I see no
reason to save $150 even though it may be half the price. There's a
point below which you just can't get the same performance for half the
cost. The closer you get to the bottom of the heap, the greater your
chance of getting something that will become useless faster.

Thanks again, Mike. Yeah, I'm experiencing the bottom of the heap now
I guess. Now here's another question: Are there any standalone digital
multitracks that come with....wait for it....decent mic preamps?

G.

In article writes:

What will be funny is that in ten years everyone is looking for the classic XDR
pres...

I doubt it. Mackie consoles aren't modular, so it's difficult to rack
mount the preamps - difficult enough (read: costs almost as much as
the whole darn mixer) that Mackie didn't even do it.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article , "Geoff Wood"
-nospam writes:

Do you mean "if the thing itself is on fire" , or " if the wall socket is on
fire" ?

Just needed to clarify ....

If there's a fire of any sort in the vicinity, I wait to pee. g
Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

In article writes:

Now here's another question: Are there any standalone digital
multitracks that come with....wait for it....decent mic preamps?

Sure, they all have decent mic preamps. However the bar has been
raised, and it's not longer politically correct to use just plain ol'
"decent" preamps, you have to use very good preamps, because everyone
knows this is the only the third place in the chain to screw up your
sound (the other two being the source and them mic).

I take you you mean one of those all-in-one recorder/mixers. I think
that the last recorder that had a good mic preamp was the Ampex 350,
and that isn't a hard disk recorder.

Manufacturers don't intentionally make bad equipment, so anything that
you find on a box will work. If you want something better, you can
always add it later. I haven't heard anything great about Roland, I
haven't heard anything bad about Akai. I guess anything else is about
the same.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1067624757k@trad...
Now I would NOT encourage someone to buy a "half-Mackie-price" mixer
instead of a DMP-3 for the same price. Because I don't think the mic
preamp would be as good as the DMP-3. But I'm sure there are those who
have "tested and compared" and will disagree. While I see no need to
be extravagant about the front end of my recording chain, I see no
reason to save $150 even though it may be half the price. There's a
point below which you just can't get the same performance for half the
cost. The closer you get to the bottom of the heap, the greater your
chance of getting something that will become useless faster.

Well, I was really curious what a $100 mixer would sound like and picked up
a Yamaha SG 10/2 - about the same features as a Mackie 1202. The mic preamps
sound clear enough for someone on a budget, but the gain levels are badly
screwed up. The inputs, both line and mic, have no headroom and overload
horribly when the trim is raised to even moderate levels. To compensate you
have to turn the channel and master pots to at least 75% to drive the
outputs, with predictable results. It barely had enough oomph to drive my
powered Events, even though they're set wide open.

I figured it would end up in the TV area for playing DVDs, but it's too
screwed up to even fill that role. Best use so far is as a paper-weight.

Sean

"George W." wrote:

On 31 Oct 2003 15:53:26 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:


In article writes:

As for the DMP-3 review concluding that it might not be a step up from
a Mackie I found it he http://www.mojopie.com/dmp3.html

In the context of that review, I concur. It's in the same general
ballpark as a Mackie preamp - a way to save some money if you need to
get a mic level signal up to line level and don't need the features of
a mixer. On the other hand, I'd encourage all but the biggest diehards
to spring for the extra bucks for a Mackie mixer over a small preamp
like the M-Audio DMP-2. While the sound quality is about the same
either way, there are bound to be some reasons why it would be handy
to have a mixer around, and there it is.

Now I would NOT encourage someone to buy a "half-Mackie-price" mixer
instead of a DMP-3 for the same price. Because I don't think the mic
preamp would be as good as the DMP-3. But I'm sure there are those who
have "tested and compared" and will disagree. While I see no need to
be extravagant about the front end of my recording chain, I see no
reason to save $150 even though it may be half the price. There's a
point below which you just can't get the same performance for half the
cost. The closer you get to the bottom of the heap, the greater your
chance of getting something that will become useless faster.

Thanks again, Mike. Yeah, I'm experiencing the bottom of the heap now
I guess. Now here's another question: Are there any standalone digital
multitracks that come with....wait for it....decent mic preamps?

G.

Yeah. They all have perfectly functional mic preamps, about like
the XLRs on cassette portastudios - in other words, nothing that
would preclude making a good recording. But! nothing
heroic, either.

--
Les Cargill

In article writes:

Well, I was really curious what a $100 mixer would sound like and picked up
a Yamaha SG 10/2 - about the same features as a Mackie 1202. The mic preamps
sound clear enough for someone on a budget

And just how "clear" is that? You see, this is the problem - some
people are willing to tolerate less than ideal performance because
they know they can't afford what they dream about. Others can afford
better, they do, and they criticize anything that's below their
standard.

but the gain levels are badly
screwed up. The inputs, both line and mic, have no headroom and overload
horribly when the trim is raised to even moderate levels.

Headroom isn't your problem here, it's either the output level of the
mixer or the input gain of the next stage in your system. Does the
mixer have meters? What are they telling you? If you have the channel
fader and main level output set near their design center position and
you get distortion when you turn the trim up to the point where the
meters read 0 VU, then the mixer has a problem. But if you turn the
trims up to the point where the mic preamp distorts and the mixer is
just amplifying that distorted sound, then you're using it
incorrectly.

If the mixer has a nominal output level of -10 dBV and you're trying
to drive an A/D converter all the way to maximum record level that
requires +24 dBu for full scale, of course it isn't going to work out.
But that's not the mixer's problem, it's yours.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article znr1067689050k@trad, says...

In article writes:

Well, I was really curious what a $100 mixer would sound like and picked up
a Yamaha SG 10/2 - about the same features as a Mackie 1202. The mic preamps
sound clear enough for someone on a budget

This is the MG 10/2 ?

Headroom isn't your problem here, it's either the output level of the
mixer or the input gain of the next stage in your system. Does the

http://www.yamaha.co.jp/product/proa...sh/products/mi
xer/a_mixer/mg_series/specification/inout.htm

On one line.


--
/ Peter Kaersaa

Once again, thanks for all the help and explanations.

One last (I hope) question: The M-Audio Audiophile 2496 soundcard I
use has two volume levels of the output signal: +2 dBV (Consumer) and
-4 dBV (-10 dBV). The level of the INPUTsignal, however, is +2 dBV and
can't be changed. I'd like to be able to go directly from the FMR
Audio RNP to the RCA inputs on the soundcard, with nothing in between.
Is this in any way a problem or is there a better way to connect? I'll
never be recording more than two mics at once so I'm hoping I don't
have to go back into the Behringer mixer first.

Thanks again to all.

G.

George W. wrote:

The M-Audio Audiophile 2496 soundcard I
use has two volume levels of the output signal: +2 dBV (Consumer) and
-4 dBV (-10 dBV). The level of the INPUTsignal, however, is +2 dBV and
can't be changed. I'd like to be able to go directly from the FMR
Audio RNP to the RCA inputs on the soundcard, with nothing in between.
Is this in any way a problem or is there a better way to connect?

Not a problem--just use the metering in your software or from the card
applet and you'll be fine.

You might consider using the ¼" insert outs on the RNP since they are
(a) unbalanced, (b) lower in level, and (c) pulled out one opamp ahead
of the balanced XLRs.

On 9 Nov 2003 16:58:01 -0800, Dan wrote

snip

Hope all that helps. I am no expert, and if I have steered you wrong
no doubt someone will be quick to correct me.

Dan,

Your explanations made things a lot clearer to me, particularly about
not thinking of the card inputs as left and right but rather input one
and input two. I was really having a problem with this. I think the
fact that the record options in the CEP Multichannel Mode are
described as stereo, left channel and right channel added to my
confusion.

Right now the card outputs go to the receiver since it makes it easy
to play back audio files from the PC, but I'd probably be better off
monitoring through the mixer when recording. When tracking a single
output from the mixer to the card and monitoring with headphones the
sound is only on one side, though the resulting recording is centered
mono on playback. Switching the receiver to mono fixes this. There's
probably a way to send a signal to the mixer and receiver by using the
mixers Control Output to the receiver but I'll have to experiment with
it.

Thanks for the help.

G.

On 10 Nov 2003 22:06:57 -0800, Dan wrote:

Dan,

Your explanations made things a lot clearer to me,

Very glad to help.

particularly about
not thinking of the card inputs as left and right but rather input one
and input two. I was really having a problem with this. I think the
fact that the record options in the CEP Multichannel Mode are
described as stereo, left channel and right channel added to my
confusion.

I thought so. My Echo Mia shows up in that dialog box as "Mia 1-2
Analog in" so it helped me to see that the card doesn't care what I do
with it's inputs - 1, 2, or both - whereas CEP prefers to offer these
inputs to me as Left, Right or Stereo.

This may help more -just because a signal is mono doesn't mean it
can't come out two speakers. Or ten. If the same thing is coming out
of each speaker, it's mono, even if it has the illusion of appearing
in the middle of the "stereo" field. If you pan it, it's stereo, but
only while you are listening to it on those two speakers. The
"stereo-ness" of it has not been made a part of the recorded signal
until you bounce it down to two tracks, or, in our case, a single
stereo track (which is just two tracks bundled together for ease of
use by CEP).



I'd probably be better off
monitoring through the mixer when recording. When tracking a single
output from the mixer to the card and monitoring with headphones the
sound is only on one side, though the resulting recording is centered
mono on playback.

Man, I went through this whole same process, it drove me nuts.

There's
probably a way to send a signal to the mixer and receiver by using the
mixers Control Output to the receiver but I'll have to experiment with
it.

OK, fair warning, I did this for a while, and it worked, sorta, but it
came with other problems (for starters you will have to constantly
fiddle with those two push buttons above the headphone volume knob to
go from recording to monitoring). Eventually - after much
experimentation and R.A.P. searching, I came up with what I think is
about the best way to use this combo (CEP/MX802a/2 channel audio
card), and it is the set up I posted to you in another thread. If you
do not have 1/4" inputs on your receiver you will need to head to
radio shack for some adapters, but here, again for your reading
pleasure, is the setup I use ---

Summary: I bring the signal from the RNP into
the mixer, use an aux send out to the card, and bring it back into the
mixer for monitoring -

Like so: Mic RNP XLR input 1 RNP 1/4" Guzouta 1 Line In
Channel 1 on the mixer (that's the 1/4" input below the xlr input),
white level knob up to unity (0), with channel 1 Aux pre knob cranked
to the right. The Aux Send 1 1/4" output (in that cluster of jacks on
the upper right part of the mixer) sends a cable to input 1 of the
Echo Mia Audio Card in my PC. Out of audiocard's outputs 1 and 2,
two cables back into the mixer for monitoring, to the Line 7/8 1/4"
inputs (just left of the headphone jack), with channel 7/8 white level
knob turned up to unity (0). The mixer's main outs (NOT control room
outs) go to the power amp and monitors.

And thats it.

Now everything is "right", in that I can use the mixer's headphone
knob for headphone level (NOTE: I leave the 2TK to Mix button
depressed all the time, and the 2TK to CTRL Room un-depressed all the
time - no fiddling back and forth.) and I can use the Main Mix knob to
control the main mix volume. When I record, I have only two steps -
mute the monitor's power amp, press the phantom power button on the
RNP, wait a second for it to power up the mic. Put on the
headphones and start tracking. I check the level first in Cool Edit,
of
course, and tweak the gain on the RNP as needed. If I want to listen
back throught the headphones, I hit play in CEP and it's there. When I
want to listen
back through the monitors, I take off the phones, turn off the phantom
power on the RNP (this disables the condenser mic so it won't feedback
through the monitors - if i am using a dynamic mic I kill the level on
channel 1 - unmute the monitor power amp, and listen. I don't use the
mixer for
mixing, I use the software for that, but the mixer now gives me a
permanently set up input/output/ease of monitoring deal.

Good luck! Oh, and yer gonna love that RNP.

Thanks Dan. I kept your initial post describing your setup but
appreciate you running through it again. Turning off the phantom power
to mute the mic is a good idea. The connections to the mixer sound
good too. By running the RNP to channel #1 on the mixer are you
running the signal to the mixers preamp or is that bypassed by using
the send out directly to the card? Do you think you're compromising
the RNP by running through the mixer? I haven't experimented with it
but how do you control the input level with the send? Instead of using
the send would it make sense to run the RNP outs to the mixers line
level inputs instead? I guess the answers depend on what works best
for each person. Right now I'm going out of the RNP directly to the
card. Card output goes to Tape In on the mixer, Tape Out goes to my
amp (receiver).

G.

Turning off the phantom power
to mute the mic is a good idea.

not if it makes a thump when powering up or down. Not good for
monitors or ears if you have phones on.

The connections to the mixer sound
good too. By running the RNP to channel #1 on the mixer are you
running the signal to the mixers preamp or is that bypassed by using
the send out directly to the card? Do you think you're compromising
the RNP by running through the mixer?\

Any extra circuitry in the signal path is going to effect what the
sound card is delivered. Going through another preamp stage is not
what I would recommend. The only reason to go into your mixer with
just one mic to one track would be if you needed to use the eq or do
some serious gain riding to the incoming signal. Even then I'd think
twice unless the mixer let you get in after the mic pre and gave you a
way of bypassing the summing network on the way out.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

David Nobel wrote:
Kurt Albershardt wrote in message ...


You probably want to use the ¼" insert outs rather than the XLRs for
this task.

My RNP has XLRs in but balanced 1/4" (TRS), not XLRs, out, in
addition to the 1/4" TRS inserts. Have they changed the design on
yours?

No, just a little brain fog. The balanced outs are indeed ¼" TRS
balanced jacks.



Also, assuming in the first case that he doesn't need to run another
feed simultaneously to the mixer, I don't quite understand why you are
recommending he use the RNP's Guzoutas Inserts, rather than the
Guzoutas Out, to feed the Audiophile. Through the Outs, the RNP
features both balanced and unbalanced operation through automatic
adjustment to the source signal, as well as to the destination
equipment through the differential and balanced output driver, without
changing the cabling.

Either one will work if he doesn't need both, of course. The reasons I
suggested using the insert sends is that they are lower in level than
the balanced outs and they bypass one stage of electronics. I haven't
done any critical listening to see what (if any) differences in sound
the two outputs have, but my general inclination is to remove
unnecessary things from the signal chain when practical.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:01:25 -0800, Rick Ruskin wrote:


Turning off the phantom power
to mute the mic is a good idea.

not if it makes a thump when powering up or down. Not good for
monitors or ears if you have phones on.

The connections to the mixer sound
good too. By running the RNP to channel #1 on the mixer are you
running the signal to the mixers preamp or is that bypassed by using
the send out directly to the card? Do you think you're compromising
the RNP by running through the mixer?\

Any extra circuitry in the signal path is going to effect what the
sound card is delivered. Going through another preamp stage is not
what I would recommend. The only reason to go into your mixer with
just one mic to one track would be if you needed to use the eq or do
some serious gain riding to the incoming signal. Even then I'd think
twice unless the mixer let you get in after the mic pre and gave you a
way of bypassing the summing network on the way out.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

Thanks Rick. For my purposes going in direct and a avoiding the mixer
is fine, though I appreciate the options Dan offered. As for switching
off phantom power the RNP seems to power down in such a way that there
is no thump. A mute switch would be nice but that's being picky. I've
had the RNP for a day and have had a chance to do some limited and
quick comparisons with some mic tests I recorded previously through
the Behringer. I expected subtle differences so I was a bit surprised
at how much more accurate things sounded.

As someone mentioned the differences with the MXL603 were less
dramatic but still quite noticable. The SM57 sounds like a different
mic altogether and I suspect it would work well for vocals. The small
AT831 cardioids were a really nice surprise. With the RNP they make
(to my ears) a pretty decent stereo setup, especially for $119 a pair.
I bought them for a minidisc and liked them fine but compared to
running them through the RNP the old recordings sound like the mics
were in a cardboard box. Actually that's pretty much the way I would
describe the difference across the board.....the boxy sound (which I
truthfully was never aware of) is gone. The downside to all this is
that I'm now constantly aware of how sloppy my playing is. g

Thanks again to everyone.

G.

Turning off the phantom power
to mute the mic is a good idea.

not if it makes a thump when powering up or down. Not good for
monitors or ears if you have phones on.

No, the RNP has a nice feature whereby the phantom power ramps up and
down instantly, preventing any such thumps. Thump free.


Any extra circuitry in the signal path is going to effect what the
sound card is delivered. Going through another preamp stage is not
what I would recommend.

I'm sure the extra circuitry has an effect...As for the preamp stage,
I go into the 1/4" line in, with the trim turned all the way down in
hopes that it is disabled.

The only reason to go into your mixer with
just one mic to one track would be if you needed to use the eq or do
some serious gain riding to the incoming signal.

Or unless I need to monitor what I have recorded.

d

While the way I am using the MX802a mixer may be problematic, evry
other way I set it up caused me to have ease of use trouble that I
disliked worse. it is a trade off with this gear.

I originally had no external preamp, and needed phantom power, so the
mixer ($40 used) was a good solution.

I have the Echo Mia card, and NHT A10 powered monitors. Is there
perhaps some other device I should look at?

And maybe this is a cue for manufacturers (assuming I am not alone in
this)- I don't really want ANY device to have preamps, as I have the
RNP, and I will probably stick with outboard pres because they sound
good and because I like the options. i know the Mackie pres are pretty
good, but I already have the RNP, and I will probably record just one
track at a time for the forseeable future, and don't want to pay for
those pres, and I don't want to use a hardware mixer - I like mixing
in software, I make a living on computers and am very comfortable with
that.

A device that brokers signal between my card and my phones/monitors,
that lets me just switch between them, and lets me switch out preamps
at my leisure would be great. Anybody have a suggestion? maybe I just
need a headphone amp or something...

d


(Dan) wrote in message . com...
Turning off the phantom power
to mute the mic is a good idea.

not if it makes a thump when powering up or down. Not good for
monitors or ears if you have phones on.

No, the RNP has a nice feature whereby the phantom power ramps up and
down instantly, preventing any such thumps. Thump free.


Any extra circuitry in the signal path is going to effect what the
sound card is delivered. Going through another preamp stage is not
what I would recommend.

I'm sure the extra circuitry has an effect...As for the preamp stage,
I go into the 1/4" line in, with the trim turned all the way down in
hopes that it is disabled.

The only reason to go into your mixer with
just one mic to one track would be if you needed to use the eq or do
some serious gain riding to the incoming signal.

Or unless I need to monitor what I have recorded.

d