Impressions of the Great River MP-2nv for acoustic guitar

[Trevor B.]

I have the opportunity to pick up a used Great River MP-2nv at a reasonable price. Any impressions, especially from people who use or have used this unit are most welcome. I'd be using this preamp with my Apogee Quartet's converters into Logic Pro X to record primarily nylon and steel string instrumental pieces as well as the occasional vocal track.

Thanks,
Trevor

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by Trevor B.

I have the opportunity to pick up a used Great River MP-2nv at a reasonable price. Any impressions, especially from people who use or have used this unit are most welcome. I'd be using this preamp with my Apogee Quartet's converters into Logic Pro X to record primarily nylon and steel string instrumental pieces as well as the occasional vocal track.

Thanks,
Trevor

It's a great preamp for many things, and works well with solo fingerstyle acoustic guitar with certain settings. High quality build. Low noise. If you like the Neve 1081 style of preamp, the 2NV is a good choice.

There are less expensive 1081 style preamps available these days, like the Golden Age preamps. Or, for a slightly different flavor among colored preamp products, consider a API 312 type preamp, like the Warm Audio units or the Atlas Jugernaught.

[Doug Young]

Hey Trevor, I haven't compared that exact combination, but I do have a comparison that's close: a Great River MP-2H vs an Apogee Thunderbolt Ensemble. (The MP-2H is the clean preamp, not the Neve flavor) I used identical mic pairs (Schoeps CMC6/MK41s on one side, Brauner VM1s on the other side) and recorded simultaneously, both thru the ensemble A/Ds:

Apogee:


Great River:


one issue here is that the mic pairs of course had slightly different placement - an inch, maybe a half inch, apart, so the question is "are any differences you hear due to the preamps, or due to mic placement?". Fran suggested I could have use a splitter, but I don't have one, so I tried a 2nd comparison, just swapping the mic cables:

Apogee:


Great River:


So basically, if you like one preamp or the other best in both pairs, then that preamp probably sounds better. If not, then maybe what you hear is mic placement. You could also listen to the 2 Great River takes, or the 2 Apogee takes and get a sense of the relatively difference from a 1/2 inch to and inch of mic placement as well as 2 different performances vs the difference between preamps.

Not perfectly scientific, and no Neve flavor here, but it's what I have, and maybe it's helpful.

[runamuck]

I don't hear a difference.

[Trevor B.]

Originally Posted by runamuck

I don't hear a difference.

Thanks, Doug, for the comparison files between the Ensemble pres and those of the GR MP-2H. I read all three of the other posts before listening to the clips (through my headphones) and was struck by "runamuck's" comment. It resonated because for some time now I've been trying to dial out my expectations from what I actually hear. What I mean is this: if I expect the Great River preamp to sound fuller or richer or warmer, etc. will I imagine that it does even when it actually doesn't. Another way to say this is that I'm trying to be more objective. To that end I downloaded the first two files and imported them into Logic. I hope you don't mind Doug, but I then neutralized your EQ settings and compared the frequency responses with the EQ analyzers turned on for both tracks. I know the EQ settings were the same for both clips but I wanted to see the raw deal. They are incredibly similar.
All in all this has been a great lesson for me. So I'm left with this question: am I willing to pay the asking price for a different flavour or stick with my quartets preamps and learn how to maximize them?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Trevor B.

Thanks, Doug, for the comparison files between the Ensemble pres and those of the GR MP-2H. I read all three of the other posts before listening to the clips (through my headphones) and was struck by "runamuck's" comment. It resonated because for some time now I've been trying to dial out my expectations from what I actually hear. What I mean is this: if I expect the Great River preamp to sound fuller or richer or warmer, etc. will I imagine that it does even when it actually doesn't. Another way to say this is that I'm trying to be more objective. To that end I downloaded the first two files and imported them into Logic. I hope you don't mind Doug, but I then neutralized your EQ settings and compared the frequency responses with the EQ analyzers turned on for both tracks. I know the EQ settings were the same for both clips but I wanted to see the raw deal. They are incredibly similar.
All in all this has been a great lesson for me. So I'm left with this question: am I willing to pay the asking price for a different flavour or stick with my quartets preamps and learn how to maximize them.

Sure, I made them downloadable so people could play with them. And absolutely, our impressions are biased by what we expect, no matter how hard we try to avoid it. You could load those tracks up in an ABX tool to listen blind if you want, that would be one way to see if you can tell a difference without being biased.

To me, it all depends. I'm sure there are preamps out there that sound different, and especially if there is an issue, like self-noise, then it will be obvious, and maybe some preamps work differently with different mics. But the differences between decent quality preamps on solo guitar, to me, falls somewhere between the difference in strings that have aged by a day and how much dust is on the guitar :-) Even if there's a difference there, it's swamped by other things, like moving your hand a 1/4 inch, or being a half inch closer to the mics, and so on. Maybe they make more differences for vocals, or drums, or when driven hard, etc, but for solo guitar, what I hear at least, is so subtle, I'd tend to focus elsewhere - because I can make a greater difference in other ways, most of which don't cost anything :-). That said, when I got my Ensemble and did this test, I still kept the Great River. It's a quality piece of gear, and for now, at least, there's no reason to stop using it. And I like looking at the name plate; it makes everything seem like it sounds better :-)

[DesolationAngel]

I'm a little in the same boat... I picked up a used UA 710... supposed to be a solid state preamp that allows you to blend a tube section in... but I'll be darned if I can hear much of a difference between all solid state, 50/50 and all the way to tube...

On the other hand, I've been A/B'ing a lot of microphones and can absolutely tell the differences there (so I don't have entirely cloth ears).

[KevWind]

First for this type of comparison that I know the difference is likely to be from not different to very subtle. And of course understanding also that a heavily compressed streamed file like soundcloud @ 128 bit, is in fact going to be less prevalent in a fair amount of information that is an integral part of what the differences in preamps might actually be.

What I do is try to eliminate as many variables as possible and what I find as working best is :
I play only very short segments (a second or two) of one file (A) and quickly play the second file(B) same section in the in as fast of secession as possible. Usually I set the curser just prior to a transient (increase in level) and listen through the sustain of that note.

So what I found with Doug's files was, with my Mac Air laptop speakers no noticeable difference, with my apple ear buds a very very slight difference in the tonal representation of the mids and upper mids with the GR being only very slightly lower and smoother (for lack of a better phrase)
With my studio tracking HP's ( Senn. HD 280) I found also only a very very subtle increase in overall presence with the GR.
I have not listened through either my mixing HP's (Senn HD600) or my studio monitors but suspect there will likely be only marginal differences

[rick-slo]

Should be a great preamp for you, and if the price is right, well...

I have the old Great River MP-2MH - a very clean, detailed, quiet preamp.
The MP-2NV brings in some of the little more gritty classic Neve preamp sound - depending on how you set the gain controls - whether this will be noticeable on an acoustic guitar is questionable.

[Doug Young]

Kev, you can download the tracks and have 24 bit wav, you dont have to listen to the streamed mp3s. I agree with the "smoother" impression, tho I wasnt able to pass an ABX on these.

The neve GR version is meant to add "color", so the differences should be greater than my example, but I suspect it will still be remarkably subtle. It all depends on how important minute differences are, whether the rest of your setup (and those of your listeners) is up to the level required to hear it, and of course whether any difference you hear sounds "good" or "bad" to you. There are lots of other ways to introduce a touch of color, smoothness, whatever, in the mix, too, as long as you have a good recording to start with.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Kev, you can download the tracks and have 24 bit wav, you dont have to listen to the streamed mp3s. I agree with the "smoother" impression, tho I wasnt able to pass an ABX on these.

The neve GR version is meant to add "color", so the differences should be greater than my example, but I suspect it will still be remarkably subtle. It all depends on how important minute differences are, whether the rest of your setup (and those of your listeners) is up to the level required to hear it, and of course whether any difference you hear sounds "good" or "bad" to you. There are lots of other ways to introduce a touch of color, smoothness, whatever, in the mix, too, as long as you have a good recording to start with.

Where the GR 2NV mainly differs form the GR 2MP is the ability of the 2NV to add non-linear distortion (aka color) to the output signal with certain settings of the two gain controls (there are three gain stages in this preamp). When used, many consider that added distortion "pleasing" for the source material and musical styles involved (e.g., rock vocals). For solo acoustic guitar, adding that color is usually not desired and this feature would not be used.

[Trevor B.]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

For solo acoustic guitar, adding that color is usually not desired and this feature would not be used.

And therein lies the heart of the matter. Although the asking price for the GR MP-2nv is very reasonable, my application is NOT ROCK"N ROLL. The mainstays of my repertoire are classical guitar pieces (played on nylon and steel strings) and traditional folk and Celtic finger-style interpretations. I'm an old dog and the home recording learning curve contains all the new tricks I'm willing and/or able to learn!!!

Thanks to all who have contributed to my query.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by Trevor B.

And therein lies the heart of the matter. Although the asking price for the GR MP-2nv is very reasonable, my application is NOT ROCK"N ROLL. The mainstays of my repertoire are classical guitar pieces (played on nylon and steel strings) and traditional folk and Celtic finger-style interpretations. I'm an old dog and the home recording learning curve contains all the new tricks I'm willing and/or able to learn!!!

Thanks to all who have contributed to my query.

Most folks who record solo acoustic and classical guitar settle on a preamp in the "clean/transparent" camp, as opposed to the "colored" camp. Doug Young's examples above are comparing two clean camp preamps, and, not surprisingly, differences are usually minimal.

I would suggest you look at some well made clean camp preamps for your uses. There are dozens and dozens of good to excellent to impeccable clean type preamps. Also consider buying used, as the duty cycle of high quality gear (to the extent it is based on use instead of the passage of time) is very long.

Certainly, the rest of your signal chain, your room, the instrument, the player, etc. will all have impacts on the recording. But those are different topics.

On the other hand, adding "color" to a recording, whether it is done when tracking or subsequent mixing, is something that almost everyone does to some extent or another. In this I am broadly interpreting the term "color" to include mic choice and placement, preamp choice, and mixing eq, reverb or other plugins. Adding "color" can be a very desirable thing and depends on your personal aesthetic.

[Trevor B.]

Hey sdelsolray, Your points are all right on target for me. The preamps in my Apogee Quartet are very clean and my mikes, with the exception of a Miktek CV4 are also transparent and, I'd say, neutral. So maybe a coloured preamp would be a good addition but I'm still wrestling with getting a solid sound from the equipment I already have. On some recent attempts I'm getting some crackles and pops even though my levels are set well below the point of clipping. I've checked and double-checked the sample rate in both Logic and Maestro so that's not the cause either. It just may be that I need to replace my 2010 MacBook more than I need a new preamp.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

On the other hand, adding "color" to a recording, whether it is done when tracking or subsequent mixing, is something that almost everyone does to some extent or another. In this I am broadly interpreting the term "color" to include mic choice and placement, preamp choice, and mixing eq, reverb or other plugins. Adding "color" can be a very desirable thing and depends on your personal aesthetic.

Totally agree - there are tons of ways to dial in a sound (i.e. add "color"). Part of the reason I don't get too excited about preamps, after trying various examples from colored to ultra-clean, is that I can dial in sound far more effectively by where I place mics than I've ever been able to by preamp choice. As with someone earlier, I've even tried the UAD 710, and the difference between the solid state and tube options was so small compared to changing guitars, or changing mics, or moving the mics by an inch, or moving my hand by an inch, or using different strings, etc, that it simply didn't offer me anything useful.

For solo acoustic guitar, I usually want the cleanest possible recording being captured. I used a CraneSong HEDD for a long time as my tracking A/D, and it has all these mastering "saturation" settings. I never found a use for them, and even if I did, I'd be afraid to be locked into a setting at record time. On the other hand, I use lots of plugins that add "color" on mixdown. I like a UAD-emulated LA-2 compressor set to almost no compression, because it just seems to add a nice semi-subliminal smoothness. Another new UAD plugin I'm finding useful in many cases is the Ampex tape deck, which simulates tape "saturation" and other tape effects (both good and bad...). It doesn't always sound right, but sometimes it adds a nice (and very subtle) warmth and smoothness. And Ozone has some useful stuff. But the key is being able to make decisions about using these sounds during mix-down when I can listen carefully and decide (and change my mind from mix to mix).