Fearn or NPNG

[Doc Mixwell]

Well, you probably don't want to hear this, but I bought both for my collection, because they are so different.

I bought the FEARN for "fluidly tonal", and the NPNG for "sharply spacious"

[Scott Whigham]

I went through many pres for my acoustic and the NPNG is the keeper. Sad to say that I've not tried three of the "noteables" in that area though that I've always wanted to try - the Gordon, Millenia, and Fearn. The NPNG leaves me wishing for nothing so I'm "done" pre-shopping.

[Plush]

When you run the Fearn, you are in the presence of tubesound with holographic reproduction.

All else is gaslight.

[Labs]

Originally Posted by automatom

I desire a new vocal preamplifier, might do a bit of acoustic work too.

One might be amazeballs and the other god-like, but I can only afford one.

I don't want a comparison: You can only have one, which is it?

I would choose the Fearn - Its amazeballs!

Gustav

[Fezzle]

NPNG here, a solid state hero

[joeq]

I must admit I have never used the NPNG, but I can say with confidence that the Fearn is both amazeballs and god-like

[Knox]

The NPNG is a beautiful thing on acoustic guitar. One of it's true strengths.
I will leave the Fearn comments to people who have had more experience with it then I.
Though I can't recommend the NPNG enough.

[tonedimension]

I have both. The NPNG is great and I will continue to make beautiful recordings with the 8 channels I currently own. However, the Fearn is something to behold and if I had to choose one or the other it would be the Fearn. No question.

You should be able to get a demo of a VT-1 to try in your studio with no cost other than shipping. Contact your favorite gear pimp. DSPdoctor treated me right when evaluating the Fearn. Just a gratuitous shout out to BT.

[cornwall6000]

fearn - "just a good preamp"

=

einstein - "just a smart guy"

[Doc_]

to quote Dan Kennedy "it's just a dam pre amp"

to quote Fletcher "you ever hear someone whistling a pre amp going down the street"

for what it's worth,performance trumps all really and truly...now if you have a certain problem that is messing with your recording,check performance first!

[VT-MHE]

Go with the npng

[automatom]

Nothing wrong with performances. (I tell myself)

At the moment, in my small writing studio, I have 2 choices of pre. The one in my Portico II and the Prism preamps in my Orpheus.

I much prefer the sound of the Prism preamps, to the sound of the RND (untreated) hitting the line amps of the prism. Just WAY more open and detailed. You can work the portico to be amazing, it is genuinely a swiss army knife, but is way more brilliant in mix mode. NB: Love the eq, de-esser and comp like children. Just the preamp that now leaves me a sliver non-plussed.

But here's the thing, the prism preamps don't like a lot of level, so using some tracking compression seems to be a necessity, but that causes a bag of latency issues that just aren't amenable to the writing environment. It's quite tricky to keep headroom.

So here I am, wanting a preamp I love, and a transparent tracking compressor that keeps all of that big love intact whilst keeping levels down going to the prism line amps. (Sort of praying the prism line amps aren't overly influencing the sound)

So there you are. (It might be nice if folk could answer with what their choice would be rather than slurring the other or indeed saying both, the question relies on the premise that you're only allowed one - that's all I can afford.)

[piano]

Tube vs. solid state?

Personally, I like the tube stuff better - but not all the time.

[pieter k]

automatom, since you've raised the issue of cost, consider this: assuming all other performance criteria being relatively equal between the Fearn and the NPNG, the latter is somewhere around $1,700 less expensive than the former.

If affordability is an issue for you, and this is your choice, it seems the NPNG would be the one to pick.

In the medium term, I'm in the same boat as you. While I could buy a Fearn if I really, really wanted one, it's at a price point that puts it in the 'Difficult to Justify' category for me; the NPNG is just about at the limit of what I'm willing to spend for two channels of sterling preamplification.

Just one more criterion to consider.

[Scott Whigham]

Originally Posted by pieter k

automatom, since you've raised the issue of cost, consider this: assuming all other performance criteria being relatively equal between the Fearn and the NPNG, the latter is somewhere around $1,700 less expensive than the former.

This is a great point. I think that all of us would agree that neither pre can help you make a "better record", and there's clearly a split in terms of people who think you can make "better sounding records" with one or another. With it being so close, I think you definitely should be considering other aspects in your final decision (such as cost).

That brings to mind another point of consideration: whether or not you are "done" after you buy this pre, or whether you will want to add 2 more channels in the future. If that's the case, then you can buy four channels of the NPNG for the price of 2ch of the Fearn.

Either of these pres are really going to show off your mics as well. With 2ch of NPNG, you'd still have a good chunk of chain to upgrade/augment the mic collection.

Things to consider...

[pieter k]

Originally Posted by Scott Whigham

Either of these pres are really going to show off your mics as well. With 2ch of NPNG, you'd still have a good chunk of chain to upgrade/augment the mic collection..

I was thinking exactly the same thing. That $1,700 difference can buy an awfully nice mic, or even a matched pair of great mics, like the Gefell C300s for example.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Scott Whigham

there's clearly a split in terms of people who think you can make "better sounding records" with one or another. With it being so close, I think you definitely should be considering other aspects in your final decision (such as cost).
...

it is interesting to note, however that the people who seem to be most familiar with both, keep stressing how much they are two different animals.

if the cost is the limiting factor and the sound is the deciding factor, the OP would be well-advised to hear them in use.

Of course that can expensive in another way. I once ordered two units from a place with an enlightened return policy, intending to compare them and return the unit I 'didn't want' but...

because they were so different, they were complementary. I decided I could not live without both units I was ostensibly deciding "between"

[automatom]

In a twist, the Fearn works out cheaper that the NPNG for me, here in the UK. Of course, that's for 2 channels of NPNG.

As you've read, yes money is somewhat of an issue, but mainly because I haven't figured on a compressor yet. If I went for a Vertigo VSC-2, which I'm assured is the most transparent of compressors, that's £3200.

I have a lovely microphone collection thanks. (Vox go through a late-90's Gefell UM900 at the moment) I've spent 15 years refining, improving my recording set up here. I really do find that hearing back the best possible audio does effect my creative outcomes, it didn't always but, over time, I've become an audio snob.

Anyway, it's sort of beside the point, what I was looking for was folk who had heard both forcing themselves to choose one or the other. In a desert island kind of way, as these two are so frequently referred to in the 'desert island' bracket, that doesn't seem impossible.

I am testing a Fearn out very soon, but unfortunately NPNG don't appear to have a UK dealer, there is a Swedish one....I may get a chance when I'm over in the US in September to hear the NPNG, we'll see.

[cornwall6000]

thats odd, automaton, i actually had been thinking to myself how nice it was that few if any posters here HAD slurred either pre. and it seemed people WERE reco- ing one or the other! minus a few posts about performance...,

anyhow, i'll stick with my fearn reco. it'll certainly sound different than either your orpheus or RND. and you are likely to experience zero headroom/gain issues with it.

though i'd never call it "transparent". the fearn definitely has a sound. if transparancy is really what you're after you may be better off going npng. (and indeed, you could use the savings to slut out further...!)

[wagz]

i haven't tried the Fearn, but I own a NPNG, and it is pretty awesome. I doubt you can go wrong between the two of these preamps. My NPNG offers a sound I can't get out of any other preamps I own, especially, on acoustic guitar. It's like it doesn't miss/soften any detail or punch...it doesn't blurs any lines. So, it's amazing for acoustic guitars, but it also works very well for vocals.

Dude, if you can't try one of these out before you buy it, basically, you just might have to flip a coin. Either way, both of these will work. But really, the only way to know which is these absolute best fit for your voice is for you to try them. Even if I owned a Fearn, I couldn't tell you what to get because I don't know what your voice sounds like and I don't know what sounds you wanna hear.

Now, I do earn a Thermionic Earlybird 2.2. It's made in the U.K. and it sounds magical on vox and acoustic guitars. You might look into these. I'd be happy recording with the Earlybird or the NPNG, but I wouldn't sell one for the other.

This is my poor(and crazy sounding) attempt at describing the sounds of these pres:

Earlybird: Source-->a giant sheet of MAGIC(sweet, soft, and big)-->Hard Disk

NPNG: Source-->All of the detail and punch you heard at the source(very fast, very punchy, and yet it's smooth. Real-ish, like you have just highlighted the sound.-->Harddisk

sry.

[trustyjim]

I have an NPNG and owned a Fearn for a while.

Originally Posted by Knox

The NPNG is a beautiful thing on acoustic guitar. One of it's true strengths.

Agreed 100%, for acoustic it is currently my top choice. It has clarity with taste that I just love...

Originally Posted by yotonic

Nonetheless the Fearn is a very good preamp as are many other builds out there. Again it personally never "rocked my world" on vocals. And there are plenty of other working guys who share my opinion. But as I said everyone has a different palette so you are best off seeing for yourself. The "other worldly" stuff is just not helpful in my opinion so I personally prefer terms like good, and excellent. Excellent for me on vocals is V76, Vintage 1084. (which also are not leaps and bounds above the Fearn, just better for me on vocals).

Similar thoughts here. BAE 1028 (basically a new 1084 with a few more filters) is my top choice for vocals. Sing in to that and it "sounds like a record." Just FYI the BAE 1028 also sounds GREAT on acoustic guitar, it is just a thicker sound than the NPNG. For singer songwriter stuff you might want that thickness...

[automatom]

So I got to demo the Fearn.

It is never leaving my side again.

That is all.

[Doc Mixwell]

Congrats on that!

[Ryan Gregory]

Originally Posted by automatom

So I got to demo the Fearn.

It is never leaving my side again.

That is all.

Haha that's awesome!

[automatom]

I have never heard a microphone preamp with such creamy clarity.

It has it's own compression that just bring everything to the front. I don't think I'll ever use a tracking compressor with it in fact.

Completed a vocal with it yesterday and played it to some folk without telling them what was new about the recording. My favourite comment was (and I'm not f'ing with you),

"That vocal sounds so real, no, it sounds better than reality."

Pleased as punch. I pity anyone not getting the joy I've instantly experienced with this box.

[legato]

I'm red with envy...

[Doc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by greenhirny

You should have tried the other as well because I think all you guys are smoking some crazy bud.

I had a fearn at my disposal for two weeks while tracking record, tried to make it work on guitars and vocals and always went with the other pres in the room. Always. That thing is NOT amaze balls nor glory incarnate. It's a tubey pre that left me thoroughly disappointed actually.

Is it really that out of line that we like em? We must be "smoking crazy bud"? We're just shooting the breeze here, talking bout what we use.

Sorry you had a bad time trying it out, but really, your experience is your own. Its too bad that you couldn't find a use for this hardware, over two weeks. Ive had a pair of these pre's for over 4 years.

I think if it sucked for me, and was just average, I would have launched it A long time ago, to buy more "crazy bud"...

[Plush]

FEARN--endorsed and hailed here.
Aye, nay--we even bow down before it.

[legato]

... but congrats anyway.




Henk