Rupert Neve MBT VS MBP Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- In this video I review which is better. The Rupert Neve Master Bus Transformer or the Master Bus Processor. They are very similar boxes and I wanted to know myself if by having the MBT does it replace the MBP when used as a stereo field editor.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✅ Buy Rupert Neve MBT USA ► sweetwater.sjv...
✅ Buy Rupert Neve MBP USA ► sweetwater.sjv...
✅ Buy Rupert Neve MBT UK ► sxpro.co.uk/pr...
✅ Buy Rupert Neve MBP UK ► sxpro.co.uk/pr...
✅ More Videos From This Series ► • Audio Equipment Reviews
✅ Mixing & Mastering Services ► www.audioanima...
✅ My Equipment ► www.audioanima...
✅ Previous Work ► www.audioanima...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
SUPPORT AUDIO ANIMALS AFFILIATE LINKS
✅ Sweetwater ► www.sweetwater...
✅ Plugin Boutique ► www.pluginbout...
✅ Waves ► www.waves.alzt...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
● Website www.audioanima...
● Instagram: / audioanimals
● UA-cam: / audioanimalstv
● Facebook: / audioanimalsstudio
● Soundcloud: / theaudioanimals
● Twitter: / theaudioanimals
Thank you for your excellent videos where you explained and allow us to hear audio gear in action on mixes. I and many others find them very helpful. As you do not use the compressor in the MBP, I agree with you that the MBT can replace the MBP. One thing to remember is the two units have very different compressors. The MBT has a opto compressor which reacts much differently than the VCA compressor on the MBP. The MBP VCA has a firmer character and offers feedforward (cleaner, and can be faster) and feedback (more character, adding more glue) character as well as more detailed control on attack, ratio, and much more information on how much you are reducing the signal with detailed metering. I find this compressor very flexible which can be heavy handed, med, or gentle compression. In addition, there is a powerful limiter on the unit as well. "The limiter side-chain features a compound timing network that allows the limiter to respond equally well to quick transient material as it does to less dynamic program material. The
PIIMB limiter can be utilized as a maximizer by setting the Limit potentiometer to the desired maximum level in dBu, then increasing the amount of Gain until the desired program loudness is achieved."
The MBT has a opto compressor which offers a lighter, gentler compressor that reacts differently which many use as a finisher compressor. I had the Avalon 747 opto compressor, a Focusrite opto as well as the latest Softube Tube Tech Multiband compressor. The opto on all have a similar reaction to the signal. Two band EQ again is helpful as a finisher EQ like my old Manley Mini Massive was. Though I have not used this unit or the SSL Fusion, I have worked with SSL and Rupert Neve hardware in my studio for over 10 years, and know the character of both company's. Though they sound different from each other, I see them doing something similar to your signal. It all depends if you want the weightier Neve sound or the fast and open detailed sound for the Fusion. The MBT is a higher end piece of gear which I prefer, but it is also a lot more money. In my current setup, as I have the Rupert Neve Portico 5043 compressor which is similar to the MBP (without the extra features), I would personally benefit more from the MBT.
On the sound test, with given settings, the Portico II came out on top overall. Really wanted to like the MBT more but... the MBP did sound better. Fuller, more satisfying in the lower midrange.
I scrolled down to the comments so that I would not see the screen during the audio examples. When I hear the one with more low end weight and top sheen I then scroll back up and it is almost aways the MBT.
That's a great way to do it. That's the beautiful thing about having silk red and silk blue at the same time. Also EQ adds to this.
Ultimate test would be without the EQ section engaged :)
The MBT puts a nice emphasis on the upper octave compared to the MBP. It sounded more open and a little bit more 3d to me in every instance. I listened to this through my Genelecs, my hd 800 and my laptop, same outcome every time
MBP best !!!
The MBP sounded a bit fuller, bit more open and more exciting to me. I could pick out the switch blind as well. Am I going nuts, seem like most liked the MBT?
There's no right or wrong answer. Both sound great and it all comes down to personal preference
I feel the MBT sounds much better in the TEST because of the Lower Mids & also the Wider! ( no doubt that the MBT sounds better w/ my ears ) Thx You for making this Shoot-Out :) George
The versatility of sounds you can get from the MBP tells me I could get better sounds than you did with that material and I mean that as no disrespect to you or your talent because I mean better results as for my aural preferences. I will say the way you dialed in the MBT, it sounded better in all cases. I didn’t see what settings you had selected on both units but I think we can both agree the MBP is one beast that takes much practice at getting good at using.
Bear in mind the MBP is in SFE mode and not being used as a compressor.
People in the comments are disagreeing just for the heck of it. The MBP has more air in the top end, but thins out the bottom end; it just doesn't sound good. The MBT preserved the kick in the song at 3:41, while the MBP thins it out. But I do agree with the other comments saying they like their airy top end of the MBP, because I did as well. If the MBP didn't destroy the bass I would choose it as well.
MBP has two side chains. One keyed high pass filter at 125hz and another you can key yourself to your liking. If that isn’t enough, it also has depth control on its SFE(Stereo Field Editor) with four predefined EQ points (LF-LM-HM-HF)low-frequency/low-mids/high-mids/high frequencies (respectively)
You can select the LF and reduce the depth EQ in conjunction with either sidechain options available.
The MBP is a Swiss Army knife. It can do so much and all at one place. Don’t be so quick to dismiss it.
@@elonthebass6870 I came back and prefer the MBP due to the top end, I can eq the bass if I need to.
i hear this huge bottom two time in my life , once in a random tape in a walkman (1999 - 2003) ! once here at 3:10 ! you are magicians ..
I wish I could hear the full track, even in poor quality !
a bo ol of wo'or above the m by ty , meeen !😆
So much compression when you're using the MBP, it would be nice to dial in the compression similarly on both units.
The MBP is in SFE mode. It would be an unfair comparison if you compressed the MBT when the MBP is in SFE. I'm guessing you are mistaking that the MBP is being used as a compressor?
Have you heard of Mathew Lane’s: OnTheMoon SPACECRAFT?
You'll get nothing better for stereo field control.
It would still have to keep the MBT for the rest of it's functions, especially the red and blue mix.
I do feel like Rupert Neve should come out with a simple RED BLUE device, doing nothing but that.
Would be nice to be able to put it on multiple channels with full control on each when recording.
I think they will never release such a red/blue silk device only , because a lot of people will not find a reason to buy the more expensive stuff they have .
It hurt like hell but I dropped the 4K on the MBT.
Welcome to ANALOG :) ( Plug - In version come close BUT? ...)
Now that you’ve used the MBT for a while, does the money seem worth it?
Can't comment on the stereo field comparison because I'm currently listening on a single PA speaker Bluetooth device... will check again when possible lol
Actually, I can comment... because I'm listening in mono, the MBP has better mono compatibility
Can anyone explain what the Gain knobs do when SFE to Comp is enabled?? There seems to be some phasing stuff going on and I can't find anything in the manual.
It’s Rupert Neve Easter Egg. I’m also still trying to figure it out myself. I’m not hearing any phasing really, maybe with extreme settings? It’s definitely mid-side related compression.
Paul do you have that first track for listening somewhere? Its one of my favorite songs
It's a good song that one. It's a royalty free song I pay a subscription to use. If you shazam it, you'll find the name and then you should be able to find it online to stream or download.
Thank You for the demonstration, but I don't think it's a real comparison. Especially when the MBP is in the SFE position sametime it is too compressed. I wish the MBP was used as mixbus compressor like MBT while the mid and side section were aligned as in the MBT. That would make for a more even comparison. Don't You think or am I wrong?
Re watch the intro. I explained the comparison. I'm guessing you skipped straight to the audio. The video is titled MBT vs MBP. As I've mentioned in multiple videos the MBP isn't a great compressor but instead is an exceptional stereo field editor. As I explained in the intro, within the first 15 seconds to avoid people like yourself getting confused on the comparison. Does the MBT make the MBP obsolete for me in the fact that I use it as a stereo field editor. Hope this helps your understanding.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Thanks for your quick response and explanation of your approach in this video but I maintain that videon does not quite give any real comparison, especially when talking about whether one replaces the other But thanks for the good videos :-)
@SLNuuk again best to watch the intro to the video and really take in what I'm saying to get a good understanding of the purpose of the video. Let me put it the most lamen terms for you.
I own the MBP and the MBT releases. I don't need both. So I compare to see if I achieve a better sound using the MBT over the MBP. By doing so I can establish if for my workflow and the way I use the MBP if it in fact replaces the MBP. This way I can assess if I keep the MBP or the MBT.
Let me rephrase in an even more simpler way. MBP good, MBT better, I buy MBT, I sell MBP. Comparison complete.
On the MBP the compressor is on and overcompressing. Like 6db? And the MBT is not going even close to saturation - which is not showing its potential. I also have both and know how to use them properly. This is not a good comparison.
If you have both you know by now that increasing the input on the MBT drives the silk circuit which I'm sure you are aware is a less than pleasing sound for silk. Silk should be a smooth texture applied to the mix. What Neve should have done was added +/- 20db on the makeup gain. This way we can reduce the input into the silk circuit. But you only have +20db so you only have the ability to drive it harder.
Additionally if you own a MBP you would be aware that in SFE the compression section acts very differently to not in SFE.
You say you know how to use both units but I think honestly you should maybe rethink that statement. As this is glaringly obviously.
One last thing this is a test to establish the added benefits of switching the MBP for the MBT. For the way I use these units. In SFE and stereo field editors with silk textures.
Sorry to have to go in like this but just think before you comment. Especially if you own both units and are trying to make yourself look professional.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Thanks a lot for reply. Highly appreciated. It is "SFE to compression" and will of course apply the compression. It is showing the gain reduction. So I would compare without or with a low Threshold. And I would also show the tonal differences one can apply with the MBP by playing with Silk Blue / HPF / Equalizer / Color Comp in one box compared to what you can do with the MBP. And the MBT changes the sound if you drive it ("drive and Gain Reduction LEDs"). However, I like your videos and thumbs up in general. Maybe worth a next video? :-)
@mattmerty8084 Yes, but my test is for the application and way I like to use it. The question I ask myself at the beginning of the video is does the MBT replace my MBP as a stereo field editor. Which is why it is being used as a stereo field editor in the video. As great as it may sound driven on certain songs, that's not the way I like to use silk. Silk is supposed to be smooth and round when mastering.
Take a look at the block diagram on the MBP how the SFE signal flow is. A lot of people make the mistake of not understanding how the SFE routes. Even people thinking that the silk textures are in mid side but in fact they are after the mid side in stereo. The SFE is parallel to the signal path. This means the signal is blended with the unaffected dry signal going into the MBP. You will find that when using the SFE with a large amount of compression you will achieve a far more pleasing stereo image. Give it a try your stereo imagine will start to shine.
Like I say. It is very important to understand your equipment and how to get the most out of it. Especially if you are going to imply someone doesn't know how to use it.
I mix rap music and am looking for some analog sauce for my mix bus. thinking of getting this pair. would it be a good move?
I wouldn't say get the pair. I'd say get one or the other. If you get a MBT buy that and a compressor and an EQ. If you buy a MBP buy that and an EQ.
As always, your excellent videos are appreciated. Just a suggestion, it would be very useful if you could share a lik with the dry and wet files, so one could make the comparison on their own sound equipment and not with the poor quality of UA-cam . Ah!, another thing in the videos in which you test equipment, sometimes the time you leave the signal dry or wet with the same setting is very short, a couple of compaces would be very useful. They are just suggestions,... A hug, and thank you very much,
Noted will keep this in mind
MBT has more spatial, 3D feel sound
If I can only afford to purchase one, or had both but choose one unit which would it be?
I would choose the MBT. In fact I chose to swap the MBP for the MBT for the simple fact that 2 silks are better than 1. But this choice greatly depends on what you want the unit for. If you plan on using it as a compressor then you want the MBP. If you plan on using it for silk then the MBT.
@AudioAnimalsStudio THANK YOU AGAIN!!! All your info and reviews taken into consideration. I am leaning towards the MBT. I may use the compressor some but I was wondering about limiters between them though...🤔
Do you want a comprehensive masterbus processor for your master bus equipped with a full suite of compression and limiting and imaging and transformer saturation? Then snag an MBP. Rupert designed it.
Or do you want an obscenely overpriced mediocre eq, a rudimentary compressor, one dimensional imager and saturation box? Then get an MBT-itty. Rupert’s underlings designed it.
@elonthebass6870 I want super silk super. Thank you Rupert's "underlings" you delivered exactly what I wanted.
which one is better for mastering ?
I prefer the MBT for mastering but it does depend what you have in your chain already and how you plan on using the MBP.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio can I use the mbt as is and clipper and limiter at the end and that’s it ?
@@blessednech for a very basic mastering chain you could. You'd probably be better off with the MBP as you have a more dedicated compressor.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio got it. I’ll look into it more. Thank you.
The settings don't even seem remotely close to the same... The MBT is even using parallel compression. It alson sounds like the MBC has roundedtransients and the MBT has a more pleasing punch becuase of the parallel compression combined with the faster release time than the MBP and blue silk etc.
They are two totally different units. In the intro I explain the purpose of the test. Within the first 30 seconds of the video I explain the purpose of the video.
@@AudioAnimalsStudioI understand that totally. I spent 15 minutes watching you 6+ minute video in normal speed (I Northshore watch everything in x2), so I paid attention to everthing you said. Thats why I only mentioned the parallel compression and the release time which matter in the tone and weight of the sound no matter what devices/plugins you use. I'm curious about your logic in the settings. I watched your video because I am about to by either or as we speak.
@minkfranchise6389 the purpose of the video is for me to establish if the MBT replaces the MBP. You notice the MBP is in SFE mode which is how I use it. How the MBP is setup is how I would set it up to use on the audio source. Using the MBT I would only use the stereo width and silk textures.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio
Aaaah... that makes sense, that is the same for me... compression is not what I'm looking for from either device.
Thank you for sharing, brother.
@@minkfranchise6389 I'm not a fan of either the MBT or MBP compressors. They are cool if they are your only compressor but I have better more versatile compressors I'm the master chain. What I find unique about the neve bus processors is the silk textures. Make a super silk only box I'd swap both the mbt and mbp for that. Or an updated 542.
I like the mbt better for the sfe. sounds fuller imo
This was my findings also.
you mean MBP ? (Sfe mode is in the MBP not MBT)
@@sound4label he's referring to the stereo field (width) on the MBT compared to the MBP SFE.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio ok thanks interesting :)
Hang ah syllable by a letter,MBP is good,but MBT just better
Never worth the 4,4K for me.
If you had the Extra $$$ you wound get it or if not, get the PLUG-IN!
I love MBP!
Mbt wins.. more tighter
Soundwise - no difference at all ,but i find MBT more useful for my needs in my particular chain .
That's what I've found. Very similar but the MBT has the additional EQ section and silk blue and red at the same time.
Ima jus use the MBP for live events … MBT for studio 👌🏾
The MBP has more control with the attack. Not just a slow and fast attack. This flexibility alone on the unit would make a big difference in getting the sound you want.
Then it has feedback and feed forward option which the feed forward is a little cleaner and punchy character. Feedback offers my glue
It is VCA vs Opto which again offers a different sound.
The MBP also has a full featured field editor. This unit would be my choice
Yes, but all of what you mentioned is not really a factor in SFE mode, which is what we are comparing here. As a mix bus compressor you are totally right. The MBP is better for this. The MBT compressor is nowhere near on par with the MBP compressor.
@AudioAnimalsStudio I agree with you my friend. But for me, the most important part is the compressor. You could use so many good EQ plug ins that would as good (including Pultec, BAX or ones with more bands) that could easily replace the EQ on the MBT
@revelationsoundstudio yes definitely but can something replace having silk red and blue at the same time? Other than buying a second MBP?
@AudioAnimalsStudio The MBP offers silk blue and red in its own way and is good enough for my needs. Perhaps not everyone's needs however. 🙂
@revelationsoundstudio I thought the same but then I got both and realised I've been missing out.
The MBT sounds bolder and more open
I tend to listen off-axis to see if I can hear when the files switch over and I heard nothing so that indicates to me that it's not enough of a difference to matter. I would also add that I'm not hearing anything that I likely couldn't replicate with plugins.
In theory, everything could be achieved with a plugin. The difference there is that to achieve that you'd first need the analogue processed audio to replicate it. You'd need to take quite some time to adjust various plugins and reference to the audio to finally settle on something that is pretty much there and close enough. Meanwhile I'm on to the next song. The point being, yes I'd 100% say it's possible however using a box thar will instantly do what I want it to do in 5 seconds.
I can send you unprocessed audio for the first track. Without referencing to the video let's see if it's possible and if you can infact achieve the same result. I don't doubt it's possible.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I'm a producer, not a mastering engineer so having to do something that quickly is not really a consideration, particularly at the stage where I would likely apply such a processor. Regarding your challenge, you've stipulated that I wouldn't be able to reference the video. How then am I supposed to replicate a sound without having a source from which to compare my results? If I were merely processing an audio file, then I would do so in the manner I think is best for the audio rather than chase the sound of some box and someone else's choices. The point I was trying to get across is that I didn't hear anything being done to that track that I likely could not achieve ITB. I understand that your focus is on discussions of hardware, which you seem to have quite a bit of, much more in fact than just about any mastering studio I'm familiar with, but I think what we all forget sometimes is that it's ultimately about the ear, not the gear. Gear is fun BUT I would encourage anyone choosing a mastering studio to familiarize themselves with the engineer's work to see if aligns with their vision for the material.
@edwardcolon8614 I think you read that wrong. I'm agreeing with you, I think you could get close with a plugin. I just don't think you could achieve it without a reference. An artist could draw a picture, and then you could trace around it and copy it as best you can. You'll get close but never the same. Same principle here. With a reference you'll get close. But the key it to know how to get close without using a reference. Even I'd find that hard.
@edwardcolon8614 the point regarding time. Is that as an engineer time is money. And if a box costs 4k but achieves us the sound we want within a minute of using it, it's worth it's weight in gold. However if I was trying to achieve what I got from this box using Saturn 2 I'd be there for quite some time trying to replicate something I can achieve in the analogue domain almost instantly. If I can shave 5 minutes off the time it takes to master a song by achieving the sound instantly. That time adds up across a year and the box has paid for itself within a month. Take my Avid S4 for instance. That saves me 2 hours easily every mix I do. The console may cost £40k but it pays for itself within time. I get we are coming from it from different angles. It's like if I asked you to produce a song without using a mouse. Yeah it's possible to do it, but it'll take you far more time to do so.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I didn't hear anything in those demos that would lead me to want to invest $4K in a box that, at least to my ears, doesn't achieve anything I couldn't get using far less expensive tools. I'm hybrid, so for me, this just means I'm free to deploy my capital on hardware that gets me somewhere my software doesn't.
I'm wondering how the SPL Big 500 module is sounding versus the width section of MBP or MBT ?
If it's anything similar to the Gemini width control. The MBT width sounds better.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio you're the best 😉
SPL BIG is trash. just sold mine
@PatrickCollier why is it trash? I've not used tried one so I'm genuinely curious.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio the SPL tears apart your mix so much it's almost unusable unless its live music. For modern pop music things are already so wide you can only turn the knob maybe one notch. the bass switch does a cool VOG thing but def not worth the money or a 500 slot unless you have turns of IO on your interface or get it for $300 or less.
For mix bus or tracking which one would work best
For your mix bus. The MBP would be the better choice. Has a better compressor. With the MBT you would gain the high and low shelf EQ, stereo widener and the possibility of using silk red and blue at the same time.
Thank you! Il be looking into the mbp then I love your channel to man ur awesome
Would u say starting with the mbp for my mixing/mastering chain is a good peices to start with
@Lle2mk11 I actually always recommend the SSL Fusion as a good starter unit. It gives you a little bit of everything then you can build off that add an EQ and compressor. The MBP is an OK compressor. I wouldn't put it up there with good mastering grade compressors but great as a mix bus comp to give your mixes some added glue and sheen with silk red. Have a watch of my video on why I sold my SSL Fusion. I do recommend it but eventually from a high end mastering perspective you will replace it with independent units for each part.
I did see your video on it I have one more question would you say the Wes audio my pairs better with the fusion the the bus +
MBP smokes the MBT every round. And it’s not contest.
MBP is an authentic RND piece. It has deep engineering. It’s insanely complex with an incredibly elegant design. A genuine Rupert Neve mastering grade piece of equipment.
MBT is a posthumously created obscenity with Rupert’s name stamped on it. It sounds as bad as it looks.
I’m still learning about my MBP. So many unique and nuanced ways of using it. I covet the MBP. It’s among my favorite pieces of equipment that’s saved countless mixes and masters for me.
NOT