The new kid in town... NTK

[Middleman]

Picked up the Rodes NTK mic today, and WOW. I didn't realize what I had been missing.

Smooth and creamy. Very musical and blends into the mix. More detailed than the C1 and not as flat in the mid range. That's not a bad thing by the way just different.

Too much description, can't do it verbal justice. Go play with one and you will see.

One concern I have, to others that may have this mic, do you really have to crank your preamp to get the levels hot? The C1 operates at relatively low levels vs the NTK.

Anyone?

[Stefan Elmblad]

I don't have the NTK, but I've had the impression from others that it needs LESS juice from outboard preamps since the tube/power unit design itself amplifies the signal somewhat.

So I heard anyway. Maybe you should take a second look at the power unit and see if you got any knob there that you've missed.

[Middleman]

There aren't any knobs on the box. I wonder if its this Pin 2 hot Pin 3 Cold thing on the cable.

[Robert D]

Middleman - Welcome to the club! Smooth and creamy say's it very well. I absolutely love the NTK, and tried to find anyone who didn't before I bought mine, but there seems to be nothing but praise for it in the reviews and forums. I haven't really noticed it requiring that much gain over my other mics, but I'll take a look and see. I'm assuming the published sensitivity spec should tell the story, and should be measured after the power supply. If you feel yours is lacking in this area, you might consider taking it in to compare it with another to see if somehow you got a sleepy one. I'd be supprised though, as you don't hear much about Rode QC problems.
The supprise to me for this mic was how good it sounds on acoustic guitar, something I usually reach for a small diaphram mic for. Anyhoo, enjoy it!
RD

[chessparov]

A direct A/B with the Studio Projects TB-1 would be interesting.
Glad to hear you like it though.

Chris

[Richard Monroe]

Yo middle. Hell, no. If anything, I have to turn input gain *down* with NTK. Two tips, though. 1.-Warm it up for a while. In a cold room, it can take as much as an hour. If you're even thinking about using it, plug it into a live pre. Per owner's manual, do not power it up unattached to a pre. You'll know it's ready when you touch it, and in stead of cold metal, it feelslike a person's skin, body temperature. 2.-Feel free to yell at it. I think it likes rough sex, and it really comes to life if you're not afraid of it. It wouldn't be my first choice for a delicate voice. It really likes good old rock and roll, Blues, or anything nasty and loud.-Richie

[Middleman]

Originally posted by Richard Monroe
Yo middle. Hell, no. If anything, I have to turn input gain *down* with NTK. Two tips, though. 1.-Warm it up for a while. In a cold room, it can take as much as an hour. If you're even thinking about using it, plug it into a live pre. Per owner's manual, do not power it up unattached to a pre. You'll know it's ready when you touch it, and in stead of cold metal, it feelslike a person's skin, body temperature. 2.-Feel free to yell at it. I think it likes rough sex, and it really comes to life if you're not afraid of it. It wouldn't be my first choice for a delicate voice. It really likes good old rock and roll, Blues, or anything nasty and loud.-Richie

A delicate voice will not be a problem. So basically your saying I can eat the mike? My c-1 is usually good about 4 inches out.

Chess, I don't have the TB-1 one or I would offer it up.

[Richard Monroe]

No, middle, in fact, eating it has not worked for me, because the proximity is fairly pronounced. In fact, I'd say back off 6-8" and growl at the fucking thing. It just makes it purr louder.-Richie

[Doug Quance]

I picked up an NTK a month and a half ago, but unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to let a singer bark into it, yet.

I have also heard that an hour to warm up is normal... it is, after all, a tube.

If I get half the results others have said about it, I am sure I'll be happy with it.

[Middleman]

Doug Quance - The hour really does make a difference. It starts to sound very expensive after 60 minutes. 10 minutes it sounds a little hard.

Richard Monroe - Yeah your right, about 6 inches keeps it very even. Very little compression needed. I was growling but my kids came in cause they thought I was having a bowel movement in my home office.

[chessparov]

Middleman, guess I was just thinking out loud... (NTK/TB-1)

Funny, I tend to associate "smooth and creamy" microphones as being
suited for melodically based material rather than rockers.
The Bee Gee's endorsement of the NTK seemed to confirm that to me back
when that ad came out. On their (bright) voices, they preferred it over the
Neumann U47 they were using prior.

Chris

[darrin_h2000]

It really could be better for those falsetto voices to have the natural roll-of you get from a tube mike. An u47 may be harsh.

[Doug Quance]

How about the NTK on a sax?

I might be going to record a live gig with a killer sax player tonight.

I'm thinking about bringing the NTK for use on stage, and use my MC012's with LOMO heads as a stereo pair for recording in the audience.

[Middleman]

Smooth and creamy may not be the right words. It tends to just sit in the mix. It breaks up very nicely for rock actually. It's not soft but kinda raspy which makes it sound so good.

It would definitely not be today's jazz or classical type of mic. Unless you wanted that warm older jazz of the 40s 50s. I guess the nearest thing I can compare it to today is the Mark Knopfler album I just picked up. It sounds like his voice does on that album. Very detailed yet warm.

I would think it would sound great on sax. Let me know how that turns out.

[ausrock]

I have just been given an NTK and NT2 to try out on a young singer as an alternative to my C1. From what I'm reading here it is going to be somewhat interesting.

Out of curiousity, if I were to set up all 3 mics with their capsules as close to each other as possible, (in this configuration they will all still be behind the pop-filter)..........HOW FAR BACK should the singer be to be captured equally be all the mics?

[Richard Monroe]

Ausrock, the singer simply *won't* be captured equally by all three mics. Even if their output, polar patterns, and proximity fields were identical (which they aren't), the singer will only have the correct axis to one of the 3 mics. A singer is not a guitar cab, and simultaneous mic'ing with multiple mics for A-B comparison will not work. Sinuses are above mouth, larynx is below, as different as the 12th fret and bridge of a dreadnought.
Think of the throat as the bridge, the bridge of the nose as the 12th fret, and the mouth as the sound hole. The kind of test you're describing works with a closed cab because the speaker is round, with fairly even response with circular distribution.
I suggest you use separate takes, and let the singer find the distance he or she is comfortable with with each mic, and normalize the output. In fact, 2 takes with each mic would be better, using something soft and something loud. Yes, I know the performances will not be identical, but neither will be the mics' response if only one of them is on axis. I can tell you this based on the fact that half of my studio time for the last 9 months has been spent doing vocal mic and pre A-B's.-Richie

[ausrock]

Richie,

I understand what you are saying and anticipated that answer.

I just seemed to recall way, way back, that a similar scenario was discussed and Harvey said something to the effect that there is a point (where distance from mic is concerned) that on/off axis factors don't come into play, at least for these current purposes.

Then again, my memory may be failing

Regards,

ChrisO

[Richard Monroe]

Well, if Harvey's got a plan, I'm all ears. I would certainly defer to his massive experience in these matters. So Harvey, how would you go about an A-B-C vocal mic comparison? My concern is that if you place the mics far enough away that their pickup patterns are not relevent, you're using the mics at a distance that most singers would never use the mics at. That might tell you how good they are for mic'ing choirs, but lead singers use proximity as a tool, and to use the tool, you have to be able to move in and out of the proximity field. Vocals are not a static sound source that is captured like a snapshot, except at considerable distances, as in Broadway style overhead mic'ing.
I'm not interested in how good NTK is for a Broadway overhead, I want to know how it is as a vocal recording condenser. Ny guess is, if you let a good singer *use* these tools, NTK will usually annhialate similarly priced competion. Of course, both of the others you are testing are excellent mics, and some singers actually suck on a tube mic. For myself, it depends on the mix. Some songs just want a FET mic, and some songs want a tube mic. Mostly, I've been recording with NTK and C-3, but I'm now going over most of the tracks done with C-3 and re-tracking them with a B.L.U.E. KIWI, because I can.
If there's any pattern I've found, it's this- If the guitar was tracked with mics through a clean pre, usually the FET mic wins in the shootout. If the guitar was tracked DI through Joemeek, or an electric guitar is involved, NTK is the mic of choice. So I guess I'm matching a colored mic to a colored backing track, and a more transparent mic with a clean track. For a better A-B, you may want to track something folky and acoustic, and something bluesy and electric.
Oddly enough, when neither the KIWI or NTK sounds right, the replacement is Shure SM82, an obsolete line-level broadcast mic I bought for $10 at a flea market! It sort of sounds like what an SM7 would sound like, if it was a condenser mic. In short it rocks, standing up very well against NTK and B.L.U.E. KIWI, which is tough competition. It's not that big a surprise when you figure that when the last one was made in 1989, it was a $700 condenser mic.-Richie

[Middleman]

Some of you old timers to this board will get a kick out of this. Harvey just busted Dot over at Harmony Central. Check it out.

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/...2&pagenumber=2

Read down below Dots post where Harvey unloads.

I like both of these guys immensely but its kinda humorous.

[DJL]

Originally posted by Middleman
Some of you old timers to this board will get a kick out of this. Harvey just busted Dot over at Harmony Central. Check it out.

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/...2&pagenumber=2

Read down below Dots post where Harvey unloads.

I like both of these guys immensely but its kinda humorous.

Thanks for the quick link, I like it when things get heated up like that because we findout what people really think about products or whatever.

[Doug Quance]

Well, I used the NTK tonight for the sax, and it sounded very good. The sax was the only instrument piped through the PA, and the NTK was a good match for the job.

I recorded the event with a pair of LOMO heads on the MC012 capsules... and it sounded better in the cans than it did when I took the cans off and listened live.

I guess the RNC has a way of "fattening" up the sound.

It didn't hurt that the sax player was a monster.

[ausrock]

Well this has left me scratching my head................

We put down 3 seperate, but near identical vocal tracks last night. One each of NT2, NTK and C1...........each one treated as though it was "THE TAKE"..............the NT2 was not suitable for this particular singer, so scratch it. The C1 and NTK........almost identical across the board. Unfortunately, I wont have time to try these mics on different vocalists before I have to return the Rodes to their owner, but one thing it has shown me............don't ever buy a mic without trying it out on your own rig beforehand.

[Middleman]

For my voice, baritone, the choice was more obvious which is why I sold the C1 and purchased the NTK. The sound is much smoother and easier to mix with less EQ. The C1 was hard sounding on the lo end but the high end was nice.

I needed more detail from 160 to 650 and found it in the NTK. Highly dependent on the voice as to which way you go. Both are great mics though.