AT-4033, NT-2, AKG C-3000 Test Results!

M

Mike B

New member
I've been in the market for a $200 to $400 large diaphragm condenser mic for about three months. In a recent post, I mentioned that I had auditioned some mics at Mars. I found, in the store, that the AT-4033 seemed to be the best suited for my vocals over the AKG C-3000. I purchased the 4033, and tried it out on my set up at home thru a Mackie 1402 VLZ-Pro inserts out to my VS-880, as well as a friends AKG C-3000. To my surprise, the AT seemed too bright for my needs. The AKG actually seemed to have a fuller low range that really helped my vocals.

This got me thinking, so I had a bandmate borrow a friends Rode NT-2, so we could make comparisons with all three mics.

We recorded each of our voices, a Taylor 6-String, and a Seagull 12-String with each mic.

Results:

Vocals
We both agreed that the AT-4033 was a little bright, and had a hollow mid-range tone to it on both of our voices. The AKG had a fuller low end, but lacked a little too much of the high end of the AT. However, the Rode seemed to offer the best of both worlds, with a nice round low end, and breathy highs that we both preferred.
Winner: Rode NT-2

Taylor 6-String
Our results here were identical to the vocal test. 4033: Nice and bright, but weak elsewhere. C-3000: Nice full "woody" tone, but a little weak on the highs. Rode NT-2: Best of both worlds. Full round tone with breathy highs.
Winner: Rode NT-2

Seagull 12-String
Here the 4033 really shined. The exagerated highs really sounded better to both of us, than the C-3000, or the NT-2. The NT-2 came in a fairly close 2nd, with the C-3000 a fairly distant 3rd.
Winner: AT-4033

As a result, I took the AT-4033 back and traded it for a Rode NT-2. It seemed the best overall mic for my purposes. I wish we had had a C-3000B, and an NT-1 to test, but we didn't. The moral of this story is, try as many mics in your studio as possible before making a purchase. Auditioning at the store just doesn't cut it.

Oh yeah... Your results may vary ;)
 
Thanks for your post, Mike. This is the type of useable information we all come here for. You present your findings in a logical, credible manner and provide concise details about your method and results.

Hell, I sound like I'm grading an essay.

DUKE-X
 
I first posted a lengthy thing that you probably would have taken all wrong. Decided to delete it all and just say this.

Let us hear these tests.

You used terms like "winner:...." like it was official or something. You only saved yourself with your very last statement in your post, "your results may very" with a classy wink smile with it..... :D

But, I want to hear the tests.

Also, I would like to see your results using a better preamp. Since you didn't mention what kind of wire you used, or what monitoring system you have, I would like to know that too. Your decision on where to place the mics where based upon what you hear through your monitors, so I just need to make sure that you have a monitoring system that is accurate. I use Event 20/20's with a Hafler P-3000 power amp and Monster Studio Pro 1000 wire for my monitors. I feel pretty damn confident with the reproduction of this system. It is not the best available, but I feel that it is the "entry level" of serious monitoring systems.

I have used all three of these mics. I have used them with very expensive mic wire, through a console much better than a Mackie, much better mic pre's, and with a pretty accurate monitoring system. My "results" where different. Let's just say that I am in no hurry to trade my AT 4033 for either of those two other mics. In fact, I found the NT2 to be a very exagerated sounding mic in the lows and highs, and have found that the 4033 offers a very "pretty" high frequency response that many other mics lack.

It just seems that your bias is towards the NT2 which is fine. Mine is towards the AT 4033 which is fine too. But, the only REAL test is in the pudding. My work is available for all to judge, you can download hi res mp3's off of my website.

So what I am saying is that you should make some audio files available for download for comparison.

To just stare you preference without demonstrating a result other than your word is meaningless to me. I have no way of knowing if your "preference" is in line with the "real world" of audio.

So, please post some high quality mp3's for all to hear. They only need to be maybe 20secs long. Please encode them at 192kbs at least, and preferably using a high quality encoder like the Audio Production Studio mp3 encoder. Since this encoder seems to capture the high's much better than any XING type encoder I have heard, it would provide a better reference for audio files that are compressed.

Also, if you could use 24 bit converters while recording, that would be more helpfull to me. I just can't bring myself to trust the audio with 16 bit converters anymore. You can even just save it as a 16 bit file. Just having the 24 bit converters will make a big difference is the sonic accuracy.

Well, that is all I would like to see to ease my mind about your "test".

Thanks.

Ed Rei
Echo Star Studio www.echostarstudio.com

[This message has been edited by sonusman (edited 03-27-2000).]
 
However Ed, most of us don't have a Focusrite Red, Millenium Media, or a NEVE pre amp. And many of us do not have top of the range cables and monitoring systems. But becasue many of us DO have setup similar to that of Mike B's, his info may infact be more valuable than yours.... although I do take your point that all the other links in the chain will significantly determine what indeed sounds best (and I think all of us here know that)... but in reality what it comes down to is personal prefence... If (by some chance) I thought vocals sounded best through a Radio Shack mic... then that's what I'd go for, despite what everyone else told me. Now Mike has discovered for himself that he prefers the NT-2 and regardless of what you say, as long as he is happy with the sound he is getting, then he'll continue using it
 
Very good points copperman. I totally agree with all of them. But, I feel that anybody posting something that seems to have a "official" flavor to it needs to have a bit more info available.

Another point is this. People read stuff like this without access to WHAT THE PERSON WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS ACTUALLY HEARD, which can be quite different from what they would hear, and then they start making their decisions based upon what others say instead of making purchasing decisions based upon what they have heard themselves.

I usually will not post what I think about a piece of gear unless I have something to show for my opinion. That is one of the main reasons I keep over 40MB's of mp3's, all at high kbs conversions on my website. This is why I upload new mixes all the time and let people take a listen. It is so that they can hear what I am talking about. Having these mixes available offers a certain degree of "credibility" to my preferences.

I posted a statement on some other thread somewhere about how state of the art studios invest millions in good gear because it actually IS better sounding gear. If cheapy gear worked as well, they would sell off all the expensive stuff and buy Behringer and Alesis 3630's and what not.... :)

People are always asking how to get a certain sound. They want to make sound purchases based upon what has already been recorded. I always post that to achieve recording fidelity that is in line with the big boys, you gotta have their gear. You also have to have some good ears too. I make this point because many people have not had the experience to tell the differnece between what works well and what doesn't. This gets componded when they start making purchasing decisions based upon this lack of experience. It gets even worse when they are influenced by others that lack the experience to hear the differneces.

So, I will go back to using what has been used. Many hits your hear, and even just plain old CD's that only sell around 200k are all recorded using very similar gear. You can bet that a AT 4033 shows up a lot. The NT2 does not.

Regardless of what quality of wire or preamps you have, a bad purchase is a bad purchase. Some of these "deals" on gear are no deals at all. It is so easy to fool people into thinking that a "budget" piece of gear will sound as good as a proven product when the person doesn't know the difference. I often think that many of these new "deal" components where designed around them being misused, and where optimized to get "close" to the sound of high quality gear.... :) Just kidding...But, you never know do you? :D

So, here is the bottom line. On some equipment, you will want to get a "deal" because you will end up purchasing better down the road anyway. With compressors, and effect processors, this is a good way to go. They are almost disposable.

But when it comes to things like monitors, microphones, and wire, there is no need to look for the "deals" and the knock off gear. Many of the high quality components are available for just a bit more than these "deals".

Maybe a NT2 would have certain applications in my studio where it would work better than the AT 4033, but, I believe that these would be few and far between. The AT 4033 has proven itself time and time again, even through my "learning curve" in audio to provide the type of response that is more par with the quality of recordings I strive for. Also, it is very widely used in studios and recordings that blow mine away. I feel that they were very good purchases because they are going to be around for a long time, and even when I upgrade things, they will still sound "right".

It remains to be seen that the NT2 can deliver the same "time proven" results.

Look at the SM 57. Not a very expensive mic. But no serious studio lacks one, and they get used often over other mics that those who don't know any better claim work better. Have you ever heard those junky Audex mics? Everyone was using them for awhile, then everyone sobered up and found that they really didn't offer the nice smooth sound that a SM 57 offered, and they cost a hell of a lot more!!! Let that be an example when you are considering buying the "newest, greatest mic that is specifically designed to emulate the .....(place good mic here), and at a fraction of the price".

sonusmans prediction. The NT2 will fall by the wayside within the next couple years after everyone figures out that they don't sound all that great after all..... :D But the AT 4033 will still be used heavily in many recordings we will all marvel at.

But hey, buy what you want.

Ed
 
We'll have to wait and see then won't we... I've read some pretty good reviews about the NT-2... it also won the readers choice award at ProRec...

...mmm, certainly some food for thought!!
 
By the way Ed,

I'm glad I didn't take your oh-so-professional opinion, or I may have ended up with a 4033 which, whatever you may wish too believe, does NOT meet MY needs as well as the NT-2.

I clearly stated the pertinant details of the tests, and even more, I SAID "the moral of the story is to try as many mics as you can on YOUR system before buying. You will not tell me what's best for me. You can't.

I really don't give a rat's ass about your mp3s and such. That doesn't mean a thing based on MY needs. I'd rather try it myself, thank you very much.
 
mike b - you approached this intelligently, did the comparisons, and got a good result for your gear and your ear. Good.

Anybody who went out now and bought an NT-2 based on this would be acting much less intelligently, though. Sonusman's right when he says the sound you get depends on all the gear in your signal chain. It also depends on where in the room you position the mics, and how many you use. It also depends on what sort of sound you want.

I'm glad you're experimenting and finding better sounds. I wish I could do the same where I live. :)
 
Dang man .. I think the purpose of Mike's post was to show that you HAVE to listen to your gear before you buy it ... not to make decisions based soley on what someone else tells you is good or bad.
His test results are good enough for him ... enough said. I got the point of the message. Believe me, I wasn't running to go pick up an NT2 because he said he liked it. It was just his opinion and I think that was pretty clear.
Thumbs up Mike ... excellent post.

Ed, you would LOVE how I make my mp3s! heheh :D
 
I don't want to start a fight, or make a statement on what’s best, I don't remember testing an AT 4033, and I aren’t going to give my opinion on either mic.

When you do a test it's nice to know you results and it would be even better if you could post mp3's of exactly what you listened to then we can make our own UN-final decisions. Also when you post something that is very opinionated it's better not to make it sound like a final word.

"sonusmans prediction. The NT2 will fall by the wayside within the next couple years after everyone figures out that they don't sound all that great after all."
sonusman

sonusman, I don't necerily dissagree with you opinion, but saying something like that is very harsh and does object to many professional tests/statements/opinions. The NT2 is quite nice.

I aren’t going to test the mics or run to buy either of them, but here are some things I have found lying around.

"I Emailed the reviewer to thank him for a honest review, and asked him what he thought about Rode. He replied that the Rode NT1 (199$$) Is a well built good sounding Mic and he recommends it... So I dont think he has it in for lower priced equipment, maybe this thing just sounds bad.." Bassman (found in the Marshall mic Topic)

This guy who has proven to be honest likes Rode Mics.
1:0

"I was never a huge fan of the AT 4033 or 4050, at least not until recently. I've often thought of it as a "honky" mic -- a little too colored in the midrange for my taste. It can make a nasally singer sound even more so. I had also found that it sometimes doesn't play nice with certain mic preamps I've used in the past.
However, I recently did some work on a record in which many of the electric guitar tracks where miked with a 4050, and was amazed -- the tracks sounded killer. I've done more experimenting since, and I have to admit, these mics really do slay on amp cabinets. The same "honkiness" I was hearing on vocals actually make rock guitar track jump out of the speakers!
The 4033 is a cardioid, large diaphragm condenser with bass rolloff; the 4050 is essentially a dual-diaphragm version of the same mic, offering cardioid, omni, and bidirectional patterns. These are a little pricey perhaps when compared to mics of similar class and performance, but if you do a lot of electric guitar work, check them out."

"The NT1 is probably the mic steal of the decade. It's not just affordable; at a street price of about $250, this mic is downright cheap for what you get -- a large-diaphragm cardioid condenser that rubs weenies with mics costing hundreds of dollars more.
Not to say it's cheaply made; the NT1 is a pretty rugged mic as large-diaphragm condensers go. I wouldn't recommend you pound nails with it or dip it in glass of beer or anything; I'm just saying that the mic is well constructed. I will say I'm not really fond of the little plastic doo-hickey that's provided as a mounting device, though.
Rode may have considered naming this mic "Mr. Versatility." Soundwise, this mic can and will handle just about anything you can throw at it, though due to the lack of a bass rolloff switch, careful placement may be necessary.
The NT2 is very similar sounding, though a bit more sensitive and crisper in the high end. It's also equipped with dual patterns (cardioid, omni), a -10 dB pad, and a bass rolloff switch. The omni setting is gorgeous -- this is the mic I always reach for first on group backup vocals, and often for acoustic guitar as well. While the NT2 will set you back about $300 more than its little brother, the omni setting alone is worth it, at least to me."
Lionel Dumond (both topics by this guy, and both catogorised in "My Favorite Microphones") http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/62600CDE2A2ED769862566880015FFC5

You make your own interpretations of the reviews, i read that one was the best value for money and the other kicks on amps, what do you need. I give them both 1 point.
2:1
However "a little too colored in the midrange for my taste" does support Mike B's post, even if he didn't use it under the best circumstances. But i also don't know how this guy tested them (i would think in good conditions if it's posted on PROREC, but i could be wrong).

At this point I would like to say that we do understand if you did judge the NT2 a little too harsh sonusman.

Also you might be wondering if I am being one sided with the quotes, but I haven’t found a thing bad about either mic and am posting everything I find. The NT2 is more of a topic at the moment so there is more on it.
You can check out both mics at; www.audio-technica.com/index2.html www.rode.com.au

I have found full reports on the NT2 at; www.rode.com.au/audmed.htm www.rode.com.au/sound.htm www.rode.com.au/stusound.htm
Although these reports were all found on the rode web page and would be byest, none of the tests were done by rode.
5:1

My ratios are only a guide to the info I found not a guide to what is better. Remember that.

"The AT 4050 is based on the 4033...the problem is that you will want more than one! Although it isn't cheap it represents good value for money. 8.5/10"(NEXT MUSIC Australia)

The NTV got 9/10 but is a different mic to the NT2 so it doesn’t score a point while the AT4033 does.
5:2

I read in a magazine that the acoustic guitar in the spice girls (yacccckk!) was tried with a few mics and the Rode Classic(pretty much the NT2 with a tube) was by far the best. I also read on prorec that the Rode classic and NT2 “suited” more voices then some Neumans(not my opinion).

For both of these accounts I award the NT2 one point
6:2

I have found more one the NT2 then the AT 4033 so I wouldn’t recommend either over each other from these articles. Most of the Quotes are from a reliable source, but don’t buy a mic on anyone’s advice. I very rarely buy any product on someones good or bad experience and recommend you do the same. Take these accounts into consideration and go and listen to them yourself. Then decide which you desire if any at all. I know which I’d spend my money on.

I couldn’t post I found but I didn’t find anything really bad about either mic. I belive the NT2 is cheaper(or at least in Aus) so if the bang for the Buck is what you want it is probably better. But if you are after the certain sound of that AT 4033, no mic will give it to you but it, and therefore it’s not worth going second best because if it’s not what you want it’s not worth it.

Hope this has helped at least one person :), I really just put it up to so people could see(unfortunately not hear, yet) that neither mic is bad and both should be around as good quality studio condensers for a long time. :)

omnipotent


[This message has been edited by omnipotent (edited 03-31-2000).]
 
hey omnipotent, I have the at4050 and while I really think it's a very good vocal mic your right about micing guitar cabs this thing really shines on them!
 
Sonusman, I'm pretty new here, but all your replies come off like you're above everyone else here..................................Damn dude, I'm not vying for Santana's next album, I just want to make clean sounding recordings and get better; and better equip.; as I go. U need to relax a little. :rolleyes:
 
Mics

you're not likely to get any good acoustic sounds with large diaphragm condensors, small diaphragm pencil mics are best suited for this.
 
The Spam Early Warning Enhanced Reporting system has detected a new account with the following suspicious characteristics:

  • username contains a first name with a number at the end. (Spam weight: +25)
  • posted an inane message in response to a post dated more than two years ago (9 years). (Spam weight: +5)
  • posted an inane message in response to an ancient post within 24 hours of creating the account. (Spam weight: +20)
  • failed to post any other messages in the period of a typical browsing session (four hours). (Spam weight: +1000)

Based on our advanced threat modeling, it is estimated that there is a greater than 99.65% chance that the account matt1 will begin posting spam in a few days.

If the user matt1 does not respond to this comment within 48 hours, it will be considered admission of intent to spam and the moderators will be notified.


Sincerely,
The SEWER Team

:D
 
dgatwood said:
The Spam Early Warning Enhanced Reporting system has detected a new account with the following suspicious characteristics:

  • username contains a first name with a number at the end. (Spam weight: +25)
  • posted an inane message in response to a post dated more than two years ago (9 years). (Spam weight: +5)
  • posted an inane message in response to an ancient post within 24 hours of creating the account. (Spam weight: +20)
  • failed to post any other messages in the period of a typical browsing session (four hours). (Spam weight: +1000)

Based on our advanced threat modeling, it is estimated that there is a greater than 99.65% chance that the account matt1 will begin posting spam in a few days.

If the user matt1 does not respond to this comment within 48 hours, it will be considered admission of intent to spam and the moderators will be notified.


Sincerely,
The SEWER Team

:D
Click to expand...

Classic post! I think you nailed it, dg. :D
 
What if a mic being considered cannot be auditioned (no one I know has one, or no 30-day return policy)?
Yes I am aware of the ancientness of this topic, but since it's revived anyway...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top