nt3 or nt1? please heeeelp!!!

L

lemonsucker

New member
i play electric guitar and i'm planning to buy a new mic (i already have a 57 and a 58) to record good vocals, to use as a drum overhead and, possibly, to record guitar amps.
i've heard rode nt1 and i really like it, but many people are advising the nt3, saying it's more versatile.
i've read that the difference is in diaphragm width. but how does that actually affect the sound of the mic?
any help (even other mics suggestions)will be appreciated. thanx! :-)
 
SAME PROBLEM HERE

i had the exact same dilemma. I was thinking about the nt1 and nt3. i ended up springing for the nt3 because i only had $150 to spend ('im a kid and can't afford much ;))
Well, I think for vocals the nt1 is better than the nt3. much clearer and captures more of your voice. the nt3 is a good all around mic and could be used for overhead, but so can the nt1. the nt3 also is very loud (sometimes good, sometimes bad) and it runs on a 9 volt battery instead of using phantom power (u don't need to worry about using a battery if you have a mixer.) Where well does this leave you, I'll tell you:
If you need good vocals primarly and u have the extra $50, DEFINITLEY go for the nt1. but if what you need is more of a workhorse mic that could be used for many things, go for the nt3 (i use the term workhorse because the mic is very durbale and its okay if you drop it). Also its a good compromise for vocals if it's not that important. Also the nt3s good if you don't have a mixer, but im sure you do, but if you don't, you should buy a mixer before getting any condensor ;)
Okay, I hope I helped. Happy shopping
 
In my mind, it just ain't a vocal mic unless it's a side-address mic. (NT1) Know what I mean? Otherwise, it's an instrument mic. (NT3)

I really do like my Audio-Technica AT3525, though. One day I hope to have a matched pair of 4033s.


Isaiah
 
The NT3 is a small diaphragm mic and the NT1 is a large Diaphragm. In technical terms I can't really explain the difference because I don't know. hehe. In Layman's terms, The large diaphragm is going to be a much fuller sounding mic. However, I have had a lot of problems with "boominess" and "boxyness" using my AT4033 on acoustic guitars. From what I gather, the small diaphragm mics are really more geared to instrument micing (ie: guitars, drumes, etc.)I assume that since you said you were micing your electric you are micing an amp. I would definitely not use a large diaphragm (NT1) for that. I would go with either the NT3 or the AKGC1000s. I personally haven't made up my mind yet either. hehe
-gman
 
Kikling has the right idea.

SM57's are the industry standard for miking guitar amps.

Large diaphram condensers pickup up more transient information because the area of the pickup ,if you will, is larger. This is why they are great for vocals or anything else that has to be articulate.

I don't know very many guitar amps that reproduce a full frequency spectrum so you don't need a large dia condenser or even a small one to pick up the signal. Secondly the SM57 is a dynamic mic so it can take a better beating at the head than a condenser can. You can however use the large or small condenser to pickup a bit of room (maybe 10ft. from the amp) and mix it with the SM57 that is at the amp screen.

I love all these mics you guys are speaking of. The NT3 is a great mic for vocal and universal for everything else. I think the NT1 will do a better job specifically on vocals.

Both on guitar (acoustic). Large at the bridge, and small on the neck.The SM58 and 57 lose the detail on the very high end so it will only work in a pinch for something sensitive as acoustic music. Experience only talking here. Don't mean to sound knowitall. A lot of years before they had forums like this to ask.
 
for some reason, i've read that small diaphram condensors pick up more transients. i've only read this, i don't have any actual experience with these mics so maybe my resources were inaccurate but they seemed to make sense. i've also read that small diaphrams are more accurate than large diaphram condensors and that the off axis pick up of large diaphram mics have a big midrange dip in the freq response. This is why i hear that small diaphram condensors are more versatile than large ones because you can use them in XY with better results since you don't have a strange lack of midrange in the sound. but large diaphrams are fine for spaced micing. i've also heard the reason large diaphram mics are good for vocals is that they tend to not pick up the very initial attack of the voice making it more smooth or something. i dunno if all of this is correct...i hope someone can straighten it out cuz then i'm an idiot. if it is somewhat correct, you could use a large diaphram mic on guitar amp off axis to get more of a scooped midrange sound. but what ears said, condensors are overkill on guitar amps and using a dynamic is a better choice.
 
Ears said:
...Large diaphram condensers pickup up more transient information because the area of the pickup ,if you will, is larger...
Click to expand...
Hmmm... no, sorry... that's completely wrong....

High-transient sounds are better handled by a small-diaphragm mic. There is less mass to the capsule allowing it to respond more quickly to fast transient info.
You can prove it easily by recording a cabasa - the large diaphragm mic will tend to smear the attack compared to the small-diaphragm, which will capture the sound more accurately.

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound
 
Funny you mention that, Ears...
I went to a local studio once and the guy there used a TLM-170 to mic the guitar amp...which kinda surprised me, but I guess they wanted a different sort of sound...cleaner, maybe. I dunno.

Isaiah
 
I bought a Rodent 1 and was absolutely floored by how quiet it is (considering the cheapo $200 price).Here's my take on what those clever Aussies are about:

Imitate the legendary Neumann sonics and cosmetics
(insert your own arguement as to how close they got)
Reduce price by eliminating features like polar pattern selection (cardioid etc)and pads for high SPL.
Manufacture using cheaper materials in non-essential areas (plastic case).
QC like a big dog and get the reputation up there.

Like all big condensors,get a pop screen for vocal use and a shockmount (gotta have it for sound isolation or you'll be EQing out that low end rumble from the floor).
Another nice mike in the same price range is the AKG C2000.

Tom
 
I stand corrected sorry bvaleria....
The small is more transient. You are right. I should not have made comparison to transient but more articulation due to wide frequency response.I should read my posts I guess.The small condenser is better to capture the transient sound but with a limited frequency window. Sorry to all.

Prism.
You can use anything to mic anything. The SM57 is the norm on a cabinet.
Because it can take the punch and has a sweet spot that gets along with guitar amps and snare drums. I have tried it for vocals live and it sucked on my voice. I like the SM87 better. My duo partner however sounds great through a SM57.
I also use an AKG D series on guitar amps. And a large condenser for room sound.
 
thank you all guys for helping! i think i'll go for the nt3.
i read a post a few weeks ago about the nt3 sounding very good on vocals too, so i'm positive now.
i'll close mic the amp with the 57 and get the room from the nt3.
my home studio is now almost finished. i just have to choose the monitors, but i'll buy tannoy reveals if i'll find them here in italy. thank you again! i'm going to post a stupid question about compression in the newbie forum now!!!
 
Prism said:
In my mind, it just ain't a vocal mic unless it's a side-address mic. (NT1) Know what I mean? Otherwise, it's an instrument mic. (NT3)

I really do like my Audio-Technica AT3525, though. One day I hope to have a matched pair of 4033s.


Isaiah
Click to expand...

Uh, the NT3 is a side address mic.
 
Really? Judging by the looks of the NT3 I thought for certain it was not a side-address mic.

Isaiah
 
Prism said:
Really? Judging by the looks of the NT3 I thought for certain it was not a side-address mic.

Isaiah
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like it does it. But, as I have 2 sitting right in front of me, I can tell you for a fact that they are side address mics. Believe me, took me a little while to figure out why my recordings with it sucked when I had the top of the mic pointed at my accoustic :-)

That's when I figured out what that little gold dot on the side of the mic is for, the sweet spot on the mic.
 
Huh?

Are you sure...I used one from the top .......seemed to be the best attack. Not the side..We are talking about the NT3 right?
 
I saw this thread and had to read it...cool opinions from everyone...I am a Rode user myself, but I opted for the NT2 after a recommendation from a couple of pro engineers I know. The NT1 is a great mic, but if you have the extra cash, spring for the NT2...the first vocal I cut I was AMAZED by this mic.

It has a 135 SPL rating, so I am sure you can use it for other applications, though I use mine for vocals and acoustic guitar right now.

I was really sold on getting an NT1 and when I heard the NT2 I was very glad to drop the extra cash.

Just my input...

Pete

P.S. To the guy who said the NT3 "is very durable, you can drop this thing" or something to that effect:
YOU SHOULD NEVER DROP A MIC!

ONE Drop can RUIN a microphone, particularly a delicate gold-sputtered diaphragm one. So treat these things like Tim Allen treats his tools!

=)
 
I want an NT3 as soon as I can afford one for my live gigs. I love my NT1. I just read a review in an Electronic Musician fron 97 or 98 when they came out,499.00 retail then.They said it stacked up to mics they used costing 2 to 3 times the price. What a great mic for the home recordist.
 
Ears said:
Huh?

Are you sure...I used one from the top .......seemed to be the best attack. Not the side..We are talking about the NT3 right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am quite sure. The thing is they are so sensitive you could point the top at source and get a descent signal. But try pointing the gold dot on side directly at the source and you should really be able to hear the difference.

Maybe in this case it sounded better to you because you weren't getting the full signal possible, or were capturing a certain frequency that you liked by NOT having the condensor in line with audio source. After having used this mic a few times I could definately see where pointing the condensor right at the sound source could give too hot of a signal. These things are really sensitive, sometimes a good thing, sometimes not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top