NT1: Yeeeesh! !

[chessrock]

Just got done mixing some stuff for a new client.

Real nice little funky / blues piece. His vocal tracks were about the shriekiest nightmare of sibilance and harsh ear-grating high end. Yuck.

I asked him what mic it was, and he said NT1.

Now I know what people are talking about when they dog that mic. The one this guy was using was very much worth dogging.

Anyone still using this mic really owes it to themselves to try something else.

 

[ad0lescnts]

shit.. ) : like what???

T

 

[Chris F]

Like maybe, um, er.....the C1, perhaps?

 

[dres]

Yeah I'd have to agree... I've recently upgraded to an NTK an they are much better than the NT1's. I persevered with mine for 2+ years and I know exactly what your talking about.. It is possible to get a half decent sound with a lot of processing but that silibance is really hard to tame.

I now have 2 NT1's now I'm considering selling... but they seem OK for some other uses, just not vocals.

 

[neirbo]

My old band used both an NT1 and and NT3 on vocals for a demo CD. Man, the NT3 just blew the NT1 away. The NT1 sounded thin, shrill and hollow by comparison. The NT1 did an adequate job as drum overheads, but even there it was not impressive.

Given how many other better options there are, and for less money, I can't see why anyone would buy an NT1. Maybe on certain instruments it would be "the" mic, but it is hard to imagine what.

 

[chessrock]

shit.. ) : like what???

Anything. All the minor little subjective rambles you see on this board over whether to get a C1 over a Marshall or an Audio Technica over whatever really are insignificant.

Just get something that isn't shrill and grating on your ears. Most of the mics we talk about here, with the exception of the Marshall 2001, all seem to do the job just fine. And a lot of it is a matter of personal taste anyway.

I just couldn't believe what I heard out of this mic. Even when there was no sound going in to it, I could still almost hear this barely-audible high-pitched ringing. Probably just my ears hurting from the last siblant passage. My point is that mic technology really has made some dramatic quantum leaps in the last few years. And if you're still using the NT1, you owe it to yourself to have a listen to something else.

You might even be able to sell it on ebay and get two mics of better quality with the money.

 

[neirbo]

Rode NT1 on Ebay - Around $130

Marshall 603 and v67m, new - around $170.

I can't think of a better way to spend $40

 

[jitteringjim]

My NT-1 served me well for about 2yrs. I bought it new when it was still $299.

Yup, there are better mics on the cheap out there today.

I don't regret buying it though. @ the time it was the best bang for buck. It was indeed a bit siblant, but a deesser kicked its ass into line well.

Perhaps your client didn't know how to properly record/mix with it?

 

[crazydoc]

Marshall 603 and v67m, new - around $170.

Where?

 

[neirbo]

Mars had their version of the v67, called the v67m, for $99. But, I just looked on their webpage and didn't see it. Maybe it is discontinued, I don't know. I've seen the 603 various places for around $70, but now all I can find is the 603/2001 combo. I just took a very quick look - I'm sure you can find the 603 somewhere for around $70 if you look around. Shreveaudio.com used to have them for a good price, but you need to call to find out what the price is.

 

[Robert D]

The Oktava MC319 is a good alternative. No hyped upper mids, very smooth in this price catagory.
Regards, RD

 

[chessrock]

You can still get the Marshall v93 or 2003 for about 150 bones.

 

[dres]

Perhaps it's a mute point now but as I mentioned in another thread there are 2 versions of the NT1 floating around that I know of. The very early ones had a capsule with a black plastic surround and these were significantly less silibant than the later ones with a white plastic surround on the capsule.

I've got a feeling the earlier model actually sounds better ... certainly less silibant. I did have one of each for a short period.

My 2 cents

 

[chessparov]

Sold mine! (NT1)

Chris

 

[jitteringjim]

Sold mine! (NT1)

Chris

MEEEE 2

 

[jeap]

i use mine as a drum overhead now and i like it there!

it was a big disappointment on vocals.

i heard that the nt-1 uses a chinese capsule and it is only assembled in austrailia.

 

[chessrock]

I've got a feeling the earlier model actually sounds better ... certainly less silibant. I did have one of each for a short period.

That explains a lot. I have another friend who owns one, and he swears he doesn't understand all the talk about the NT1 being harsh/siblant.

He happens to have bought his the year it first came out.

 

[dres]

chessrock: so I'm not the only one..

The irony is at the time I purchased the second NT1 I complained via email to Rode that it didn't sound the same (I was intending to do stereo recordings). Peter Freedman himself replied and explained they occasionaly "upgraded" components... he offered to swap my older one for a new one ... I perhaps foolishly took him up. There was a big difference in the response.

Perhaps these older NT1's are still a good buy on ebay ?!

food for thought

 

[jitteringjim]

There was a big difference in the response.

Yeah, I had one of the "older ones" too. I thought it could be a bit "essy" at times (due in some part to my compressor, come to find out) but I never really thought of it as harsh. The only thing I didn't like it for was as a drum overhead.
I always suspected RODE of substituting cheaper, lower quality parts in the later models to keep the price down (or lower the price altogether.)

 

[MK-Ultra]

I am another who will stand by the NT1. I bought mine 4 year ago, and it served me quite well, without the aforementioned problems. I did upgrade to an NTK, and that is the mic I tend to use the most these days. When I get my income tax refund, I intend to get another one. I really love the sound of the NTK.