Rode M3, Rode Nt3, Rode M2

[the-audio-man]

Hi all,

I thought I would share my thoughts and experience with all 3 of these microphones from rode.

There's not much in the way of NT3 vs M3 on the internet so here goes.

I purchased 2 of the M3's recently. One was for something to try that was new and built by Rode that I could use for various tasks in the studio and live.

They were at a good price so I thought I would give them a go. I started with one, then a few weeks later I purchased a second one so they must be good yeah?

These microphones are really good for live vocals, overheads, cymbals/hats and...well that's about it really. It's "good" for acoustic guitar but that's it. It seems a little scooped and distant on acoustic guitar (which may appeal to some). I tried it on a 2 different fender amps and I wasn't happy with the sound at all. I later went back to my normal microphone for that. I should also note they do not feedback that easily live either which is great. It's a great mic if you want to record a gig or if you want to use it for some studio applications.

My interest in the NT3 grew and I wondered if there was any/little difference so I went and picked up a Rode NT3. There was a huge difference between the microphones. The NT3 was instantly louder, fuller, warmer and brighter all at the same time. The NT3's killed as overhead mics and sounded to my ear smoother for electric guitar amps and much nicer for acoustic guitar. They also sound that good for vocals I used them in a session on two female singers (in a studio situation). The next day I ordered a second NT3 and they are now my main overhead mics.

People comment how nice the hats sound in my recordings and I either use the Rode M3 or a mic in a drum pack I have. The Rode M3 sounds great for hats in my opinion.

So whats the verdict? How much better is the NT3 than the M3?

Well if I gave the NT3 10 points the M3 would be a 6.5 - 7. It gets the extra .5 point because it's far better for live vocals where the NT3 wants to feedback easier.

In a studio situation the NT3's in my opinion are a fuller, warmer, clearer more versatile mic. The M3's are great for their price but the do sound really scooped after you use a NT3.

The M2 is a live condenser microphone and the only other one I can use to A/B it against is my old JTS NX-8.8. The Rode M2 kills it. It's got a darker vibe about it in terms of audio but it's more natural sounding than my JTS. I really like it live, I use it when I record live for bands or for myself. It seems to do the job quite nice but the on/off switch sucks. ahh well

Any questions lemme know.

T.A.G

 

[mattr]

I treat them as completely unrelated mics (which they are). To me the M3 is a 'swiss-army' mic, like the SM57 or C1000... its cheap, but point it at almost anything and it will sound half decent. I use my M3 only for close-mic'ing things, i.e. drums, amps, etc. On the other hand I use NT3s for overheads and distance/room/ambience mic'ing, something I would never consider doing with an M3. I often use NT3s as the main stereo pair for live recording of acoustic performances. For the price though, I'd still say the M3 is a great mic and certainly rivals the '57 in terms of quality and versatility.

 

[the-audio-man]

lately, I have been using the m3's to mic the bottom of the snare drum as well as the hi-hats and it's been sounding great. Under the snare they seem to do a great job. I did a first test/recording today and the M3 was great. It really seemed to fatten out the tone as well as give me the crisp sound of the snare itself

 

[121234...]

I used NT5s as overheads on drums. Love 'em.

 

[lectrolad]

G'day all, my first post. Audio-man you made the following statement when refering to the Rode M2: "but the on/off switch sucks." Would you kindly elaborate. Is it noisy or silent? Thanks.