Rode NTK or?

[dobro]

Middleman, frist, jnorman - I tried a combination of off-axis and pointing the diaphragm at my nose and singing just under it. (I'm thinking both are variations on the same principle - don't hit the diaphragm straight on.) I was really close to the mic - 3 inches - and the sound was okay. Thanks very much for your ideas.

It's lovely to be able to get close to my mic again. We're very happy with each other.

 

[ChrisPrescott]

These Rode NTK mics sound pretty cool. Does anyone think that $375 is a good price for one used or should I keep looking? Thanks. cP

 

[DJL]

Maybe a darker mic. I know I sound like a broken record but an Octava MC-319 (Soundroom only ) is still one of my favorite vocal mics. Just an idea.

After reading your comments about the Octava MC-319 over and over... I bought one, and I must admit that it's a keeper. Thanks for the tip. Oh, I need to get a shock mount for my 319, any suggestions? Thanks again.

 

[DJL]

A while back I made a CD for a software company with sibilant S’s and etc, After finding a female with natural sibilant S’s and etc as requested… we found that microphone placement, technique, along with microphone choice played a big roll in capturing these sounds. I think we found the Rode NT3 or maybe it was the AKG C1000S (I can't remember) to exaggerate the S’s on the female we used... but I'd have to look at the files again to be sure which mic it was. Anyway, the point is... you may want to pay attention to all these factors to help eliminate your sibilant S problem and etc.

 

[Robert D]

Robert D

I have an NTK, and yeS, it doeS Seem to acCentuate Certain SyllabolS in an unSatiSfactory SenSe SometimeS. Still, it SeemS Silly to Sideline SuCH a Sweet mic, when a SuppriSingly Simple and no coSt Solution exiStS.
Get the fish....the Spitfish! Go to Digitalfishphones.com, and download the fish fillets for free. The Spitfish is an amazingly good de-essor, and has been working well with my NTK tracks.
While your there, check out the other Digitalfishphone plugins, like Endorphin. Great stuff at any price, and amazing that it's free.
Cheers, RD

 

[knightsy]

I'm going to steal another engineers idea here, bu there goes -

If sibilance is a problem, try raising the mic in relation to the mouth, since essing tends to project downwards out of the mouth. This will probably however make the voice bassier.

 

[mike@THE CAVE]

i have a studo projects T3 i t has a nice high end ,not harsh and trebley.rich sound with a 6072 tube in it .
i think they are comeing down to 500$ it also has 9 setting to fool with.check it out

 

[knightsy]

These Rode NTK mics sound pretty cool. Does anyone think that $375 is a good price for one used or should I keep looking? Thanks. cP

I'm only paying $800 Australian for a brand new one, Rode have been slashing prices lately, that should translate to $450 - $500 US. Maybe you should shop around a bit for a new one.

 

[Glawfindle]

Maybe its actually worth people from other countries importing Rode mics from Oz!

 

[acorec]

Try the obvious. Buy a "pop filter" Get a large one with the mic stand mount. I have a FocusRight Platinum Pro and all kinds of LDC mics. I have a "lisp" that makes alot of siblence. These filters work incredibly well. Jusy buy it and try it. It will solve your problem with pops too.

 

[dobro]

Huh? A pop filter? I've got one. I made it myself. What difference is there between homemade pop filters and overpriced commercial ones? No difference, right?

Okay, here's some feedback for those as value this sort of thing. I've worked for a couple weeks with the Rode NTK singing off-axis as some people suggested. Here's what I've found: it helps avoid sibilance but the sound is *way* less attractive.

So I'm seriously pissed off right now. I've paid a lot for this mic, and I find it difficult to get the best sound it's capable of without also getting sibilance. I'm not pissed off because of the money I paid - I figure it this way: the money you pay is the price of admission, the price of learning what works and what doesn't. No, what pisses me off is how I've sung my guts out in lots of takes that are good performances, but the sound I'm getting is substandard.

So knowledge follows experience. And here's what I know: what I'm doing now sssucksss. Is it the Rode, or is it my voice? There's a way to find out, but it'll cost me a thousand dollars.

Please send me lots of money now.

 

[jnorman]

okay dobro, the check is in the mail. your expereince with off-axis is not surprising - LD condensers are notorious for poor off-axis performance. OTOH, it often doesnt take much of an off-axis angle to smooth out a rough top end, so you may not have yet found the exact balance where the NTK would work for you. but, bottom line, the variety of vocal styles and characteristics is exactly why there are so many LD mics out there. each mic might work well for one or two singers, and be exactly wrong for 100 others. the NTK, the SP mics, the AT mics, etc etc, all fall into this since NONE of them are even close to being neutral mics. now think back to when you have seen people on tv in pro studios recordiong tracks - what do see in front of them about 98% of the time? a U87. why, you might ask, when there seem to be so many people who "dont care for the U87"? many threads float around from less experienced engineers talking about the U87 being rather unexciting compared to the new XXX mic from YYY. well, boys and girls, the XXX mic might be popular for a year or so before submerging back into the cheap design muck from which it emerged, while the U87, which has already been the most popular and versatile studio mic for the past 30 years, will still be one of the most popular and versatile studio mics around. and why is that? it is exactly because the U87 is not designed to be hyped anywhere in its frequency response. it is a relatively neutral mic - it can be used on anybody with good results, and takes EQ extremely well. what you see with a cheaper mic, such as the tlm103 or SP C3, etc, is a pre-EQ'ed rsponse curve that might or might not work on a singer, but the problem is that if it doesnt work, you usually cannot EQ your way out of the problem. whereas with a U87, a C12, or even a 414, which are fairly flat mics, if the origianl track is not quite as lively or warm or whatever you might want, you have a good neutral track that can now be tailored to your needs without destrying the fundamental sound. yes, i know that this is not necessarily what project studio guys want to hear, when it seems impossible to them that they will ever to be able to afford a $1500 mic. but when you consider the way most projst studio guys will buy a $95 marshall and love it for 2 months and then get sick of it and sell it for next to nothing to buy a $200 ADK, same routine, then a $400 whatever, same experience, on and on - dont you think it might be a better idea to just buy the right equipment the first time? it is better to bust your butt and buy a good mic even if you have to cheap out everywhere else in the signal chain. and regardless of what you may have read elsewhere, in my expereience, a U87 through a mackie is a hell of a lot better setup than a cheap mic through even the finest tube or tranny-based preamp. yes there are some better mics out there than the U87, but most of them cost considerably more than $1500. as usual, best of luck with your search for your sound.

 

[DJL]

I must admit, I'm a victim of the scenario or picture jnorman painted with words, with one exception... I still love my budget microphones.

 

[Richard Monroe]

OK, the problem is sililance. It's not Rode NTK, and a pop filter won't help. It is true that virtually all mics have frequency response peaks and valleys. If I didn't want that, I'd sing through an ECM8000. The last thing on earth I want for a vocal mic is a neutral sound, and BTW, I sound like shit through a U87. I suppose people pay bizzillions of bucks for a U47 or a B.L.U.E. Cactus because it's neutral, right? I agree with one thing, C414 is a pretty neutral mic as they go, and there's no way I'm going to sing through it.
As I see it, you have 3 options. 1. Sell the NTK. That won't be a problem. Lots of us like it. I do, for some things. Then buy a mic that simply suits your voice better. As long as you stick with known good mics, selling the failures is not too hard, which drops the price of admission. Consider a really good dynamic, such as MD441 or SM7. 2. Change your technique, particularly your diction. You say they are good performances, but they're making your mic hiss. Think about it. I know several singers who can turn sibilance on and off like a switch. It may be the NTK is picking up bad sounds you never even knew you were making, because the mics you were using were not detailed enough to reproduce them. 3. EQ the shit out of your tracks, which will probably require a specialized unit or program, a major league de-esser. I personally advise against this, because I would always rather record one clean honest take that sounds good, and then not mess with it. I think good technique and mic placement beats
electronic tweaking just about every time. Good luck. I don't think NTK sucks, and you probably don't suck either, or you wouldn't care so much. I think you're having a few growing pains coming to terms with the mic. You have to either change the mic or change yourself. The latter is a pain in the ass, but it costs less, and makes you a better recording artist.-Richie

 

[Recording Engineer]

A C12 wouldn't be my idea of "neutral"...

A Studio Projects C3 with a good bit of distance or a Milab VIP-50 really close is my idea of "neutral". And no sibilance problems either! Some might consider the VIP-50 more "flat", but it certainly is more "neutral" when really close.

If buying a mic to use as a "community vocal mic", then I concur, a U87 is probably the way to go. [Though I still refuse to buy one even used, as for that money, I can think of others options I prefer more; for example, the ones mentioned above. I'll pickup the SPA 3u version when available though. But it really will be a totally different mic!]

But if buying a mic mainly for you to use on your own voice, then I say buy a mic that suits your voice best. And the only way you're going to be able to do that is to "Buy & Try". And spend a reasonable amount of time with it! If it's not doing the job, sell it and do it again, until you're happy! Yep, you're gonna loose money this way, but it's the only way you're truly going to find-out.

While I still wouldn't usually recommend the "U87 through Mackie" combo compared to an honestly good "budget" mic [whatever "budget" means] through a really great preamp, there are situations where I would.

 

[DJL]

Or they could keep the NTK (put it in the mic locker), and continue to search for their prefect vocal mic. I don't even know what their using to hear/monitor the NTK with... maybe that's part of the problem, or maybe he has a natural large amount of sililance even when he talks... or maybe for him the mic just sucks.

OK, the problem is sililance. It's not Rode NTK, and a pop filter won't help. It is true that virtually all mics have frequency response peaks and valleys. If I didn't want that, I'd sing through an ECM8000. The last thing on earth I want for a vocal mic is a neutral sound, and BTW, I sound like shit through a U87. I suppose people pay bizzillions of bucks for a U47 or a B.L.U.E. Cactus because it's neutral, right? I agree with one thing, C414 is a pretty neutral mic as they go, and there's no way I'm going to sing through it.
As I see it, you have 3 options. 1. Sell the NTK. That won't be a problem. Lots of us like it. I do, for some things. Then buy a mic that simply suits your voice better. As long as you stick with known good mics, selling the failures is not too hard, which drops the price of admission. Consider a really good dynamic, such as MD441 or SM7. 2. Change your technique, particularly your diction. You say they are good performances, but they're making your mic hiss. Think about it. I know several singers who can turn sibilance on and off like a switch. It may be the NTK is picking up bad sounds you never even knew you were making, because the mics you were using were not detailed enough to reproduce them. 3. EQ the shit out of your tracks, which will probably require a specialized unit or program, a major league de-esser. I personally advise against this, because I would always rather record one clean honest take that sounds good, and then not mess with it. I think good technique and mic placement beats
electronic tweaking just about every time. Good luck. I don't think NTK sucks, and you probably don't suck either, or you wouldn't care so much. I think you're having a few growing pains coming to terms with the mic. You have to either change the mic or change yourself. The latter is a pain in the ass, but it costs less, and makes you a better recording artist.-Richie

 

[Middleman]

It's gotta be either your preamp or you monitors or the lack of a compressor to put the sound under control going into your tracks. The NTK is the best of all my mics, it sounds just excellent.

Last, it may be that the mic is just not for your voice. If you are nasally and a tenor it might not be the thing.

 

[chessparov]

In the Studio Projects line, the B1 (haven't directly tried the B3),
is very "neutral"-WAY more than the current AKG 414.
It sounds totally different than the C series.
Out of the AT's, the "sleeper" AT 3527 omni, is also mostly neutral, with a bit of "darkness" to the tone.
A "good" Oktava MC-012 (or MK-012/same thing) is also fairly neutral.
Just to name a few... (haven't tried the Shure's or CAD's)

Dobro, since you mentioned you might want to sing CLOSE to the mike, I still think you should at least try a EV PL20 or RE20, along with the other usual suspects of dynamic microphones.

Chris

 

[dobro]

I appreciate this round of responses - no bullshit, near as I can tell, and lots of experience. JNorman talks about the price of admission to Goodmicland and Weston talks about the necessary expense of Buy and Try Until You Find the Mic for You, and both guys are saying something true.

Which is the route I plan to take without flinching if continuing to work with mic placement (C7) and singing technique (Richie) don't work. I'm a homer - I'll work with the cheaper approach first. But I know for a fact that what jnorman and RE are saying is true - it costs money to get the best results.

 

[chessparov]

Dobro, with all due respect, agree with everything in your last post,
except the "it costs money to get the best results", unless you meant
MOST of the time. Always those pesky exceptions...

Chris