I think my new Rode NT1-A can be fake.

[Icantthinkofaname]

Some of my most used microphones are Rode M5s. Cheap, cheerful, sound decent... and go out to bat in situations where I wouldn't necessarily want to risk nicer microphones (audience or stage fronts at festivals, hanging from scaf towers or rigging, etc). A Rode M3 on the other hand? Awful. Hated it.

Microphones are just tools in that sense. Tony Faulker now has his name on a model of Rode microphone. The TF-1. You would hope it works along side Schoeps and Neumanns given the price tags are similar.

Barbra Streisand also toured with Rode vocal microphones back in the 1990s. Nobody new they were rode microphones though, as she had an endorsement deal with Sennheiser. The FOH engineer hated the sound of them, so consulted with Rode to retrofit Rode internals. A compliment to Rode? Perhaps. That FOH audio engineer did also create Apogee Digital and Lake Technologies...

I'm actually really interested in the TF-5 but for a Rode mic, but at the price I'd rather buy some Neumann or Sennheisers (I've seen the MKH 50 on sale every now and then).

How does one go about measuring 'congested'? ... Sounds much more like a marketing term than a scientific one.
It is a variation in the linearity of the frequency response, or some type of distortion ?
Is there any particular part of that U47/NT1 comparison clip I linked to earlier that you could point to which illustrates this 'congestion' - or indeed where the sound specifically gets 'poky'?.....
I've never had much luck trying to work out quite what these less orthodox terms actually mean, from an engineering point of view.

I think congested might mean a bump in the mids but without detail or articulation in the high end. That's how I imagine it anyway, but definitely one of those vague terms like "smeary" which I usually see as a knock against a cheaper microphone or less preferred one when compared to a pricier one rather than an actual observed flaw of a microphone.

 

[kingkorg]

I've never encountered a condenser mic with any kind of bump, or any non linearity (frequency wise) below say 1K. They might taper off or boost slightly, but all of the condensers, unless there is something wrong, are dead flat below 1k. I have no idea what might be causing this psychoacousic phenomenon.

 

[Sammas]

I've never encountered a condenser mic with any kind of bump, or any non linearity below say 1K. They might taper off or boost slightly, but all of the condensers unless there is something wrong are dead flat below 1k. I have no idea what might be causing this psychoacousic phenomenon.

Totally. It has nothing to do with something as simple as frequency response, though the U47 sounds more mid forward to me. It is probably more akin to system-based resonances more than anything...

Which is really how I would sum up my approach to making good sounding audio and mixes. When it comes to making stuff that sounds natural, it is a whack-a-mole game of knocking those artificial resonances on the head. They are the thing that makes me most aware that I am listening to a recording, rather than something that strives to hide the production process entirely.

The more and more I listen the two recordings, the more and more different they sound. You can get the originals here -

By congested I mean busy to the point that it restricts movement. The U47 recording really naturally emphasises the fundamental tones of her voice which makes the whole recording sit really neatly forward in the sound field, with a nice even top to bottom frequency distribution. The NT-1 doesn't feel that way at all. There are a bunch of subtle, weird resonances mid range that shift based on the note she is singing. It makes it feel flat and constrained and pushed back in the sound field.

I'm actually really interested in the TF-5 but for a Rode mic, but at the price I'd rather buy some Neumann or Sennheisers (I've seen the MKH 50 on sale every now and then).

I think congested might mean a bump in the mids but without detail or articulation in the high end. That's how I imagine it anyway, but definitely one of those vague terms like "smeary" which I usually see as a knock against a cheaper microphone or less preferred one when compared to a pricier one rather than an actual observed flaw of a microphone.

The NT-1 generally gets lambasted because professional audio engineering is about delivering the best possible work within a predefined number of billable hours. You want tools that work with you, not fight against you. That is coincidentally also why most audio engineers use a normal vocabulary to describe sound. It is service job, after all. Clients are normal people. In a world where one persons bright, is another persons dull, having a normal conversation with them is the quickest way to arrive at your destination of a finished mix. "I think this sounds dull" starts a conversation. "This microphone lacks 5kHz" shuts people out from the conversation. There are two types of audio engineers in this world... those who know how to speak to clients, and those who have no clients.

It is surprising how many people don't understand the basic role of an audio engineer. If you are expecting a document that says "use this here because it will make it sound good", you're in the wrong job. That is how lego works. Audio engineering is nothing more than problem solving. You don't do that by buying into hype. You also don't do it by just reading a manual, or tech sheet, or instruction book. You put microphones on stands and kick those ears into action, because critical listening skills and a thorough understanding of the tools in action are the only thing that is really going to get you by.

 

[k brown]

Put most simply, there's waaay more to how a microphone sounds than frequency response. For example, no mic is completely free of harmonic distortion, and the 'order' and relative amplitude of them affects how the mic sounds - none of which is displayed in a frequency response graph.

The resolution of fine details/transient response (affected by many physical and electrical elements of the design) also is not reflected in response charts. Waterfall plots used to analyze loudspeakers can show some of these similar aspects of transducer behavior. I'm surprised something similar hasn't become a standard way of showing microphone performance.


Something absurd about that Rode comparison vid, is the positioning of the mics. A human voice changes considerably along the vertical axis. Those two mics are hearing two different timbres of that person's voice. A far more valid comparison would be obtained by placing the mics side-by-side, as close as possible to each other, making sure the singer is precisely centered horizontally between them. That way, both mics are the same degree of off-axis horizontally. There is far less change of timbre of the voice along the horizontal axis, and it is symetrical L-to-R. That's not true of just above, and just below the mouth; those are two different sounds.

Not to mention the fact that no two U47s sound much alike, so any shootout with a '47 is of questionable value.

Also the pop filter isn't covering both capsules equally - pretty sloppy test.

 

[rogs]

... Not to mention the fact that no two U47s sound much alike, so any shootout with a '47 is of questionable value...

With that as a reality, objective comparisons become almost impossible then.
However, with the U47 most definitely a 'Veblen good' we are entering the world of 'The Emperor's new clothes', and that tends to defy objective observation....
I still don't personally believe the price differential between the U47 and the NT1 can be justified, on purely technical grounds.

Now, when your clients are the sort of folk who have to be seen wearing a specific type of shoe - or carrying a particular make of handbag - then all the rules change.
Not really my world...

 

[rogs]

...... You can get the originals here - ....

I'm having trouble downloading those Soundcloud files?....

I've posted copies of the original 24 bit files here: NT1 v U47 24 bit files - Google Drive

 

[kingkorg]

The resolution of fine details/transient response (affected by many physical and electrical elements of the design) also is not reflected in response charts. Waterfall plots used to analyze loudspeakers can show some of these similar aspects of transducer behavior. I'm surprised something similar hasn't become a standard way of showing microphone performance.

It is impossible to compensate for the waterfall artefacts created by the speaker and calibration mic vs DUT mic. Waterfall abnormalities and distortion created by the speaker will always be larger than in the DUT mic. As for the transient response, it is very easy to measure and it's directly related to frequency response.

 

[k brown]

I don't doubt it's easy to measure, but mfgrs never publish such data. There's sometimes not even fully informative response and polar graphics. Used to be fairly common to see both 90 degree and 180 degree responses for cardioids; hardly ever these days.

Which reminds me that too few people try using bright cards at up 90 degrees off axis to tame the top - most cards have very good response at 90 degrees; many assume a card instantly sounds like crap that far off axis; that it's 'just not done'.

 

[MicMaven]

also why most audio engineers use a normal vocabulary to describe sound. It is service job, after all. Clients are normal people. ...having a normal conversation with them is the quickest way to arrive at your destination ... There are two types of audio engineers in this world... those who know how to speak to clients, and those who have no client ....

Sidebar Comment -- What Sammas says applies with equal force in other fields. It is about communicating, getting your point across - not impressing folks with perceived expertise. An expert appears more expert if he can communicate effectively with non-experts. A really good Professor can explain anything to a 5th Grader, and still look smart. A trial lawyer in a former life, I quickly realized juries respond well to a straightforward, common man approach telling the client's story. If client, jury, or (worse) Judge does not follow the story, then there is no story. J

 

[mikeaude]

I'd like to tell a bit more of my Rode NT1A story. A good friend of mine uses one to record tracks for songs that we work on together. He records tracks, and I record tracks, and we send them back and forth. I had bought into the "older is better" idea completely. I'd record something with my hand-built U87 clone with a Heiserman capsule, and his tracks would sound better. I'd record with my 414 ULS, and his tracks would sound better. I'd record with an AKG 460, and his tracks would sound better. The same thing for my AKG 451/452s. His tracks always sounded bigger, more life-like, and to me, subjectively better. I though that there must be something wrong with my mics. I had the capsule replaced in my 414. His tracks still sounded better.

It turns out that I like bright clear mics, especially in omni. I love my 414 XL2, and I'm sure that most of the people who dislike the NT1A would also dislike the 414 XL2. We all like different things, but we often talk as if there is an objective standard.

There is a guy on Gearspace that is very outspoken. I used to think that everything he said must be right. He used classic gear that I could never afford. One day., I decided to track down something he recorded. It sounded like a slightly more modern Motown recording, and that would be exactly what a lot of people like. But, it wasn't for me. So, every bit of advice he gave was perfectly to suited to someone who shares his taste in sound, but had no relevance at all for what speaks to me.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with an NT1A if that's the sound you like. It's big, clear, and realistic. It has just a bit of dirt when a loud sound comes through, which seems to be a quality of an edge terminated capsule. I think it sounds great.

 

[kingkorg]

I have a challenge. Here are the files yet again, but this time they are slightly different. Who wants to guess which is u47, and which NT1? I would like to hear how did you spot the difference, and which part is the giveaway for any of the mics? With timestamps.

Here are GDrive links if attachments don't work.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1R95-TU1wokh6tEJXAAMAnNzfQOO90TYa?usp=sharing

 

[k brown]

'Slightly different'? - how?

 

[kingkorg]

I'd like people to try to guess first before i explain

 

[k brown]

'kk': International Man of Mystery.

 

[Sammas]

I have a challenge. Here are the files yet again, but this time they are slightly different. Who wants to guess which is u47, and which NT1? I would like to hear how did you spot the difference, and which part is the giveaway for any of the mics? With timestamps.

Here are GDrive links if attachments don't work.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1R95-TU1wokh6tEJXAAMAnNzfQOO90TYa?usp=sharing

I'll have a splash. Mic B is the NT-1. That is purely on the basis that it sounds the worse of the two. It has a similarly weird top end to the original NT-1 recording, like too much 8-10kHz to compensate for a lack of 5kHz. It gives the esses more of a sizzle than a fizz. It also has a notably grubbier low mid range. Whatever processing you have done has made it grubby in both files, but Mic B is the worst. You can hear it when she moves up in range at 7 seconds. Depending on what note she hits, random, unmusical resonances start popping out between something like 250Hz and 350Hz.

 

[kingkorg]

I am very glad you chimed in, and you are right. B is the NT1. However, the mics are matched for the frequency response, and the matching EQ is applied to the NT1. When played back to back, analyzed with several software analyzers they give the exact same results, frequency wise they are IDENTICAL with the eq applied to NT1!

I cant for the life of me hear any difference between the two even when i loop short, critical sections. As you obviously hear the difference there is no doubt there's something to it. And now we can conclude it's not frequency response related.

Some clock drift is introduced to both files as a measure to prevent people do the null test to find out which is which. So they won't null with the original files.

 

[Whoops]

their SDCs (especially the omni) are thought of highly enough by top Classical engineer Tony Faulkner that he uses them right alongside his Schoeps and Neumanns.

I wonder how much Rode paid that guy to say that.
Schoeps and Rode shouldn't even be in the same sentence

 

[mhelin]

I'll have a splash. Mic B is the NT-1. That is purely on the basis that it sounds the worse of the two. It has a similarly weird top end to the original NT-1 recording, like too much 8-10kHz to compensate for a lack of 5kHz. It gives the esses more of a sizzle than a fizz. It also has a notably grubbier low mid range. Whatever processing you have done has made it grubby in both files, but Mic B is the worst. You can hear it when she moves up in range at 7 seconds. Depending on what note she hits, random, unmusical resonances start popping out between something like 250Hz and 350Hz.

Made the same guess but I don't think the NT-1 esses are that much worse, U87 esses just sound different, more 'vintage', not necessary as 'true' as with NT-1. I think if we had the waterwall plots for both mics with some plosive inputs it would give us much more information than a frequency response plot.

 

[Sammas]

Made the same guess but I don't think the NT-1 esses are that much worse, U87 esses just sound different, more 'vintage', not necessary as 'true' as with NT-1. I think if we had the waterwall plots for both mics with some plosive inputs it would give us much more information than a frequency response plot.

The newer files are definitely closer to the original, but I would still be reaching to pull down some more 7kHz and above, while pushing up some more 5kHz in both NT-1 recordings. The u47 just sounds more complete and balanced in the top end to me.

 

[k brown]

I wonder how much Rode paid that guy to say that.
Schoeps and Rode shouldn't even be in the same sentence

If you'd ever used one of the SDCs fitted with the NT45-O omni capsule, you wouldn't say that. Someone as successful and in-demand as Tony Faulkner has no need to shill for a mic company.