mobyd
Well-known member
Interesting... but we all know that if it wasn't made by old Germans using valves that haven't been made for 70 years and cost the deposit on a small house then it's not worth a damn thing.
I think my new Rode NT1-A can be fake.
- Thread starter FriedhelmWinter
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Interesting... but we all know that if it wasn't made by old Germans using valves that haven't been made for 70 years and cost the deposit on a small house then it's not worth a damn thing.
k brown
Well-known member
To be clear that vid is about the much newer NT1, not the NT1-A that the OP has; very different mic (different capsule, anyway - not sure how different the electronics are).
Last edited:
Icantthinkofaname
Well-known member
Yeah the newer NT1 sounds really good, I'm hoping Rode eventually makes an NT2000 style mic with a double-sided version of that capsule.
tokenterprises
New member
Speaking of crappy microphones - Bruno Mars recorded "Uptown Funk" into a crappy SM57 in an ageing studio barely modified since 1969. The gear was less than "Hollywood Perfect."
But what would Bruno Mars know about recording hits? He must be doing it all wrong.
But what would Bruno Mars know about recording hits? He must be doing it all wrong.
tokenterprises
New member
The electronics in the PCBs since 2020 are virtually identical, if not identical. The board layouts are different, but the schematics and components are identical, or very close to it. And yes, the capsule and mount are slightly different, resulting in a different spectral signature. The older silicone mount of the NT1A is actually more effective of a shock absorber than the NT1's hard plastic mount.
The capsule is a major contributor to the ridiculously quiet self-noise of the microphone. Replacing the capsule with ANY other capsule results in greater self-noise, sometimes much more noise. Few microphones can even compete on how quiet this microphone is. The electronics are modern, the design adds virtual silence to the signal, and the capsule has no faults from an acoustic standpoint - albeit, with a "different" spectral signature than the "non-crappy" microphones others must be referring to. And yes, the signal is not balanced, but this is not rare or unique in the microphone world. There have been at least 5 different iterations of capsules used in the NT1 and NT1A over the years - from my personal observations in breaking down the microphones and modifying them. By the way - there is no real mod that is necessary on this microphone. To say this microphone doesn't perform well from a technical standpoint is a complete lie.
k brown
Well-known member
The main reason people want to mod the early SMD NT1-A is that they want a mic that isn't so bright.
https://gearspace.com/board/geekzone/452216-rode-nt1-capsule-replacement.html
Plus Jim Williams' original through-hole parts specs for the first NT1 got cheapened in later iterations, and some like to restore some of those nice, original parts (like the Wima caps) - pretty tough on the newer SMD boards, though.
http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Rode/NT1
https://gearspace.com/board/geekzone/452216-rode-nt1-capsule-replacement.html
Plus Jim Williams' original through-hole parts specs for the first NT1 got cheapened in later iterations, and some like to restore some of those nice, original parts (like the Wima caps) - pretty tough on the newer SMD boards, though.
http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Rode/NT1
Attachments
Last edited:
rogs
Well-known member
If the attached schematic is accurate - and I think the later NT1 is very similar? - then, as you say, the audio is single sided and not differential.
But it does look as if the line is still balanced, with a matching passive impedance network for the 'silent' output leg.
As you say, not that uncommon these days -- I have come across circuits from Neumann, dbx and Soundcraft that use the same balanced line/single sided audio idea. I'm sure there are many others
If you are using a decent low noise preamp following the mic, it's likely the signal will end up with a lower noise content than if a differential audio output is generated within the mic itself.
So it's a no brainer for many manufacturers.... Lower cost circuitry - with a lower noise level!
I used a simpler single sided version of the 'Alice OPA' concept developed by Jules Ryckebusch for my OPIC mic, and found the S/N ratio was about 3dB better for the single sided audio output version, when compared with a differential audio output generated within the mic itself.
And of course it gets worse the higher the value of resistors that are used in the signal path, to create the inverting amp output!
Attachments
Last edited:
k brown
Well-known member
It appears the OP has lost interest in his own thread.
A reminder. Microphones are not just made for music. NT1 is quietest inexpensive mic available. Tons are sold to ASMR content creators, field recording enthusiasts, broadcasters, podcasters, bla, bla, bla...
And yes there is a real concern there might be counterfeits, but the guts look way different. The fet used in NT1 is expensive, so i doubt counterfeits will have the original one.
https://www.thomannmusic.no/tannoy_tm1.htm
And yes there is a real concern there might be counterfeits, but the guts look way different. The fet used in NT1 is expensive, so i doubt counterfeits will have the original one.
https://www.thomannmusic.no/tannoy_tm1.htm
Recording Engineer
Well-known member
My line of thought as well, as I was reading through.
Also, I’ve found that Rode capsules sound best with their original circuit. Modding (improving?) the circuit somehow never seems to improve them (artistically) to me. People can interpret that any which way (the capsule is the weak link?), but to me, it just says microphones are a system in themselves.
That said, I’m still curious of a friend’s modded NT1000 and if a capsule replacement would make me like it better when using it with traditional phantom.
I have an NT1000, I always liked the Low end of it, it's very fast, clean and solid in the Low End, although I really dislike the high End, it's overly bright with an ugly harshness to it that it's not easily taken out with EQ, above 4Khz for me it's horrible.
I would love to mod the NT1000 in a way that the Low end, Low mids and mids would stay exactly the same but the harshness above 4Khz would be fixed.
If your friend's Mods address that it would be great to know those mods.
Last edited:
k brown
Well-known member
I assume you've only used their LDCs - 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.
https://gearspace.com/board/all-thi...estra-3.html?highlight=Rode+omnis#post1821041
Recording Engineer
Well-known member
Yes, I agree, the upper-half (I’ve never considered exactly where) is weirdly harsh that doesn’t really go away.
My friend’s mod actually adds a circuit-board (something I didn’t catch, he told me). With his dedicated preamp he built with it’s own crazy phantom-supply, they sound great and not harsh at all! I’ve only mostly used them as OHs ever and they are absolutely wonderful if you’re not trying to capture any low-end at all.
With standard old phantom from one of your favorite preamps, the harshness may actually be worse when I’ve tried them on a couple vocals and acoustics.
Recording Engineer
Well-known member
I’ve used the NT4 on piano. I have nothing bad to say.
Sammas
Well-known member
The antithesis to hitching your wagon to the vintage microphone craze isn't... hitching your wagon to the vintage microphone craze, which is exactly what Rode are doing.
I don't like using an NT-1. It isn't awful, but it has a weird congested thing going on between 400 and 1200Hz that throws the balance of it off. You can hear it in that rising vocal line where the higher notes suddenly get really poky sounding. It isn't very natural sounding. Neumann LDCs in general are more natural and smoother sounding. Closer to hearing a performer in the room, rather than through... well... a cheap microphone. That even includes stuff like the TLM103 or TLM193. I really love the TLM193 for the money. Such a natural sounding, smooth, versatile microphone without the high frequency emphasis that U87 inspired microphones have.
Obviously Rode doesn't have as much to gain by doing sane comparisons like the NT-1 against a TLM103 or TLM193... because NT-1 owners are also wholeheartedly onboard the Neumann vintage microphone craze.
Sammas
Well-known member
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...
rogs
Well-known member
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.
