Rode NT1 Kit (the black one) Mods
- Thread starter kingkorg
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Thanks. But does that mean that the source of JFET is connected to grond?
It look to me that the guarding signal originates from JFET source and it had vias connecting it to ground. The schematics symbol also shows such connection or is it that the source signal is used as a reference for guard?
No, the schematics didn't show that. If you look at the schematic the guarding signal originates from the source of JFET. The PCB shows that there are vias connected to the guard signal. Now ifwe loom at the bottom of the PCB, the guard trace is connected to the ground or the microphone capsule input. That's what confusing me.
Attachments
Hello all,
This is my first post in the forum besides my new member intro, so please be kind.
First of all, a huge thank you to @kingkorg. I was brought here by your excellent work and discoveries. I own a black NT1 myself and was interested in any improvements to squeeze out any potential performance gains from an already fantastic, quiet, and neutral mic. Those are the reasons I bought it a couple years ago, as an all-arounder to handle pretty much everything (voiceover, music, field recording) aside from a short shotgun mic I use for video and other field recording. I did my research and was drawn to the black NT1’s neutrality, and the fact that the circuit and capsule manufacturing and performance is tight and repeatable (as kingkorg has stated). This adds insane value to the mic, as far as having a serious place in a multiple-mic scenario. Matched pair, three, four, whatever. But not necessary to buy them all at once (a big plus for people on a budget). I try to keep the future in mind when investing in equipment, because I get tired very quickly of buying and selling and dealing with gear acquisition syndrome. Had spent some time looking at other capsules simply out of interest, but no real reason to do so as this thread confirms, and I don’t want to gamble with manufacturing inconsistencies in case of wanting repeatability in a second (or third) NT1. Changing the capsule seems to only serve the purpose of having some kind of satisfaction of modding for its own sake. I like the idea of modding a mic, and perhaps will scratch that itch in the future, but for now I think the NT1 is pretty much already perfect for what it is and what it does and it will serve me well. The black NT1’s silence and neutrality (and aforementioned repeatability) as a canvas for post-processing was the biggest draw, so I have committed. Combined with any scenarios that could benefit from 32-bit recording, I liken the NT1 to a very simple no-frills high-definition RAW camera that leaves the end result entirely up to the user/artist. And the price is a steal for such value.
That said, I have a couple questions to maybe revive this thread and get it back on track (there were a lot of distractions throughout the thread), at least to help me put a few things to rest with my own black NT1.
1. In all, my understanding is that the only real worthwhile mod would be securing the lyre mount with foam to take care of the low-frequency rumble and smooth out the high frequency response, correct? I performed the mod using some decently dense foam I had on hand, measured the mount in stretched form and figured a L 3cm x W 1cm x H 2.5cm piece would accomplish the goal cleanly. Very carefully and lightly loosened and rotated the capsule wire terminals up and out of the way (there is enough extra slack in the wire to do this), and re-tightened them down gently as I saw in the picture @kingkorg contributed, and wiggled and pulled the foam through little by little with some tweezers until it sat squarely under the capsule. It makes perfect contact with the capsule base, and stiffens up the shock mount overall. No contact with any part of the capsule itself including the wire terminals. See pics below to for better reference when doing this yourself. Did a quick handheld test and A/B'd my voice. It does seem to be a bit flatter with a slight smoothing of the sizzle in the higher end on esses. Still bright, but more refined if I could say so. Not night and day, but that and some improvement in the rumble makes this a worthwhile mod. Of course, the graphs confirm that, so even if there is any confirmation bias at play, the graph doesn't lie. But I am going by my ears and trying to be as objective as I can. Also wondering if a slightly denser foam would have a greater effect. For now I'm not interested enough to try. The foam I already put in helps enough for now.
2. Grill / basket question. Because I see this everywhere, I have to ask. I have some questions based on your measurements with and without a grill basket. In post #1, the frequency response dip is stated and shown between 8k and 9k with stock grill, but less dip and moved to 7.5k with circuit AND no grill / basket (?). 7.5k dip explained as being with grille in post #31. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, a dip - whether with modified circuit or not - can be alleviated somewhat by a different grille as you suggest, but what about at least removing the inner mesh? Even if the benefit isn't huge, it would be at least another factor in flattening the response even if by a little, at least to help any recorded sounds that might be attenuated by the dip and saving some EQ work. The only suggested downside I’ve read about removing the inner mesh would be a potential decrease in interference rejection. It's understood that any reputable manufacturer does put some kind of research and development into grill baskets (Neumann has a three-layer design on their high end mics if I am not mistaken). But is that also part of their filtering? How true is the interference issue really? Would the larger outside grill already provide good enough rejection, or no? Some claim the performance gain isn’t worth it, other’s claim it really opens the mic up (audibly, and measurably according to your graph and suggestion). I’m more interested in simply removing something unneeded to let the mic do its work, with the understanding that it will not fundamentally improve the mic.
3. This might be a silly and venturing into audiphool territory, but I’m asking from a good place. I’m not an engineer, but I do understand basic physics, and I understand the value of quality wiring in anything. Here is the question: would the NT1 PCB and/or its capsule benefit in any way by swapping the wiring for larger gauge and/or higher quality stuff (from say Mogami)? I’m not talking silver plated or solid silver stuff. Just basic, well-engineered copper wiring. For example, the wires from XLR pins to the circuit board look to be basic 1007 26AWG tinned copper wire with a readout of a nominal 0.1 to 0.2 ohms at the installed length. As for capsule wires, I’m getting the same readout of 0.1-0.2 ohms. I’m asking if either of these could benefit from a larger gauge and higher quality wire, because I understand that resistance isn’t the only factor, even in these shorter lengths, correct? I’d be interested in any measurable differences with larger gauge wire that would let signal flow more freely and efficiently enough to gain a measurable advantage in actual mic response and output. Or perhaps it could hurt it, like an exhaust diameter that doesn’t provide enough backpressure for an engine. Then again, I look at the sizes of the PCB traces and think it's moot. But I'm not privy to those nuances in this context. That’s why I’m here and not anywhere else. Without measurements, intuition tells me to leave it alone. But nonetheless curiosity remains.
Looking forward to your replies and learning something new--
This is my first post in the forum besides my new member intro, so please be kind.
First of all, a huge thank you to @kingkorg. I was brought here by your excellent work and discoveries. I own a black NT1 myself and was interested in any improvements to squeeze out any potential performance gains from an already fantastic, quiet, and neutral mic. Those are the reasons I bought it a couple years ago, as an all-arounder to handle pretty much everything (voiceover, music, field recording) aside from a short shotgun mic I use for video and other field recording. I did my research and was drawn to the black NT1’s neutrality, and the fact that the circuit and capsule manufacturing and performance is tight and repeatable (as kingkorg has stated). This adds insane value to the mic, as far as having a serious place in a multiple-mic scenario. Matched pair, three, four, whatever. But not necessary to buy them all at once (a big plus for people on a budget). I try to keep the future in mind when investing in equipment, because I get tired very quickly of buying and selling and dealing with gear acquisition syndrome. Had spent some time looking at other capsules simply out of interest, but no real reason to do so as this thread confirms, and I don’t want to gamble with manufacturing inconsistencies in case of wanting repeatability in a second (or third) NT1. Changing the capsule seems to only serve the purpose of having some kind of satisfaction of modding for its own sake. I like the idea of modding a mic, and perhaps will scratch that itch in the future, but for now I think the NT1 is pretty much already perfect for what it is and what it does and it will serve me well. The black NT1’s silence and neutrality (and aforementioned repeatability) as a canvas for post-processing was the biggest draw, so I have committed. Combined with any scenarios that could benefit from 32-bit recording, I liken the NT1 to a very simple no-frills high-definition RAW camera that leaves the end result entirely up to the user/artist. And the price is a steal for such value.
That said, I have a couple questions to maybe revive this thread and get it back on track (there were a lot of distractions throughout the thread), at least to help me put a few things to rest with my own black NT1.
1. In all, my understanding is that the only real worthwhile mod would be securing the lyre mount with foam to take care of the low-frequency rumble and smooth out the high frequency response, correct? I performed the mod using some decently dense foam I had on hand, measured the mount in stretched form and figured a L 3cm x W 1cm x H 2.5cm piece would accomplish the goal cleanly. Very carefully and lightly loosened and rotated the capsule wire terminals up and out of the way (there is enough extra slack in the wire to do this), and re-tightened them down gently as I saw in the picture @kingkorg contributed, and wiggled and pulled the foam through little by little with some tweezers until it sat squarely under the capsule. It makes perfect contact with the capsule base, and stiffens up the shock mount overall. No contact with any part of the capsule itself including the wire terminals. See pics below to for better reference when doing this yourself. Did a quick handheld test and A/B'd my voice. It does seem to be a bit flatter with a slight smoothing of the sizzle in the higher end on esses. Still bright, but more refined if I could say so. Not night and day, but that and some improvement in the rumble makes this a worthwhile mod. Of course, the graphs confirm that, so even if there is any confirmation bias at play, the graph doesn't lie. But I am going by my ears and trying to be as objective as I can. Also wondering if a slightly denser foam would have a greater effect. For now I'm not interested enough to try. The foam I already put in helps enough for now.
2. Grill / basket question. Because I see this everywhere, I have to ask. I have some questions based on your measurements with and without a grill basket. In post #1, the frequency response dip is stated and shown between 8k and 9k with stock grill, but less dip and moved to 7.5k with circuit AND no grill / basket (?). 7.5k dip explained as being with grille in post #31. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, a dip - whether with modified circuit or not - can be alleviated somewhat by a different grille as you suggest, but what about at least removing the inner mesh? Even if the benefit isn't huge, it would be at least another factor in flattening the response even if by a little, at least to help any recorded sounds that might be attenuated by the dip and saving some EQ work. The only suggested downside I’ve read about removing the inner mesh would be a potential decrease in interference rejection. It's understood that any reputable manufacturer does put some kind of research and development into grill baskets (Neumann has a three-layer design on their high end mics if I am not mistaken). But is that also part of their filtering? How true is the interference issue really? Would the larger outside grill already provide good enough rejection, or no? Some claim the performance gain isn’t worth it, other’s claim it really opens the mic up (audibly, and measurably according to your graph and suggestion). I’m more interested in simply removing something unneeded to let the mic do its work, with the understanding that it will not fundamentally improve the mic.
3. This might be a silly and venturing into audiphool territory, but I’m asking from a good place. I’m not an engineer, but I do understand basic physics, and I understand the value of quality wiring in anything. Here is the question: would the NT1 PCB and/or its capsule benefit in any way by swapping the wiring for larger gauge and/or higher quality stuff (from say Mogami)? I’m not talking silver plated or solid silver stuff. Just basic, well-engineered copper wiring. For example, the wires from XLR pins to the circuit board look to be basic 1007 26AWG tinned copper wire with a readout of a nominal 0.1 to 0.2 ohms at the installed length. As for capsule wires, I’m getting the same readout of 0.1-0.2 ohms. I’m asking if either of these could benefit from a larger gauge and higher quality wire, because I understand that resistance isn’t the only factor, even in these shorter lengths, correct? I’d be interested in any measurable differences with larger gauge wire that would let signal flow more freely and efficiently enough to gain a measurable advantage in actual mic response and output. Or perhaps it could hurt it, like an exhaust diameter that doesn’t provide enough backpressure for an engine. Then again, I look at the sizes of the PCB traces and think it's moot. But I'm not privy to those nuances in this context. That’s why I’m here and not anywhere else. Without measurements, intuition tells me to leave it alone. But nonetheless curiosity remains.
Looking forward to your replies and learning something new--
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for the kind words.
In response to #1 you got everything right.
#2 Removing inner mesh won't get you anything because it is extremely transparent and it has totally different construction, it is not manufactured in the same way as the outer one. The issue with the outer mesh is the area i marked in green, which is too narrow and causes reflections, compared to the area i marked in red. The sides are even worse. The inner mesh isn't like this. The reports on sudden transparency once the inner mesh is removed comes from a known modder, whom i'm not naming here, who charged nicely for these kinds of mods. The other ones just parroted... The importance of shielding is unique to your environment, so no one can really guess how it will impact your mic, but i can say the removal will not impact the sound in any way.
#3 The impedance in this part of the circuit is low, the output is quite hot, so nothing would be achieved by ''upgrading'' the wire.
Attachments
Thank you, I really appreciate the clarification.
As for the outer mesh, going to any length - whether replacing the outer mesh altogether or manually bending apart the individual wires in the green marked area - seems like much more time and trouble than it's worth. Time/trouble/resources would be much better spent on a second black NT1 with foam for a nice stereo pair.
I have a question regarding similar self-noise reduction circuit mods to a different mic, but I'll start a separate thread with pictures and questions.
Feels like the black NT1 topic for me is closed. Thanks again!
Continuing the discussion here. So here is the file to make your NT1 BLACK! flat. Which makes it a great platform for modeling. The file can be loaded into Voxengo CurveEQ. Try demo mode before you buy to see if it works for you. I'm too lazy to make an IR, but feel free to do it yourself, i might eventually get to it. I could post a curve that matches it to Slate ML-1, so you can use NT1 as a inexpensive addition to your VMS system. They are really close, as the capsule is using the same mechanical principle. And as NT1 is extremely low in THD and noise, it should perform even better than the original ML-1.
And here's the impulse response to match NT1 and Slate ML1 responses. So Rode NT1 + this IR = Slate ML-1. In my environment with the mics i have the two sound indistinguishable. YMMV as the mics you have might not be exactly the same as mine, but with the consistency i've measured with these models i don't think there should be any problems.
I don't know how I missed this, but thank you so much for the impulse response, @kingkorg
I don't have CurveEQ, so maybe that's why I put the thread out of my mind at the time. But I can definitely work with the NT1 to Flat IR. My DAW (FL Studio) has a very underrated stock convolution plugin with IR loader. It has a very silly name (Fruity Convolver), but it has a LiquidSonics convolution engine, so it can be trusted to handle IR's well as far as I know.
Thanks again for taking the time to make and upload the IR files. The NT1 to flat will see good use I'm sure. Also, the CM4's have been working out great. I'll report back on those in the other thread if I have any particular thoughts after using them some more this year.
Cheers!
Thank you for reminding me i made these. I actually forgot about them
In principle, could one stack another IR of another mic and effectively achieve decent modeling? We're talking about on-axis single-source recording in a decent space. I would think other mic characteristics like off-axis response, etc. would be more or less moot in that scenario. Of course I could be missing something else. In any case, mic modeling seems sort of gimmicky anyway, if every mic ultimately ends up being EQ'd to complement the source. Something decently flat and quiet like the NT1 is a fine platform as you've proven. Flat IR + subtractive EQ for offensive frequencies from the source + character/color EQ. And often a little 9k/10k boost for some air much like what the U87 has by default. Pretty standard processing, but at least the NT1 doesn't need to have its arm twisted in order to sound good.
Last edited:
Of course you can, i've been doing it for a while, and it works remarkably well. With some i got even off axis responses to match, and sold the originals. You get best results using target capsule and body type. So if you have a body with k67 and u87 ish headbasket you would get best results modeling these types of mics, u67, u87, some tlm mics...
That's wild. No current access to the right mics and environment, but I'll save this for a rainy day in the future. I think if mic modelling is approached with approximation and "flavors" in mind, I don't see why there should be any fuss over exact replication if it's good enough for what you might be trying to accomplish. Concretely, it's a lot cheaper to approximate too
Last scenarion and question for now: I tried the NT1 to Flat IR, and I'm not hearing much - if any - change (I'm monitoring through Sennheiser HD600's with calibration and a measurably clean DAC/amp). I'm assuming that's a good thing since the changes would be subtle anyway, given the NT1's stock character. However, I began to wonder, which state was the NT1 in when you created the IR (and would that matter)? Was it entirely unmodified? Did it have the circuit mods already? Did it have the foam in the capsule shock mount already? My NT1 has the foam only, and I remember that it has a measurably good effect. Didn't know that if the IR you sent was from a modded NT1 and the IR might be overcompensating on my mic in any way. As I said, however, the changes are more-or-less imperceptible (I can't hear anything and have only looked at a live spectrogram, no sine sweeps), so it may be that the IR might not serve any practical purpose other than occupying CPU with an instance of my convolver plugin. However, I stand to be corrected. Thoughts?
It was stock when measured for correction. Yes the difference is subtle because if you look at my measurement, stock NT1 is not a hyped mic, it is flat-ish to start with which is why i choose it for platform for modding, not much needed to be done to it to make it either a measurement cardioid, or flat platform for emulations.That's wild. No current access to the right mics and environment, but I'll save this for a rainy day in the future. I think if mic modelling is approached with approximation and "flavors" in mind, I don't see why there should be any fuss over exact replication if it's good enough for what you might be trying to accomplish. Concretely, it's a lot cheaper to approximate too
Last scenarion and question for now: I tried the NT1 to Flat IR, and I'm not hearing much - if any - change (I'm monitoring through Sennheiser HD600's with calibration and a measurably clean DAC/amp). I'm assuming that's a good thing since the changes would be subtle anyway, given the NT1's stock character. However, I began to wonder, which state was the NT1 in when you created the IR (and would that matter)? Was it entirely unmodified? Did it have the circuit mods already? Did it have the foam in the capsule shock mount already? My NT1 has the foam only, and I remember that it has a measurably good effect. Didn't know that if the IR you sent was from a modded NT1 and the IR might be overcompensating on my mic in any way. As I said, however, the changes are more-or-less imperceptible (I can't hear anything and have only looked at a live spectrogram, no sine sweeps), so it may be that the IR might not serve any practical purpose other than occupying CPU with an instance of my convolver plugin. However, I stand to be corrected. Thoughts?
To spot the difference loop one sibilant letter, and turn on and off the IR. And of course check with some analyzer if the IR is actually working, some IR/loader combos are buggy.
Thanks, will do!
Similar threads
