[adam79]

Hey, I'm thinking of buying either a Rode NT-1 or NT-2 and the NT-5. The
NT-1 or NT-2 would be for vocals and micing the acoustic guitar, but the
hole, and the NT-5 for placement by the neck. The NT-2 is $150 more than
the NT-2.. is it really worth that extra $150?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 23:52:50 -0400, adam79 wrote
(in article ):

Hey, I'm thinking of buying either a Rode NT-1 or NT-2 and the NT-5. The
NT-1 or NT-2 would be for vocals and micing the acoustic guitar, but the
hole, and the NT-5 for placement by the neck. The NT-2 is $150 more than
the NT-2.. is it really worth that extra $150?

Thanks,
-Adam


NT2-a. Yes. It's more natural sounding.

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[[email protected]]

On Oct 2, 8:52 pm, adam79 wrote:
Hey, I'm thinking of buying either a Rode NT-1 or NT-2 and the NT-5. The
NT-1 or NT-2 would be for vocals and micing the acoustic guitar, but the
hole, and the NT-5 for placement by the neck. The NT-2 is $150 more than
the NT-2.. is it really worth that extra $150?

Thanks,
-Adam


Depends....

I designed them back in 1995. The NT-2 and 1 used the same circuits
and parts until Rode cut costs on them. They later went to surface
mount which IMO degraded the sound significantly by also lowering
manufacturing costs.

The NT-2A and NT-1A are different designs and the NT-2A capsule is
also now a made in Oz product rather than a 797 design.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:30:52 -0700,
wrote:

I designed them back in 1995. The NT-2 and 1 used the same circuits
and parts until Rode cut costs on them. They later went to surface
mount which IMO degraded the sound significantly by also lowering
manufacturing costs.

Are you serious? You degrade sound significantly by lowering
manufacturing costs? Suppose you asked Sting to cut out the circuit
boards for you at, say $10,000 a time. The mic would now sound much
better on account of the increased manufacturing cost, yes?

But you did at least add IMO there, which I suppose is something. No,
you don't degrade sound with surface mount components either - that is
just a crock of religion. If anything you might improve things because
of the lower susceptibility to interference.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[David Grant]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:30:52 -0700,
wrote:

I designed them back in 1995. The NT-2 and 1 used the same circuits
and parts until Rode cut costs on them. They later went to surface
mount which IMO degraded the sound significantly by also lowering
manufacturing costs.

Are you serious? You degrade sound significantly by lowering
manufacturing costs? Suppose you asked Sting to cut out the circuit
boards for you at, say $10,000 a time. The mic would now sound much
better on account of the increased manufacturing cost, yes?

But you did at least add IMO there, which I suppose is something. No,
you don't degrade sound with surface mount components either - that is
just a crock of religion. If anything you might improve things because
of the lower susceptibility to interference.

I assumed he meant "...which IMO degraded the sound significantly BUT also
lowerED manufacturing costs"

....makes a little more sense that way



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Carey Carlan]

wrote in news:1191425452.956809.170840@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

I designed them back in 1995. The NT-2 and 1 used the same circuits
and parts until Rode cut costs on them. They later went to surface
mount which IMO degraded the sound significantly by also lowering
manufacturing costs.

The NT-2A and NT-1A are different designs and the NT-2A capsule is
also now a made in Oz product rather than a 797 design.

Jim,

I have a pair of early NT-2's (so early that I paid nearly $700 each in my
more-cash-than-sense days). Can you confirm that they have Chinese
capsules and Aussie electronics? Or was the whole mic made in China?

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:46:03 -0400, "David Grant"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:30:52 -0700,
wrote:

I designed them back in 1995. The NT-2 and 1 used the same circuits
and parts until Rode cut costs on them. They later went to surface
mount which IMO degraded the sound significantly by also lowering
manufacturing costs.

Are you serious? You degrade sound significantly by lowering
manufacturing costs? Suppose you asked Sting to cut out the circuit
boards for you at, say $10,000 a time. The mic would now sound much
better on account of the increased manufacturing cost, yes?

But you did at least add IMO there, which I suppose is something. No,
you don't degrade sound with surface mount components either - that is
just a crock of religion. If anything you might improve things because
of the lower susceptibility to interference.

I assumed he meant "...which IMO degraded the sound significantly BUT also
lowerED manufacturing costs"

...makes a little more sense that way

Only marginally - still a crock.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

I assumed he meant "...which IMO degraded the sound significantly
BUT also lowerED manufacturing costs"

...makes a little more sense that way

Only marginally - still a crock.

I read him as implying that "equal quality" components were substituted
instead of smd versions of the same components.

d


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

On Oct 3, 10:18 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:30:52 -0700,
wrote:

I designed them back in 1995. The NT-2 and 1 used the same circuits
and parts until Rode cut costs on them. They later went to surface
mount which IMO degraded the sound significantly by also lowering
manufacturing costs.

Are you serious? You degrade sound significantly by lowering
manufacturing costs? Suppose you asked Sting to cut out the circuit
boards for you at, say $10,000 a time. The mic would now sound much
better on account of the increased manufacturing cost, yes?

But you did at least add IMO there, which I suppose is something. No,
you don't degrade sound with surface mount components either - that is
just a crock of religion. If anything you might improve things because
of the lower susceptibility to interference.

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

Lets not get silly here. I wouldn't let stink anywhere near my gear.
He doesn't like to bath and he smells enough to stink up an entire
control room.

It's common for the bean counters that really run things to demand
manufacturing cost be cut. Surface mount parts are cheaper than the
discrete TO-92 transistors and Wima film and foil polypropylene caps
originally used. You can't even buy the transistors I use in surface
mount. I suppose I could "sub" some surface mount transistors, but the
noise floor would rise. Of course, higher noise is not in the realm
of quality of sound but is it important to you? The Wimas ran about 30
cents compared to the 3 cents for the mono ceramic caps now used.
That's a 10 to 1 reduction in costs for just those parts. Greed trumps
quality as it always has.

Interference in a screened metal mic body is not a factor here. It's
not rf circuits with impedance controlled traces, etc. Surface mount
parts offer no benefit other than cost reduction.

Any audio designer with any hearing left can hear the difference
between a monolythic ceramic cap and a precision polypropylene or
polystyrene film cap, you may not think it matters but many would
disagree with you. All my designs use through hole precision metal
film resistors and big ass film caps. I design for quality of sound, I
leave the rest to Behringer and friends.

Try this experiment if you don't believe me. Replace the quality film
cap off one of your nice German mics with a ceramic cap. Listen. Now
replace it with a very good film cap. That's a great test for a cap as
the signal levels are very low and the entire sound has to pass
through it.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:21:23 -0700,
wrote:

On Oct 3, 10:18 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:30:52 -0700,
wrote:

I designed them back in 1995. The NT-2 and 1 used the same circuits
and parts until Rode cut costs on them. They later went to surface
mount which IMO degraded the sound significantly by also lowering
manufacturing costs.

Are you serious? You degrade sound significantly by lowering
manufacturing costs? Suppose you asked Sting to cut out the circuit
boards for you at, say $10,000 a time. The mic would now sound much
better on account of the increased manufacturing cost, yes?

But you did at least add IMO there, which I suppose is something. No,
you don't degrade sound with surface mount components either - that is
just a crock of religion. If anything you might improve things because
of the lower susceptibility to interference.

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

Lets not get silly here. I wouldn't let stink anywhere near my gear.
He doesn't like to bath and he smells enough to stink up an entire
control room.

It's common for the bean counters that really run things to demand
manufacturing cost be cut. Surface mount parts are cheaper than the
discrete TO-92 transistors and Wima film and foil polypropylene caps
originally used. You can't even buy the transistors I use in surface
mount. I suppose I could "sub" some surface mount transistors, but the
noise floor would rise. Of course, higher noise is not in the realm
of quality of sound but is it important to you? The Wimas ran about 30
cents compared to the 3 cents for the mono ceramic caps now used.
That's a 10 to 1 reduction in costs for just those parts. Greed trumps
quality as it always has.

Interference in a screened metal mic body is not a factor here. It's
not rf circuits with impedance controlled traces, etc. Surface mount
parts offer no benefit other than cost reduction.

Any audio designer with any hearing left can hear the difference
between a monolythic ceramic cap and a precision polypropylene or
polystyrene film cap, you may not think it matters but many would
disagree with you. All my designs use through hole precision metal
film resistors and big ass film caps. I design for quality of sound, I
leave the rest to Behringer and friends.

Try this experiment if you don't believe me. Replace the quality film
cap off one of your nice German mics with a ceramic cap. Listen. Now
replace it with a very good film cap. That's a great test for a cap as
the signal levels are very low and the entire sound has to pass
through it.

Jim Williams

Shame about that last paragraph - it tells me quite clearly that you
haven't a clue what you are talking about. The other paragraphs? They
told me that as well. I'm sure that any future paragraphs you care to
write will tell the same story.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

It's common for the bean counters that really run things
to demand manufacturing cost be cut. Surface mount parts
are cheaper than the discrete TO-92 transistors

In many cases equal or superior transistors are available in SMT format.
Technically speaking, for small signal transistors there is often little
that prevents the same piece of semiconductor from being mounted either way.

and Wima film and foil polypropylene caps originally used.

http://www.wima.de/EN/products_smd.htm

shows that SMD film capacitors are readily available.

You can't even buy the transistors I use in surface mount.

So what? Are you saying that the transistor type you use is totally unique
and a comparable SMD does not and cannot exist?

I suppose I could "sub" some surface mount transistors, but
the noise floor would rise.

Why?


Any audio designer with any hearing left can hear the
difference between a monolythic ceramic cap and a
precision polypropylene or polystyrene film cap,

Unless perchance you subject said designer to a properly-run bias-controlled
listening test. I've seen dozens of audio designers fail to back their
capacitor dielectric hyperbole with performance. I'm not saying that
capacitor dielectrics can be chosen willy-nilly, but the rules for choosing
them have been known for decades. There's no magic, only applied science.

you may
not think it matters but many would disagree with you.

There are still about 60,000 audiophiles who subscribe to Stereophile and
the kinds of anti-science I find preached therein. That constitues "amny"
but does it make the anti-science right?

All my designs use through hole precision metal film
resistors and big ass film caps.

Proving exactly what? Size does matter? ;-)

I design for quality of
sound, I leave the rest to Behringer and friends.

I suspect that you're proud of your through hole precision metal film
resistors and big ass film caps, and are still fighting battles that were
mostly won by modernizers in the previous millenium.

Try this experiment if you don't believe me. Replace the
quality film cap off one of your nice German mics with a
ceramic cap.

Excluded-middle argument, since it has been established that SMD film
capacitors are now common.

If Mouser and Digi-Key will sell DMD film caps to me, why won't they sell
them to anybody else?

http://www.mouser.com/catalog/631/704.pdf

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:59:22 -0400, Agent 86
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:21:23 -0700,
wrote:


Try this experiment if you don't believe me. Replace the quality film
cap off one of your nice German mics with a ceramic cap. Listen. Now
replace it with a very good film cap. That's a great test for a cap as
the signal levels are very low and the entire sound has to pass
through it.

Jim Williams

Shame about that last paragraph - it tells me quite clearly that you
haven't a clue what you are talking about. The other paragraphs? They
told me that as well. I'm sure that any future paragraphs you care to
write will tell the same story.


Translation: Hey Jim, Don doesn't have any nice German mics.

Make that four. Nice try - so you believe the technobabble too, eh?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[[email protected]]

On Oct 3, 1:29 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com

It's common for the bean counters that really run things
to demand manufacturing cost be cut. Surface mount parts
are cheaper than the discrete TO-92 transistors

In many cases equal or superior transistors are available in SMT format.
Technically speaking, for small signal transistors there is often little
that prevents the same piece of semiconductor from being mounted either way.

and Wima film and foil polypropylene caps originally used.

http://www.wima.de/EN/products_smd.htm

shows that SMD film capacitors are readily available.

You can't even buy the transistors I use in surface mount.

So what? Are you saying that the transistor type you use is totally unique
and a comparable SMD does not and cannot exist?

I suppose I could "sub" some surface mount transistors, but
the noise floor would rise.

Why?

Any audio designer with any hearing left can hear the
difference between a monolythic ceramic cap and a
precision polypropylene or polystyrene film cap,

Unless perchance you subject said designer to a properly-run bias-controlled
listening test. I've seen dozens of audio designers fail to back their
capacitor dielectric hyperbole with performance. I'm not saying that
capacitor dielectrics can be chosen willy-nilly, but the rules for choosing
them have been known for decades. There's no magic, only applied science.

you may
not think it matters but many would disagree with you.

There are still about 60,000 audiophiles who subscribe to Stereophile and
the kinds of anti-science I find preached therein. That constitues "amny"
but does it make the anti-science right?

All my designs use through hole precision metal film
resistors and big ass film caps.

Proving exactly what? Size does matter? ;-)

I design for quality of
sound, I leave the rest to Behringer and friends.

I suspect that you're proud of your through hole precision metal film
resistors and big ass film caps, and are still fighting battles that were
mostly won by modernizers in the previous millenium.

Try this experiment if you don't believe me. Replace the
quality film cap off one of your nice German mics with a
ceramic cap.

Excluded-middle argument, since it has been established that SMD film
capacitors are now common.

If Mouser and Digi-Key will sell DMD film caps to me, why won't they sell
them to anybody else?

http://www.mouser.com/catalog/631/704.pdf

They don't make polypropylene or polystyrene film caps in surface
mount. I thought you guys would know that. DMD is not polypropylene or
polystyrene. Look at the temp co's of those caps, they are not in the
same league. I have discussed this with the Wima engineers and they
told me they cannot make surface mount polystyrene as they don't make
polystyrene and polypropylene would melt. Another reason they are
large is the voltage rating is set very high. I get my polystyrene
caps from Reliable Capacitors in California. They are a major supplier
to the military/aerospace industry and are as I believe now the only
maker of quality polystyrene caps today.

If you can find me a surface mount transistor that will spec at .3 nv/
hz/sq with 1.6 ghz GBW and will run at 120 volts let me know...

Obviously someone hasn't done the cap test in their mics...

I love it when someone tells me I'm wrong when they haven't done the
test themselves. That's like commenting on gear you have never tried.
Most engineers used to be inquisitive about their craft, apparently
not around here. At least not enough to spend about the same amount of
time it takes to blow me off to find out.

Yes, I use through hole big ass film caps (they do sound better by the
way) and fat pcb traces and the companies I design for seem to hear
the difference as well. They are found not only in Rode but Basson
amps, Rhodes pianos, etc.

Many of the favorite recording pieces are made this same way and are
coveted for their sound. I don't see anyone coveting the sound of
their favorite surface mount gear. Besides, that stuff will be in a
landfill in 20 years. My stuff is built to last.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
On Oct 3, 1:29 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com

It's common for the bean counters that really run things
to demand manufacturing cost be cut. Surface mount parts
are cheaper than the discrete TO-92 transistors

In many cases equal or superior transistors are
available in SMT format. Technically speaking, for small
signal transistors there is often little that prevents
the same piece of semiconductor from being mounted
either way.

and Wima film and foil polypropylene caps originally
used.

http://www.wima.de/EN/products_smd.htm

shows that SMD film capacitors are readily available.

You can't even buy the transistors I use in surface
mount.

So what? Are you saying that the transistor type you use
is totally unique and a comparable SMD does not and
cannot exist?

I suppose I could "sub" some surface mount
transistors, but the noise floor would rise.

Why?

Any audio designer with any hearing left can hear the
difference between a monolythic ceramic cap and a
precision polypropylene or polystyrene film cap,

Unless perchance you subject said designer to a
properly-run bias-controlled listening test. I've seen
dozens of audio designers fail to back their capacitor
dielectric hyperbole with performance. I'm not saying
that capacitor dielectrics can be chosen willy-nilly,
but the rules for choosing them have been known for
decades. There's no magic, only applied science.

you may
not think it matters but many would disagree with you.

There are still about 60,000 audiophiles who subscribe
to Stereophile and the kinds of anti-science I find
preached therein. That constitues "amny" but does it
make the anti-science right?

All my designs use through hole precision metal film
resistors and big ass film caps.

Proving exactly what? Size does matter? ;-)

I design for quality of
sound, I leave the rest to Behringer and friends.

I suspect that you're proud of your through hole
precision metal film resistors and big ass film caps,
and are still fighting battles that were mostly won by
modernizers in the previous millenium.

Try this experiment if you don't believe me. Replace the
quality film cap off one of your nice German mics with a
ceramic cap.

Excluded-middle argument, since it has been established
that SMD film capacitors are now common.

If Mouser and Digi-Key will sell DMD film caps to me,
why won't they sell them to anybody else?

http://www.mouser.com/catalog/631/704.pdf

They don't make polypropylene or polystyrene film caps in
surface mount.

OK Jim, so when your first story falls apart, which was that there were no
film capacitors available at all and SMT forced the use of ceramic caps,
you change it.

I thought you guys would know that.

Sorry to take you at your word, Jim.

DMD is not polypropylene or polystyrene.

So what?

Look at the temp co's of those caps, they are not in the same league.

Are you building Hi-Q tuned circuits, or putting coupling caps and bypass
caps into microphones?

If you can find me a surface mount transistor that will
spec at .3 nv/ hz/sq with 1.6 ghz GBW and will run at 120
volts let me know...


Maybe that's ahead of the SMT curve...



Obviously someone hasn't done the cap test in their
mics...

Jim, there's something about the cap test you recommended being irrelevant
to your changed story. If the question is polystyrene sounds compared to
DMD, why did you say compare to ceramic?

I love it when someone tells me I'm wrong when they
haven't done the test themselves.

Given that my standard for listening tests is double blind, I think that
means that you haven't done any proper listening tests, either. Right Jim?

[boodah]

On Oct 4, 11:07 am, wrote:
On Oct 3, 1:29 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



wrote in message

oups.com

It's common for the bean counters that really run things
to demand manufacturing cost be cut. Surface mount parts
are cheaper than the discrete TO-92 transistors

In many cases equal or superior transistors are available in SMT format.
Technically speaking, for small signal transistors there is often little
that prevents the same piece of semiconductor from being mounted either way.

and Wima film and foil polypropylene caps originally used.

http://www.wima.de/EN/products_smd.htm

shows that SMD film capacitors are readily available.

You can't even buy the transistors I use in surface mount.

So what? Are you saying that the transistor type you use is totally unique
and a comparable SMD does not and cannot exist?

I suppose I could "sub" some surface mount transistors, but
the noise floor would rise.

Why?

Any audio designer with any hearing left can hear the
difference between a monolythic ceramic cap and a
precision polypropylene or polystyrene film cap,

Unless perchance you subject said designer to a properly-run bias-controlled
listening test. I've seen dozens of audio designers fail to back their
capacitor dielectric hyperbole with performance. I'm not saying that
capacitor dielectrics can be chosen willy-nilly, but the rules for choosing
them have been known for decades. There's no magic, only applied science.

you may
not think it matters but many would disagree with you.

There are still about 60,000 audiophiles who subscribe to Stereophile and
the kinds of anti-science I find preached therein. That constitues "amny"
but does it make the anti-science right?

All my designs use through hole precision metal film
resistors and big ass film caps.

Proving exactly what? Size does matter? ;-)

I design for quality of
sound, I leave the rest to Behringer and friends.

I suspect that you're proud of your through hole precision metal film
resistors and big ass film caps, and are still fighting battles that were
mostly won by modernizers in the previous millenium.

Try this experiment if you don't believe me. Replace the
quality film cap off one of your nice German mics with a
ceramic cap.

Excluded-middle argument, since it has been established that SMD film
capacitors are now common.

If Mouser and Digi-Key will sell DMD film caps to me, why won't they sell
them to anybody else?

http://www.mouser.com/catalog/631/704.pdf

They don't make polypropylene or polystyrene film caps in surface
mount. I thought you guys would know that. DMD is not polypropylene or
polystyrene. Look at the temp co's of those caps, they are not in the
same league. I have discussed this with the Wima engineers and they
told me they cannot make surface mount polystyrene as they don't make
polystyrene and polypropylene would melt. Another reason they are
large is the voltage rating is set very high. I get my polystyrene
caps from Reliable Capacitors in California. They are a major supplier
to the military/aerospace industry and are as I believe now the only
maker of quality polystyrene caps today.

If you can find me a surface mount transistor that will spec at .3 nv/
hz/sq with 1.6 ghz GBW and will run at 120 volts let me know...

Obviously someone hasn't done the cap test in their mics...

I love it when someone tells me I'm wrong when they haven't done the
test themselves. That's like commenting on gear you have never tried.
Most engineers used to be inquisitive about their craft, apparently
not around here. At least not enough to spend about the same amount of
time it takes to blow me off to find out.

Yes, I use through hole big ass film caps (they do sound better by the
way) and fat pcb traces and the companies I design for seem to hear
the difference as well. They are found not only in Rode but Basson
amps, Rhodes pianos, etc.

Many of the favorite recording pieces are made this same way and are
coveted for their sound. I don't see anyone coveting the sound of
their favorite surface mount gear. Besides, that stuff will be in a
landfill in 20 years. My stuff is built to last.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

So, can you upgrade a NT2-A to sound better?

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:31:15 -0400, boodah wrote
(in article . com):

So, can you upgrade a NT2-A to sound better?

Sure, buy an AT4050. ::rim shot::

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Fletch]

On Oct 3, 11:21 am, wrote:

"All my designs use through hole precision metal
film resistors and big ass film caps."

You're making me hot! Stop with that sexy talk!

--Fletch

[adam79]

I was looking at the Rode NT models and came across the NT-1000. Right
now I can't decide which one to get the NT-1000 or NT-2 (what is the
difference between the NT-2, NT-2A and NT-2B?). Anyways, I don't have a
chance to try them out (I went to a couple music stores, only one had a
Rode NT, but they wouldn't let me test it cuz it's too expensive). So
the NT-2A and NT-1000 are around the same price range, the NT-2A like
$50 more. I'm gonna use it for vocals and acoustic guitar. Mics are also
aren't returnable cuz of the "germs" from singing into it. Please help
advise.

Thank you. I appreciate it,
-Adam

[Markus Mietling]

adam79 wrote:

the NT-2A and NT-1000 are around the same price range, the NT-2A like
$50 more. I'm gonna use it for vocals and acoustic guitar. Mics are also
aren't returnable cuz of the "germs" from singing into it. Please help
advise.

Did you notice that the NT2-A lets you choose between cardioid, omni,
and figure eight?

-m

[Ken Winokur]

On Oct 2, 11:52 pm, adam79 wrote:
Hey, I'm thinking of buying either a Rode NT-1 or NT-2 and the NT-5. The
NT-1 or NT-2 would be for vocals and micing the acoustic guitar, but the
hole, and the NT-5 for placement by the neck. The NT-2 is $150 more than
the NT-2.. is it really worth that extra $150?

Thanks,
-Adam


I own a pair of NT 1 and a pair of NT 2a. There's no comparison
between them (quality wise). The NT1's a not a very good mic. They
are radically deficient in high end. They also have very little deep
bass (the 60 - 100 cycle stuff). You will need to eq all vocals and
practically everything else you use them for. If you use this as your
primary mic, your music will sound muffled and flat. I've also had
problems with RF leaking into these mics.

The NT2's are wonderful. they sound good on most acoustic instruments
and on vocals. They have a nice, unhyped high end and a very full low
end (although possibly a little hollow in the mids). If anything you
will sometimes need to roll off the low end. The three patterns
(cardiod, figure 8 and omni) are extremely useful. They have internal
shock mounting that seems to work quite well (although I mostly use
them with an external shock mount as well). They are my favorite
studio mics (and I own quite a few).

Ken Winokur

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:10:56 -0700, Ken Winokur
wrote:

On Oct 2, 11:52 pm, adam79 wrote:
Hey, I'm thinking of buying either a Rode NT-1 or NT-2 and the NT-5. The
NT-1 or NT-2 would be for vocals and micing the acoustic guitar, but the
hole, and the NT-5 for placement by the neck. The NT-2 is $150 more than
the NT-2.. is it really worth that extra $150?

Thanks,
-Adam


I own a pair of NT 1 and a pair of NT 2a. There's no comparison
between them (quality wise). The NT1's a not a very good mic. They
are radically deficient in high end. They also have very little deep
bass (the 60 - 100 cycle stuff). You will need to eq all vocals and
practically everything else you use them for. If you use this as your
primary mic, your music will sound muffled and flat. I've also had
problems with RF leaking into these mics.


Well, fortunately the NT1 isn't available any more. The NT-1A is a
totally different mic. The bottom end is totally flat - it just goes
on and on and on all the way down. The top end is if anything a little
over-bright, and benefits from a bit of eq. Put in a shelf at -2dB
from 5k to 9k, then drop to -5dB at 12k to 14k, then let it come back
up to 0 at 20k. That will give you a response that is to all intents
ruler flat. Once you have done that, you can play tone colours all you
like.

Interference-wise, this mic is bullet-proof. My standard test is my
GSM phone next to the basket - nothing. And of course the noise level
is the target for the rest of the industry.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Richard Crowley]

adam79 wrote:
....Mics are also aren't returnable cuz of the "germs" from
singing into it. Please help advise.

If Guitar Center, et.al. doesn't want to take mics back, then
they should just say so. This is the kind of thing that gives
those retailers a bad reputation. There is no such "law" or
"rule". Else mic rental would be illegal, and there would be
no public telephones, etc.

[adam79]

Ken Winokur wrote:

The NT2's are wonderful. they sound good on most acoustic instruments
and on vocals. They have a nice, unhyped high end and a very full low
end (although possibly a little hollow in the mids).

Having "hollow mids" can't be good for vocals.. can it?

[Ken Winokur]

On Oct 6, 5:41 pm, adam79 wrote:
Ken Winokur wrote:

The NT2's are wonderful. they sound good on most acoustic instruments
and on vocals. They have a nice, unhyped high end and a very full low
end (although possibly a little hollow in the mids).

Having "hollow mids" can't be good for vocals.. can it?

Good point. Really, I haven't done much vocals with mine. I do
instrumental music almost exclusively. I have heard that others like
it for vocals. And of course, "hollow mids" is a really vague
description. There seems to be enough high mids - the 3 - 8 K stuff.
I think the hollowness is a little lower which might be OK for vocals.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 4, 4:12 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com





On Oct 3, 1:29 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com

It's common for the bean counters that really run things
to demand manufacturing cost be cut. Surface mount parts
are cheaper than the discrete TO-92 transistors

In many cases equal or superior transistors are
available in SMT format. Technically speaking, for small
signal transistors there is often little that prevents
the same piece of semiconductor from being mounted
either way.

and Wima film and foil polypropylene caps originally
used.

http://www.wima.de/EN/products_smd.htm

shows that SMD film capacitors are readily available.

You can't even buy the transistors I use in surface
mount.

So what? Are you saying that the transistor type you use
is totally unique and a comparable SMD does not and
cannot exist?

I suppose I could "sub" some surface mount
transistors, but the noise floor would rise.

Why?

Any audio designer with any hearing left can hear the
difference between a monolythic ceramic cap and a
precision polypropylene or polystyrene film cap,

Unless perchance you subject said designer to a
properly-run bias-controlled listening test. I've seen
dozens of audio designers fail to back their capacitor
dielectric hyperbole with performance. I'm not saying
that capacitor dielectrics can be chosen willy-nilly,
but the rules for choosing them have been known for
decades. There's no magic, only applied science.

you may
not think it matters but many would disagree with you.

There are still about 60,000 audiophiles who subscribe
to Stereophile and the kinds of anti-science I find
preached therein. That constitues "amny" but does it
make the anti-science right?

All my designs use through hole precision metal film
resistors and big ass film caps.

Proving exactly what? Size does matter? ;-)

I design for quality of
sound, I leave the rest to Behringer and friends.

I suspect that you're proud of your through hole
precision metal film resistors and big ass film caps,
and are still fighting battles that were mostly won by
modernizers in the previous millenium.

Try this experiment if you don't believe me. Replace the
quality film cap off one of your nice German mics with a
ceramic cap.

Excluded-middle argument, since it has been established
that SMD film capacitors are now common.

If Mouser and Digi-Key will sell DMD film caps to me,
why won't they sell them to anybody else?

http://www.mouser.com/catalog/631/704.pdf

They don't make polypropylene or polystyrene film caps in
surface mount.

OK Jim, so when your first story falls apart, which was that there were no
film capacitors available at all and SMT forced the use of ceramic caps,
you change it.

I thought you guys would know that.

Sorry to take you at your word, Jim.

DMD is not polypropylene or polystyrene.

So what?

Look at the temp co's of those caps, they are not in the same league.

Are you building Hi-Q tuned circuits, or putting coupling caps and bypass
caps into microphones?

If you can find me a surface mount transistor that will
spec at .3 nv/ hz/sq with 1.6 ghz GBW and will run at 120
volts let me know...

Maybe that's ahead of the SMT curve...

Obviously someone hasn't done the cap test in their
mics...

Jim, there's something about the cap test you recommended being irrelevant
to your changed story. If the question is polystyrene sounds compared to
DMD, why did you say compare to ceramic?

I love it when someone tells me I'm wrong when they
haven't done the test themselves.

Given that my standard for listening tests is double blind, I think that
means that you haven't done any proper listening tests, either. Right Jim?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You brought up DMD film caps, I've been discussing polystyrene and
polypropylene vs ceramic. Stop typing and try the test. That is if
your not too busy replying to internet posts. Show me a 1200 volt
polypropylene film cap in surface mount, err, maybe surface mount
isn't "there" yet either? Just like the 120 volt 1.6 ghz FT
transistors I use which are military devices in a TO-39 can. Guess
there still is a place for through hole in this new century. At least
the military thinks so.

When your surface mount electrolytic caps dry out in 20 years, you
will wish they were through hole when the repair guy says throw it
into a landfill. That applies to newer Rode mics as well. These have a
limited lifespan, they will be rotting in landfills when older classic
tube mics from 40+ years ago are still going strong simply because
they are built to be repaired. Surface mount is made for disposal.

I have done "proper " tests. They are not really needed in this
situation as the difference is not subtle. If you insist on double
blind, use two mics and do the test.

We are waiting for your results...

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:51:50 -0700,
wrote:

I have done "proper " tests. They are not really needed in this
situation as the difference is not subtle. If you insist on double
blind, use two mics and do the test.

Can you post a couple of files please - I'd like to do the comparison
myself. I am more than happy to trust your recordings as I don't have
the facility to do this myself right now.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message

You can't even buy the transistors I use in surface mount.

So what? Are you saying that the transistor type you use is totally unique
and a comparable SMD does not and cannot exist?

Yes, older-style large area transistors are disappearing off the market.
Most of them are NOT available in surface mount even though something with
an equivalent curve and a lower surface area are.

I suppose I could "sub" some surface mount transistors, but
the noise floor would rise.

Why?

Because customers want cheap transistors, not good ones, and so semiconductor
manufacturers are going berserk to get as many transistors onto a die as
possible.

If you ordered a 2N5088 from Motorola ten years ago, you got a part with
something like five times the surface area as what you get if you order an
SMT 2N5088 from them today. The SMT parts have incredibly high flicker noise
and are totally unacceptable for audio. Yes, they meet the specs on the
data sheet, but the specs do not include flicker noise.

As far as I know, there are not any good SMT discrete transistors available
although you can get the THAT transistor arrays in SMT.

Excluded-middle argument, since it has been established that SMD film
capacitors are now common.

In some values. The PPS film types from ITW Paktron aren't half bad, though.

If Mouser and Digi-Key will sell DMD film caps to me, why won't they sell
them to anybody else?

http://www.mouser.com/catalog/631/704.pdf

Notice the very limited set of values, though. You don't get them in 10 uF...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Jim, there's something about the cap test you recommended being irrelevant
to your changed story. If the question is polystyrene sounds compared to
DMD, why did you say compare to ceramic?

I don't know Jim's application, but on a microphone input stage, your
choices are polystyrene, ceramic, or glass. DMD and the like have WAY
too much leakage in a 10G circuit.

I'll claim that glass beats either polystyrene or COG ceramics, and there IS
some possibility of there being surface mount glass from AVX soon. Not yet,
though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

I have a pair of NT2's (about 12 years old), that I use for recording
large ensembles. I tried the NT1's for the same application and the
NT2's were considerably better. I don't know if the products today
are similar. The NT2's have also been pretty durable... one fell from
a 14' mic stand (wind) and broke into 3 pieces - I snapped it back
together and it continues to work perfectly.

In rec.audio.pro adam79 wrote:
: Hey, I'm thinking of buying either a Rode NT-1 or NT-2 and the NT-5. The
: NT-1 or NT-2 would be for vocals and micing the acoustic guitar, but the
: hole, and the NT-5 for placement by the neck. The NT-2 is $150 more than
: the NT-2.. is it really worth that extra $150?

[Danny T]

On Oct 10, 11:25 am, wrote:
I have a pair of NT2's (about 12 years old), that I use for recording
large ensembles. I tried the NT1's for the same application and the
NT2's were considerably better. I don't know if the products today
are similar. The NT2's have also been pretty durable... one fell from
a 14' mic stand (wind) and broke into 3 pieces - I snapped it back
together and it continues to work perfectly.

In rec.audio.pro adam79 wrote:
: Hey, I'm thinking of buying either a Rode NT-1 or NT-2 and the NT-5. The
: NT-1 or NT-2 would be for vocals and micing the acoustic guitar, but the
: hole, and the NT-5 for placement by the neck. The NT-2 is $150 more than
: the NT-2.. is it really worth that extra $150?

The only thing I have ever really like the NT1 on is an acoustic
guitar, and that I love. ( a foot out and pointing at the 12th) Its a
cheap attitude mic and if an in your face acoustic dred sound is what
you're after its a good choice. IMHO

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

Jim, there's something about the cap test you recommended being irrelevant
to your changed story. If the question is polystyrene sounds compared to
DMD, why did you say compare to ceramic?

I don't know Jim's application,

And Jim didn't specify which one. My presumption is that the caps in
question would be in buffer amp.

but on a microphone input stage, your
choices are polystyrene, ceramic, or glass. DMD and the like have WAY
too much leakage in a 10G circuit.

That's a tiny minority of all of the caps in a mic. Often there are no caps
at all in that end of things, other than the mic capsule itself.

I'll claim that glass beats either polystyrene or COG ceramics, and there
IS
some possibility of there being surface mount glass from AVX soon. Not
yet,
though.

Good when it happens!

[Arny Krueger]

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:31:15 -0400, boodah wrote
(in article . com):

So, can you upgrade a NT2-A to sound better?

Sure, buy an AT4050. ::rim shot::

Probably no joke at all. The cheapest way to upgrade a production piece is
usually to simply obtain a production piece that represents the next grade
up in quality, rather than relying on hand-made modifications.

I'll bet $50 that if many of the *upgrades* that people hoot and holler
about were put to a carefully-run blind test, there would be a lot of people
who would be embarrassed by their random guessing.