not

I think they are too high-endy, and maybe a little brittle. I used them for overheads on a couple of records I produced in a commercial studio here (engineer liked them, and there were not a lot of other good choices). They were to goto overheads in that studio.

I thought they made the symbols sound brash.

That said, they are not bad mics - they just sound like they sound. I don't recall them having the failings of many cheap ldc's such as too much noise, or bad off axis sound.

I thought I'd heard they have been completely reengineered - so best to audition them - although, I'd be sure audition them with the intended source.

the new nt2 have the same capsule of the K2- they are completely a differnt mic- that being said, i love my K2's- i use them for vocals and 2 of them for percussion where they really shine.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I just assumed the NT2-A would use the same diaphram as the original NT2 so I'm bummed they're not.

I've been considering buying a LOMO M1 head for the Oktava MK-012 but have heard the NT2 sounds alot like the LOMO. So I was excited to see the new NT2-A features switchable patterns and figured it was a better buy.

In light of both your comments about the 2 different versions I'm going to stick with the LOMO M1. The sound is so much like the older U87's that it's a real bargain at $380. I don't need another LDC that's bright or has exaggerated highs. The K2 can handle a diaphram that carries a bump in the highs because of the tube warmth.