I have a pair of NT2000s and am very happy with the sound of the mics. What kind of preamp are you using?

im using mackie onyxs

Is it time to move up to a Neumann? Have your ears progressed to the point that nothing else will do?

Used U87's arent really that much more than a new Soundelux 195 or something comparable.

Just my $1.37.

Like Dave said, U87's are killer for vocal tracks. When I need one I have been renting one. Great way to try a mic before drop'n the bucks on one.

This is another mic for you to think about. GT40 Studio Tube Condenser.
Groove Tube makes a pretty good mic for one made in China. I just used one for a couple of weeks in my home studio and was very pleased.
Cut vocal tracks and acoustic guitar . Female and male vox. I like it just about as good as anything that i've ever used. It didn't set well with my wife's voice thought, Oh well.

It has a pad. It has interchangable capsules for multiple patterns. And a Hi pass filter. (This mic will colour the sound.)

Peace...............Scoobie

Schmuck, I think your K2 is a tube microphone? It's not supposed to be bright and crispy, it's supposed to be soft and mushy. It's not a U 47. If you want a microphone with plenty of presence and a nice high frequency airy sound, get yourself a small diaphragm condenser microphone. And the next time you want something smooth and luscious, you sold that microphone also. Tsk tsk tsk, you should have listened to your mother.

Smart old woman
Ms. Remy Ann David

nt2-a will sound like theK2

Hardly, they might share capsules, but the tube vs fet makes
it vastly different.
Analogous to the difference between a U47, and a U87.

I like the NT2-A better than the C1, I bought a pair
specifically for Mid-Side micing of walla, but they do very well on
voice. Cant speak for instruments ( I do TV Post)

Remy, most of us (male of the species) have lost our Schmucks right after birth!!! :shock:

RemyRAD wrote: Schmuck, I think your K2 is a tube microphone?

A moderator calling people schmucks?!?! Nice :roll:

It's not supposed to be bright and crispy, it's supposed to be it's supposed to be soft and mushy

You mean like a C12?

It's not a U 47.

Another soft and mushy tube mic, right?

If you want a microphone with plenty of presence and a nice high frequency airy sound, get yourself a small diaphragm condenser microphone.

You're just plain silly......and dispense ridiculous advice, at least this time (I never read any of your other 1.5k posts)

And the next time you want something smooth and luscious, you sold that microphone also.

Yeah, well.........as much as I like the Rode company, I can see where someone would be underwhelmed by the K2. I know, I sold mine.....and haven't regretted it for a second.

It's not that it's a bad mic, it just wasn't what I wanted at the time nor what I expected. In fact, I preferred the NTK (oooop, I sold that too).

In all, I think the K2 is a solid as a tank mic that has it's own sound, which is indeed, a bit soft. Typically, I find mics like that can take EQ well and be a bit Chameleon-like. It seems to be a mic that people have a love-hate relationship with, as witrnessed here.

Tsk tsk tsk, you should have listened to your mother.

Smart-assed old woman
Ms. Remy Ann David

Yep.

Stickers, here's my recommendation to you.
Try out a OktavaMod modded MK319 or MK219.

Mad, whats the mod on the oktavas?

The Mod on the Oktava MK319............

That's where they make the signal path in the wiring from the capsule to the attenuation switch's shorter to improve high frequency detail.

They also remove one of the head basket screens. There is more to it than that, but thats all I remember.

OktavaMod is a company in itself. They are a Oktava dealer now.

Peace..............Scoobie

stickers wrote: Mad, whats the mod on the oktavas?

There are different mods.
The standard is a physical mod with the headbasket and damping of the mic and capsule. The premium electronics completely replaces all of the electronics.

They are truly excellent sounding mics and very well worth a try.
I have tried three other mics and they are all good.
The MK105 has more high end and could be right for you too.
I will tell you they are not your father's Oktavas.
They are made very nicely and OktavaMod takes them to a different level.

Contact Micheal Joly. I'm sure he'll give you great advice and service.

I also own a K2, and ever since I started recording vocals using an Earthworks QTC40, well, I’ll never turn back. It has to be the easiest mic to EQ and all the frequencies are simply present and “in your face” so to speak. If anything, I’ll run a nice tube mic alongside the QTC40 and use what I need, when I need it. Just another 62 cents worth.

Well if you liked the C1 (I have one-DO like it), you'll love the new C1. Little hotter, silkier highs and smoother bottom end. I think it's designated C1V2 (original!). Try the Studio Projects homepage for more info...JMHO.

I like my K2. The tube has been switched to a Mullard NOS and is still not 'in your face' but I love it for many things.

My OktavaMod MK-219 with Premium Electronics is much more 'in your face' but in a very beautiful way.

Both are great values.

stickers wrote: Anyways, I need a new vocal mic. My really want a mic with pad, hi pass filters, and 3 patterns. And that brings me to a few options like the rode nt2-a or the sp c3. (But im afraid the nt2-a will sound like theK2 i have.)

What's your budget?
It's hard to beat NT2-As at the price. The top end is not like the K2, and the self-noise has to be heard (or rather not heard) to be believed.

I agree with Remy on using a good SDC for vox sometimes - sometimes. I use an MK012 with a beautiful omni cap from the sound room on my vocals quite a bit and love how smooth and silky it can be; especially through an EHX 12AY7 pre.

FWIW I use a modded Apex 460 when I want a really thick, resonant response that's on the verge of being spongey. The modded 460 from Dave Thomas at Advanced Audio in Canada is a really decent mic. I think I paid $320 for it and IMO it was well worth it.

There are too many generalities being thrown around here.

1. Just because a tube is in use, does NOT mean that it will have a certain sonic characteristic. There are clean and prestine tube circuits, and there are dirty solid state circuits. Not just the other way around.

2. I don't know what the deal is with Rode, but they just hired a designer from AKG. This, IMO, solidifies their reputation as the "sound that sounds like shredded metal" microphone. AKG isn't known for big, fat and warm either. Perhaps they should have hired a former Neumann (pre-Sennheiser) employee.

3. The 47 is NOT a mushy mic typically. It could be that some people here have heard some bad ones. I have worked with three maintained by Korby and they are awesome. I have also worked with 48s and they were big and huge sounding. Very good.

4. The C12. You know, people today use this mic out of it's context, so I think that it doesn't really matter. For me an ADK TT works as well in the modern application of near-field vocals and overhead drums, for alot less cash. I heard the reissue from Telefunken and it wasn't worth the cost. On the final product, it is not a tie breaker.

5. Perhaps the OP should also consider looking at a Mohave MA200 if he wants the big peak on the top.

MadGuitrst wrote

You're just plain silly......and dispense ridiculous advice, at least this time (I never read any of your other 1.5k posts)

Well...you should... :?