x
imagineaudio 11 December 2004

I'm looking at a RODE NT2000 or something around $600. The fully variable pattern interested me.

Tags

Comments

imagineaudio Wed, 12/15/2004 - 13:27

mantiger......what is your opinion of the TLM103 vs the AT or the rode.....is the extra $400 or so worth it? I want more of a warm colored sound than a bight sound. I've found recording into a digital only workstation that bright mics can easily sound TOO bright......I am looking for a warm tight sound under $1000 but if I can get it for $600 or less even better :D ....and i heard the rodes suck.....i havnt used them

Krou Wed, 12/15/2004 - 13:34

I had my heart set on the TLM-103 and once I heard it against a Rode Classic, I was left with the impression of an overpriced mic wit the word "Neumann" on it, that's it. The Rode sounded absolutely incredible to my ears. That said, I'm going for a K2 in the new year. Think NTK (also a beauty), but better design and variable patterns.

Doublehelix Wed, 12/15/2004 - 19:27

Krou wrote: I had my heart set on the TLM-103 and once I heard it against a Rode Classic, I was left with the impression of an overpriced mic wit the word "Neumann" on it, that's it. The Rode sounded absolutely incredible to my ears. That said, I'm going for a K2 in the new year. Think NTK (also a beauty), but better design and variable patterns.

Yeah, I compared the TLM103 to my NTK, and was very disappointed in the Neumann. The Rode sounded smoother and warmer, although the TLM103 was a bit less sibilant, it just didn't justify the Neumann name for me...

Groff Wed, 12/15/2004 - 21:53

AT is not for colour (except maybe 4060) . Check Rode site and download few mp3 demos. Different Rode mics through 1073 to PT on 24/44.1. I own Classic 2. Doesn't suck at all with my Sebatron. I listened takes with TLM 103 before, not bad but more like Neumann "LE". I agree with Doublehelix. Don't buy just because of name. I guess first Neumann that "works" is U87. We are all in expensive game.

If you are looking for your first good mic take your time (and money) and do deeper research in Pro audio gear forum.

And do not expect "warmth" from mic only.

maintiger Thu, 12/16/2004 - 08:36

imagineaudio wrote: mantiger......what is your opinion of the TLM103 vs the AT or the rode.....:D ....and i heard the rodes suck.....i havnt used them

as far as the tlm103 I haven't heard one but I've used the u87 quite a bit and rumour has it its the same capsule design... I'm sure its a good mic- that being said, you can't go wrong IMHO with he Rode K2. It is not overly bright like the NT1 (I own one of those too and it has its uses) lately I've been using the K2 in omni mode for male vocals and the clarity is just unbelievable. In cardioid the mic has more bite but in omni it just goes on forever.... :D

maintiger Thu, 12/16/2004 - 09:29

imagineaudio wrote: thanks guys for the advice.......I maybe ready to go demo some mics........now one more question for this thread.........K2 vs NTK?

Tune in next month for...PRE's PRE's PRE's...... 8-)

I have the K2 and I understand that the NTK is brighter- (which of course makes the K2 darker) Take your pick

imagineaudio Tue, 01/25/2005 - 08:03

Just to update, i did some research and demoed some mics, and went with a K2.......thanks guys for your comments......it was a little over my budget but not by much and I'm very happy with it so far, so who cares if it was little more? can't really wait to do a serious project with it, though....havn't had time for that yet :x

anonymous Mon, 04/11/2005 - 14:15

maintiger wrote: I just bought a second K2 so I can record congas and other percussion in stereo. I had done a percussion recording in December with the K2 in omni and it rturned out fantastick- can't wait to try the stereo pair.

Hi maintiger, I've heard nothing but raves for the K2 and will most likely get one.

I found a thread that did a comparison with other mics and the K2 faired very poorly. This surpised me and wondered if you could take a listen over at this thread? Is it possible that the K2 was not working right or that the pre he was using was poorly suited for the K2? :shock:

Not challenging anyone, but to my ears the K2 sounded the worse. Could you help me understand what might be happening here?

http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=151690

P.S. I think I'll still get the K2 but need an explaination what happened on this thread. I also like the NTK as well.

Thanks in advance,
DennisT

maintiger Mon, 04/11/2005 - 14:31

Hey Dennis

sorry but I could not get the files to play for me- they open in winamp and nothing hapened. that being said, the k2 has variable and continuous change from omni to cardioid then down to figure 8 and all the different positions change the sound. You have to dial to get your sound with this mic. In cardioid is a very in your face kind of sound, which does not work for many applications- for example I usually dial it at 10- 11 0clock for vocals, depending on the singer. If you have any doubts you should try to borrow or rent one first to see if it works for you...

KurtFoster Mon, 04/11/2005 - 14:52

Ohhhh fellas!
A lot of "audio freak" types would say that "shootout" was not a true double blind test with proper controls. But to my pov the real problem was the mic pre used for the test. The Eureka is not the most open and transparent mic pre in the world .... and some guys like me think it's really a piece of sh*t. I personally think they would have been better off using a Mackie pre for this kind of comparison. When I am doing these types of mic comparisons, I use either the Millennia HV-3 pre or my Amek Neve 9098's. I would never use a pre that was transformer balanced for a mic comparison. I do not mean to "diss" the effort. I am sure they did the best they were able to and that the intention was good. It just wasn't conducted correctly.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to judge any of those mics from that comparison. I suspect we are hearing more from the pre amp than anything else. The author even admits that some really good monitors are needed to hear the differences between the mics. Something screwy's going on there. That should not be the case. The differences should be very obvious unless there's something else coloring the signal after the fact. I think it's the Eureka.

For an informative POV on how to properly conduct a mic or mic pre test take a look at John Hardy's web site . http://www.johnhardyco.com and click on the LINKS icon ...Look for the article, "Mic Pre-amp Evaluation Methodology".

It's a real eye opener! BTW, lot's of other real good stuff there as well.

anonymous Mon, 04/11/2005 - 18:59

maintiger wrote: Hey Dennis

sorry but I could not get the files to play for me- they open in winamp and nothing hapened. that being said, the k2 has variable and continuous change from omni to cardioid then down to figure 8 and all the different positions change the sound. You have to dial to get your sound with this mic. In cardioid is a very in your face kind of sound, which does not work for many applications- for example I usually dial it at 10- 11 0clock for vocals, depending on the singer. If you have any doubts you should try to borrow or rent one first to see if it works for you...

Thanks for trying anyway. I just right clicked on them and saved the MP3 to my local drive. You might try that...

I really wonder if they didn't have it set correctly or something, because it really sounded inferior to the other mics.

Thanks for responding.
DennisT

anonymous Mon, 04/11/2005 - 19:04

Kurt Foster wrote: Ohhhh fellas!
A lot of "audio freak" types would say that "shootout" was not a true double blind test with proper controls. But to my pov the real problem was the mic pre used for the test. The Eureka is not the most open and transparent mic pre in the world .... and some guys like me think it's really a piece of sh*t. I personally think they would have been better off using a Mackie pre for this kind of comparison. When I am doing these types of mic comparisons, I use either the Millennia HV-3 pre or my Amek Neve 9098's. I would never use a pre that was transformer balanced for a mic comparison. I do not mean to "diss" the effort. I am sure they did the best they were able to and that the intention was good. It just wasn't conducted correctly.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to judge any of those mics from that comparison. I suspect we are hearing more from the pre amp than anything else. The author even admits that some really good monitors are needed to hear the differences between the mics. Something screwy's going on there. That should not be the case. The differences should be very obvious unless there's something else coloring the signal after the fact. I think it's the Eureka.

For an informative POV on how to properly conduct a mic or mic pre test take a look at John Hardy's web site . http://www.johnhardyco.com and click on the LINKS icon ...Look for the article, "Mic Pre-amp Evaluation Methodology".

It's a real eye opener! BTW, lot's of other real good stuff there as well.

Thanks Kurt, I wondered about the pre. If you get a chance to listen, check it out. Sure makes the K2 sound bad.

I'll continue to do more research. I really appreciate your's and others feedback.

Take care,
DennisT

anonymous Mon, 04/11/2005 - 23:51

BillC wrote: "get the K2 instead.. very nice.. and can be picked up for under 600.
"-)"

You need to learn how to shop :wink: I picked up a pair of NT2000's for $400/each. New, in the box, retail.

Hi, I realize this is April 2005 but where did you get your NT2000's or $400 each?

Was this a special deal or does this place have good prices?

Thanks in advance for this tardy question.
DennisT

x

User login