#1
Hello,

Do any of you have experience with both microphones? I'm looking for one that double as a vocal mic and mic for my GPCPA1. Any suggestions? I can get both for near the same price. Someone is selling the NT1a and NT2a for near the same price. I hear great input about both the AKG and Rode.

Thanks.
#2
Between those, I would get the Rhodes. The only difference between those 2, iirc, is the polar patterns. The NT1a is just cardiod, while the 2a has several different ones.
The C214 has quite a fizzy high end which could ruin a nice acoustic guitar recording unless you put a LPF and some careful EQing. In my experience, the proximity effect has a more distinct effect on the AKG which could affect the tone between vocal takes and a room recording.
I would recommend a C414 over both though, if that ever comes within your budget.
#3
The NT1a has a strange upper-midrange that many find horribly harsh (myself included). If the vocalist only sings fairly lower register stuff it may work, but for female vocals and higher male voices, I'd go for something else.
Hey, look. Sigs are back.
#4
Both can deliver excellent results if you got studio chops. This is a pretty thorough overview of the possibilities with the NT1-A. The MC is a bit annoying but the sound samples are first rate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vELgb_p0ws

This compares both mics and you can hear the differences in upper register energy. You decide if this is something you want or don't want:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyM6CX2DWAw
"Your sound is in your hands as much as anything. It's the way you pick, and the way you hold the guitar, more than it is the amp or the guitar you use." -- Stevie Ray Vaughan

"Anybody can play. The note is only 20 percent. The attitude of the motherfucker who plays it is 80 percent." -- Miles Davis

Guthrie on tone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmohdG9lLqY
Last edited by Cajundaddy at Jul 22, 2015,
#5
I think you're misinterpretting what I said, or you are responding to OP, but it's nothing to do with skill in the studio - many I know who run professional studios, and others in the audio world, have commented on the strange frequencies and harshness of the NT1a. Many budget condensers suffer issues with strange harsh frequencies, but it seems rather pronounced on vocals with the NT1a.

It's a more complex issue than just putting a bit of EQ on to compensate. It just appears less of an issue to some because it is very voice-dependent and depends on both the singer's tonality, register and the vocal technique they're using at the time.
Hey, look. Sigs are back.
#6
Quote by DisarmGoliath
I think you're misinterpretting what I said, or you are responding to OP, but it's nothing to do with skill in the studio - many I know who run professional studios, and others in the audio world, have commented on the strange frequencies and harshness of the NT1a. Many budget condensers suffer issues with strange harsh frequencies, but it seems rather pronounced on vocals with the NT1a.

It's a more complex issue than just putting a bit of EQ on to compensate. It just appears less of an issue to some because it is very voice-dependent and depends on both the singer's tonality, register and the vocal technique they're using at the time.


Sometimes you need that upper register energy to breathe life into a vocal or acoustic guitar and it is exactly the right tool. Other times it is just too much for some applications. The AKG would be a better choice for Michael Jackson vocals but for Camille here the NT1-A works beautifully I think. Different tools for different reasons and neither are bad or good choices. I don't like to blanket write-off a tool just because it doesn't work in one particular setting. Choose the right tool for the job at hand. Who are you recording? What are their voice or instrument characteristics? Which tool will make the most of this recording?

I don't find any of these NT1-A demo recordings unbearably harsh in upper mids and I trust my ears far more than internet forum scuttlebutt. Ears rule, dogs drool.

Given a mic budget of $5k there are a lot of nicer condenser mics. In the under $500 range the NT1-A is a on the short list if it suits your application.
"Your sound is in your hands as much as anything. It's the way you pick, and the way you hold the guitar, more than it is the amp or the guitar you use." -- Stevie Ray Vaughan

"Anybody can play. The note is only 20 percent. The attitude of the motherfucker who plays it is 80 percent." -- Miles Davis

Guthrie on tone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmohdG9lLqY
Last edited by Cajundaddy at Jul 22, 2015,
#7
I'd suggest AT4040 instead, don't like any of the mics OP asked about and worked with the Rodes quite a bit in studio. They're hit/miss, but mostly miss, sounded harsh to me on everything I used. Maybe death metal vocals and distorted guitar amps were ok and snare you want to sound harsh. The AKG is exaggerated iin the highs and can be grating as well. I pretty much preferred the AT4040 over these mics almost every time and used them when I run out of the other condensers.
#8
I have no experience with the AKG214, but one thing to keep in mind is that it matters a LOT what you are recording!

I had an NT1 and quite liked it. As my budget grew, I grew out of it. However, it was good enough for Amy Winehouse for one of her sessions. I doubt they chose it because it was the only or best mic they had. They chose it because it matched her voice.

I had one singer who sounded harsh and strident through everything I put in front of her, including a hail-Mary shot at a large-diaphragm dynamic e602. In despair, I put up an SM58 - something I never do for a "keeper" lead vocal, and it was brilliant.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#9
The NT-1a has that annoying harsh midrange that I attribute as part of Amy's "sound" so I see why they could've picked that mic.
I've done A/B/C....Z tests with singers on pretty much all the mics we had in the studio, some people just sounded bad on the big ticket items (U87/AKG414s) and condenser mics overall, but ended up sounding great through much cheaper broadcast mics and even guitar mics in some instances.