Anyone recognise these mic's?

[Mbroady]

Putting aside the mic, it was a tease. I wish they would have done the rest of the song.
Great riffing, harmonies and all around musicianship.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by Bowie

When it comes to mics, good or bad is all relative to the sound you want. What's good for me on one person might be bad on another, or might be bad on that same person, in a different context. I couldn't begin to guess what might be a good mic for you without knowing what specific problems you have with the NT1.

One of the biggest hits the rock band 30 Seconds to Mars ever had used an NT1 on the lead vocal, despite the rest of the album using a very expensive mic. It's less about what mics are "good" and all about getting the sound you want for the application.

In a live sound reinforcement scenario it's about gain before feedback on stage. So (as far as I can understand) the more consistent the polar pattern across all frequencies the better. So no spikes in the pattern (cardioid) at a specific frequency.

Secondly, something quite "flat" in terms of response. Warm but not growly. Clear but not tinny.

Perhaps low cut to take out stage rumble and audience murmur (although a pad on the mixer can do that job.

Robust - it has to take the knocks of being used in a bar room on a Friday night.

The polar pattern has to reject sound from the audience side of the mic' but collect sound from the arc of players/singers in its field. Cardioid works well as the musicians can stand around the mic' within a range of 1' to 5' and have room to move in and out of the mic' field for balance.

Most importantly, it has to be simple for a bunch of amateur musicians to set up and use. Me and some friends pulled together a scratch band for a fun night at a local venue just before Xmas. It has a small stage and we had 6 of us. Three vocalists, two of whom were also playing acoustic guitar, mandolin, dobro, banjo, harmonic depending on the song (none of those instruments plugged in). The other 3 played electric bass, electric guitar and drums.

We could have had mic's and leads everywhere if the 3 of us had gone for 3 up 3 down dynamic mic's, and plugged in those acoustic instruments that had p/us . So, instead we just mounted the Rode Nt1a centre stage front and played/sang around that. The house pa was two Bose columns, one each side of the stage and a floor monitor. The bass and electric guitar used back line amps (+ feed to the desk), and only the kick on the drums went to the pa.

The Nt1a did an OK job. But it is not a job it was built to do. I'm wondering if there is something better? Here's a mobile phone video clip from the night and it shows how we were using the NT1a.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

In a live sound reinforcement scenario it's about gain before feedback on stage. So (as far as I can understand) the more consistent the polar pattern across all frequencies the better. So no spikes in the pattern (cardioid) at a specific frequency.

Secondly, something quite "flat" in terms of response. Warm but not growly. Clear but not tinny.

Perhaps low cut to take out stage rumble and audience murmur (although a pad on the mixer can do that job.

Robust - it has to take the knocks of being used in a bar room on a Friday night.

The polar pattern has to reject sound from the audience side of the mic' but collect sound from the arc of players/singers in its field. Cardioid works well as the musicians can stand around the mic' within a range of 1' to 5' and have room to move in and out of the mic' field for balance.

Most importantly, it has to be simple for a bunch of amateur musicians to set up and use. Me and some friends pulled together a scratch band for a fun night at a local venue just before Xmas. It has a small stage and we had 6 of us. Three vocalists, two of whom were also playing acoustic guitar, mandolin, dobro, banjo, harmonic depending on the song (none of those instruments plugged in). The other 3 played electric bass, electric guitar and drums.

We could have had mic's and leads everywhere if the 3 of us had gone for 3 up 3 down dynamic mic's, and plugged in those acoustic instruments that had p/us . So, instead we just mounted the Rode Nt1a centre stage front and played/sang around that. The house pa was two Bose columns, one each side of the stage and a floor monitor. The bass and electric guitar used back line amps (+ feed to the desk), and only the kick on the drums went to the pa.

The Nt1a did an OK job. But it is not a job it was built to do. I'm wondering if there is something better? Here's a mobile phone video clip from the night and it shows how we were using the NT1a.

I was thinking more in terms of tone. There's many, many mics what will serve the function you need. The NT1 is a bit aggressive in the upper-mids/lower highs, so it's a bright, slightly gritty mic. Good for cutting through a mix. If your concern is more about the rejection, I'd avoid most LDC mics.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by Bowie

I was thinking more in terms of tone. There's many, many mics what will serve the function you need. The NT1 is a bit aggressive in the upper-mids/lower highs, so it's a bright, slightly gritty mic. Good for cutting through a mix. If your concern is more about the rejection, I'd avoid most LDC mics.

I don't think that there is another option other than an LDC for this type of application? It seems to be what everyone who single mic's uses.

The NT1a is a bit "bright" - I have noticed that the first feedback point is often a squeal rather than howl (but room dependant).

So what would do the job better? Do I need to go for an Ear Trumpet Myrtle? And would it be that much better on stage for the massive leap in price? Or should I look at perhaps a Sure KSM32 or the Rode NT1 rather than the NT1a?

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

I don't think that there is another option other than an LDC for this type of application? It seems to be what everyone who single mic's uses.

The NT1a is a bit "bright" - I have noticed that the first feedback point is often a squeal rather than howl (but room dependant).

So what would do the job better? Do I need to go for an Ear Trumpet Myrtle? And would it be that much better on stage for the massive leap in price? Or should I look at perhaps a Sure KSM32 or the Rode NT1 rather than the NT1a?

Maybe I misunderstand your application. Looking at the pic I thought it was just you with an acoustic. If it's a band, then condensers (large or small) work well. If it's you then I like to use two cardioid or super card angled so the vocal mic rejects the guitar and vice versa. This allows the mics to be closer so you have greater source volume, less ambient, and thus less chance of feedback. And, independent guitar and vocal volume control.

Regarding the NT1 and 1a, I've owned both and they're pretty much interchangeable. I know they're technically different but the character is mostly the same.

[KevWind]

Hear is the KSM 32 in action on stage
This is my cover of You Ain't Going Nowhere at the Jackson Hole Center for the Arts

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Hear is the KSM 32 in action on stage
This is my cover of You Ain't Going Nowhere at the Jackson Hole Center for the Arts

Kevin, I love it!

What an amazing stage sound for both guitar and voice from just the one mic'. And a lovely performance!

It does surprise me that more of us acoustic guitarists don't play live with a single LDC stage mic'. Even using two mic's (one for voice, one for guitar) is a rarity - first base seems to be mic' for voice but guitar always plugged in.

That KSM 32 certainly was doing a good job in that theatre. I'll have to investigate those further.

[GoPappy]

Robin, I'm an absolute neophyte with mics and recording, so I can't advise you from experience. But I've been researching mics and ran across a couple of mics from Lewitt that have me intrigued due to their sound, polar pattern, construction, cost. They are the Lewitt LCT 440 Pure and the LCT 240. The 440 is $289 and the 240 is $99 here in the U.S. They are essentially identical except for the condenser. The 440 is a LDC with a 1" condenser while the 240 is a SDC with a .67" condenser. They appear to be very well built and include a shock-mount and, as a bonus, they look pretty cool too.

The reason I thought of these for you is that they seem to have a pretty wide cardioid pattern that picks up sound from the side better than some other cardioid mics, which can be a negative for a lot of uses, but could be better for your use. Here's a link to a video by Tom Buck comparing them, and he demonstrates their sound pickup from the front, side and rear: https://youtu.be/5IuPZ_twvDo?si=qg7LPao_anbyZFZb (One of these days I need to learn how to embed a video here.)

There is also an LCT 441 Flex (an LDC), which has 8 selectable polar patterns. It is $399 in the U.S.

I have not used ANY of these, and you may not be interested in any of them, but just thought I would mention them.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by GoPappy

They are essentially identical except for the condenser. The 440 is a LDC with a 1" condenser while the 240 is a SDC with a .67" condenser. They appear to be very well built and include a shock-mount and, as a bonus, they look pretty cool too.

When Lewitt says the mic is a '"1" true condenser cardioid microphone,' the '1"' part is referring to diameter of the diaphragm. A mic is a "condenser microphone because it employs a particular type of circuitry, there's no part inside the mic that is referred to as the "condenser."

[Robin, Wales]

Thanks for the heads up on Lewitt. That looks like a cool company! I will drop them a line and see what they suggest.

[GoPappy]

Originally Posted by jim1960

When Lewitt says the mic is a '"1" true condenser cardioid microphone,' the '1"' part is referring to diameter of the diaphragm. A mic is a "condenser microphone because it employs a particular type of circuitry, there's no part inside the mic that is referred to as the "condenser."

That exposes the truth of my "neophyte" statement in my post above. Thanks for pointing out my incorrect terminology. I learned something today.

[EZYPIKINS]

KSM44 fore sure

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by GoPappy

That exposes the truth of my "neophyte" statement in my post above. Thanks for pointing out my incorrect terminology. I learned something today.

We were all there. No worries.

[Gordon Currie]

Having owned a Rode NT1a and owning a Shure KSM32, I would say the KSM32 is a more versatile microphone.

Response is flatter than NT1a. I think it would be an upgrade for live use.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by Gordon Currie

Having owned a Rode NT1a and owning a Shure KSM32, I would say the KSM32 is a more versatile microphone.

Response is flatter than NT1a. I think it would be an upgrade for live use.

Thanks Gordon, that's really useful. There are lots of KSM32 around, so I should be able to get one at a good price.