Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (
More info?)
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:31:22 -0400, Mikey wrote
(in article <526517d0.0408251031.754baea6@posting.google.com>):
> Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<4oadndCfjaXGDLHcRVn-vw@comcast.com>...
>
>
>>> Ty, I'm considering a K2 in the future. When you say the peak has been
>>> smoothed out (The peak I can clearly hear in my NT1s), do you mean the
>>> peak has broadened and become more pleasant/euphonic, or do you mean
>>> it has shrunk/gone away? Or perhaps moved to a different freq. range?
>>> What other mic would you compare the K2 to soundwise?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mikey Wozniak
>>> Nova Music Productions
>>> This sig is haiku
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> You get to spank me.
>
> Only if I don't have to pay.
>
>> I was thinking about the NT2000. Its frequency center is
>> still up around 11kHz. In omni the book shows it at +5 with a +4 in
>> cardioid,
>> but it sounded a bit smoother on top.
>>
>> I think there might have been some other considerations than pure the peak
>> that make a difference. Give it a listen and concentrate on the peak area.
>> Obviously, different preamps will also color the sound.
>>
>> Sorry for any confusion.
>>
>
> Ty,
> IIRC, the K2 is a tube version of the NT2000, so the sound should be
> quite similar. The NT1s do sound peaky around 10-11k to me, so maybe
> capsule/electronics improvements have mellowed the peak a bit. If it's
> broader, that could sound quite good. Anyone else using a K2? What are
> the closest-sounding other mics (tube or otherwise)?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Mikey Wozniak
Mike,
They are, but they don't sound the same. The NT2000 is not as peaky. I did
have both here at the same time.
Ty
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram