Rode NT2A - what does it sound like?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The studio I use for recording strings, uses an NT2 for my violin and
viola. I have been very pleased with the results, and so have all the
studios around the world who I have done strings for recently.

I would describe of the NT2 the sound as slightly bright, and clean,
clear, open and natural. It captures a lot of the intensity of my
violin sound, which works well in the mix. I'd be happy to send you an
example of violin recorded on an NT2, if you like (see my website below
.. . . email address on there).

The only mic I've been totally amazed at when recording violin was a
Calrec Soundfield . . . which to my ears was in a different class of
realism to any other mic I've played violin into, but then so's the
prices  

Chris
REAL strings for realistic prices
http:www.chris-melchior.com/strings.htm

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hugh Ashton <hugh@j-views.com> wrote:
>I'm looking for a lower-cost omni chiefly to capture ambience when
>recording acoustic instruments (percussion, koto, shakuhachi, mainly)
>in a variety of settings. The Rode NT2A has caught my eye, as have the
>K2 and NT2000.

The koto and shakuhachi are very quiet. Room noise floor and mike noise
floor are going to be big deals.

>What I don't know is how these actually sound. Looking at the frequency
>response of the NT2A, it looks as though there's quite a bump at the
>top end in all patterns. Would this disqualify it, in people's opinion,
>as an instrumental mic, or could it add interesting character (given
>that one person's "interesting" is another's "rubbish")?

I would tend to avoid mikes with the presence peak for that sort of work
but that's just me. I would also suggest that you look for the quietest
small diaphragm condenser that you can afford.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

He asked about the NT2A....not the NT2.
They are TOTALLY different mics.
The NT2A incorporates all the advances in electronics & capsule designs
that Rode has come up with....also they are 100& Australian made....the
original NT2 had Asian components.
Our clients seem to like them a lot.

ken avant

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Hugh Ashton" <hugh@j-views.com> wrote in message
news:1108962293.778117.104150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm looking for a lower-cost omni chiefly to capture ambience when
> recording acoustic instruments (percussion, koto, shakuhachi, mainly)
> in a variety of settings. The Rode NT2A has caught my eye, as have the
> K2 and NT2000.
>
> What I don't know is how these actually sound. Looking at the frequency
> response of the NT2A, it looks as though there's quite a bump at the
> top end in all patterns. Would this disqualify it, in people's opinion,
> as an instrumental mic, or could it add interesting character (given
> that one person's "interesting" is another's "rubbish")?
>
> If none of these is suitable, what would be a viable alternative?

Well if a HF bump rules out a mic for you applications, then pretty much all
LDC are no good !


The HF bump it not profound, and I would describe the hf as silky and
extended, in the K2 at least, which has the same capsule.


geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks to all for their replies. It does look as though I've been
barking up the wrong tree on this one, and a SDC would be a better bet
from the points of view of residual noise and lack of presence peaks.
Maybe not quite as much character as a LDC such as the K2 (which does
sound like a wonderful thing, from all accounts), but it may be that
this kind of character is what I want here, even though I am recording
the music, rather than the instrument.

Now to look for SDC omnis - AT3032 seems to get good reviews and
present value for money in my price bracket.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hugh Ashton wrote:
> Thanks to all for their replies. It does look as though I've been
> barking up the wrong tree on this one, and a SDC would be a better bet
> from the points of view of residual noise and lack of presence peaks.
> Maybe not quite as much character as a LDC such as the K2 (which does
> sound like a wonderful thing, from all accounts), but it may be that
> this kind of character is what I want here, even though I am recording
> the music, rather than the instrument.
>
> Now to look for SDC omnis - AT3032 seems to get good reviews and
> present value for money in my price bracket.
>
possibly, but the NT2A is one of the quietest mics around....

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:31:34 -0500, david morley wrote
(in article <382taoF5i54caU1@individual.net>):

> Hugh Ashton wrote:
>> Thanks to all for their replies. It does look as though I've been
>> barking up the wrong tree on this one, and a SDC would be a better bet
>> from the points of view of residual noise and lack of presence peaks.
>> Maybe not quite as much character as a LDC such as the K2 (which does
>> sound like a wonderful thing, from all accounts), but it may be that
>> this kind of character is what I want here, even though I am recording
>> the music, rather than the instrument.
>>
>> Now to look for SDC omnis - AT3032 seems to get good reviews and
>> present value for money in my price bracket.
>>
> possibly, but the NT2A is one of the quietest mics around....

1. What's residual noise?
2. The NT2A sounds nothing like the NT2. It sounds better than the NT2.
3. I've used a TLM103 LDC on acoustic guitar (among many other things)
4. As of late, there's as much mis information on this group as there is
information.
5. Opinions are like...well you know.


Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:31:34 -0500, david morley wrote
> (in article <382taoF5i54caU1@individual.net>):
>
>
>>Hugh Ashton wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks to all for their replies. It does look as though I've been
>>>barking up the wrong tree on this one, and a SDC would be a better bet
>>>from the points of view of residual noise and lack of presence peaks.
>>>Maybe not quite as much character as a LDC such as the K2 (which does
>>>sound like a wonderful thing, from all accounts), but it may be that
>>>this kind of character is what I want here, even though I am recording
>>>the music, rather than the instrument.
>>>
>>>Now to look for SDC omnis - AT3032 seems to get good reviews and
>>>present value for money in my price bracket.
>>>
>>
>>possibly, but the NT2A is one of the quietest mics around....
>
>
> 1. What's residual noise?
> 2. The NT2A sounds nothing like the NT2. It sounds better than the NT2.
> 3. I've used a TLM103 LDC on acoustic guitar (among many other things)
> 4. As of late, there's as much mis information on this group as there is
> information.
> 5. Opinions are like...well you know.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>
snipped from a review in SOS mag
"the equivalent input noise of the NT2A is just 7dBA (measured as per
IEC651 and IEC268-15), which works out around 10dB quieter than the
typical competition. What's more impressive is that this figure, which
works out at an 87dB signal-to-noise ratio at 1kHz (reference 1Pa),
isn't at the expense of maximum SPL. In fact the NT2A manages a
spectacular 147dB maximum SPL without the pads switched in"

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:15:04 -0500, david morley wrote
(in article <383s0aF5lqp85U1@individual.net>):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:31:34 -0500, david morley wrote
>> (in article <382taoF5i54caU1@individual.net>):
>>
>>
>>> Hugh Ashton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks to all for their replies. It does look as though I've been
>>>> barking up the wrong tree on this one, and a SDC would be a better bet
>>>> from the points of view of residual noise and lack of presence peaks.
>>>> Maybe not quite as much character as a LDC such as the K2 (which does
>>>> sound like a wonderful thing, from all accounts), but it may be that
>>>> this kind of character is what I want here, even though I am recording
>>>> the music, rather than the instrument.
>>>>
>>>> Now to look for SDC omnis - AT3032 seems to get good reviews and
>>>> present value for money in my price bracket.
>>>>
>>>
>>> possibly, but the NT2A is one of the quietest mics around....
>>
>>
>> 1. What's residual noise?
>> 2. The NT2A sounds nothing like the NT2. It sounds better than the NT2.
>> 3. I've used a TLM103 LDC on acoustic guitar (among many other things)
>> 4. As of late, there's as much mis information on this group as there is
>> information.
>> 5. Opinions are like...well you know.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>>
>> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
>> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>>
> snipped from a review in SOS mag
> "the equivalent input noise of the NT2A is just 7dBA (measured as per
> IEC651 and IEC268-15), which works out around 10dB quieter than the
> typical competition. What's more impressive is that this figure, which
> works out at an 87dB signal-to-noise ratio at 1kHz (reference 1Pa),
> isn't at the expense of maximum SPL. In fact the NT2A manages a
> spectacular 147dB maximum SPL without the pads switched in"

Yah, but you said, "and a SDC would be a better bet
>>>from the points of view of residual noise and lack of presence peaks."

To me that means you think SD have better "residual noise" figures than LDC.
That's usually not the case. Usually, the bigger the diaphragm, the more
movement and higher volatge, therefore lower selfnoise.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:

> To me that means you think SD have better "residual noise" figures than LDC.
> That's usually not the case. Usually, the bigger the diaphragm, the more
> movement and higher volatge, therefore lower selfnoise.

The reason that LDC's have lower acoustic self noise is that
the desired signal is correlated over the larger area while
the acoustic noise is uncorrelated. This effects an
averaging of the noise which reduces its relative
contribution. The signal goes up linearly with the area
while the noise goes up with the square root of it, or
linearly with the diameter.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein