What would be great would be a comparison that leaves the EQ alone on the U47 and rolls off the highs slightly on the NT1 in order to see just how close an NT1 can sound to the U47 as opposed to the other way around.
I think the Neve and Distressor played a much bigger role in the pro sound on both mics than the mics themselves. Doing the same test gain matched straight into a Focusrite interface vs. the Neve + Distressor chain and you'd hear a lot more difference.
I agree but the goal is the same : its better to put 1k on a good preamp and 1k on a good comp/saturation hardware with a cheap mic than put your entire money on a vintage mic
@@pyrra That is true but the point is, a more neutral and realistic test would have been to compare both mics just dry into a normal affordable interface with no external preamps or colouration. 99.9% of the people watching this video don't have the money to buy a Neve or a Distressor and if they did, they wouldn't be buying such a cheap mic like a Røde.
Great comparison - I love that you recorded this properly with a great singer. This really helps you see the difference - and the lack of difference. I think the Neumann has that golden sound - it's really difficult to describe what exactly. It has presence but its not bright like the Rode, it's like velvet. The Rode sounds also fantastic, but its more present and bright and more in your face - like a modern pop vocal. So there is nothing with it either. I mean.. with some processing - the difference is not gonna be noticeable - but that Neumann sound is that wonderful smooth vocal sound that pops out without disturbing. I think the difference is more pronounced when you really jack up the volume - the Neumann sound you will enjoy at any volume. Also you should never discount the impact of the vintage mic on your mood and vibe - if it helps you feel better during decording, then it could again make a difference. But it's a difference that only world class musicians should care about.
As someone who owns and uses these status symbol mics on a regular basis (u87, u67, C800G, 251, C12, M49, etc..) I can tell you that the most important thing is how well the room is acoustically treated. The difference between well designed mics, (no matter how cheap or expensive) becomes significantly small. Investing in room treatment often overlooked, but probably the most important factor in getting a professional studio quality recordings. in a properly treated space the differences between mics becomes more obvious, but the differences also become more negligible at the same time.
U47 sounds warmer and smoother especially in low-mid. Rode sounds a bit harsh in high frequencies but all those differences are so small. From practical point of view, NOBODY from regular people/listener will ever notice any difference between those mics. But, this review was super professional and clear not just for pro soundguys but also for normal people. Well done!
Thanks for this upload. I meet lots of bedroom artists (that are even less experienced than me) obsessing over microphones. My opinion is you can get any ~$400 microphone and forget about it. Dynamic or condenser. It will be great on vocals with the right processing.
This is hilarious! People think I'm crazy because I still use those cheap MXL vocal mics for some of my tracks. Rock tracks get the SM7B but ballads get the MXL. I might have to pickup one of these NT1s though! 👀 Great vid! 🤘🤘🤘
People went on and on about "transparent" recording until we could do it. Everyone decided they don't really like accurate recording equipment. They like the distortion, saturation and less high end. It's silly.
I actually upgraded to to the NT1A from one of those MXL mics. I'd say it was worth the upgrade. Not like it was mind boggling or anything, but the difference was noticeable.
I was the head technician at Abbey Road Institute London and we had a U47 lent to us from the main studios for our collection. The problem was though once the students knew its value they would use it on absolutely anything they recorded. Literally just moving the mic from instrument to instrument when it came time for tracking. It was like a sort of blind trust in the performance of the mic.
I used a Rode NT1A for several years and switched to other microphones (TLM103, OC808) because it has a strange, definable character in the high frequency, which also creates a home effect in the final mix. It gives the sound a completely different character with the new microphone, the recording and the processing are also different. I think that most errors can be corrected in a mix, but not completely.
@@jasonk125 The video shows a Rode NT1A, if I saw its type correctly on a microphone. :) I have a Rode NT1 and it is much better, flatter, but still has the brand's characteristic character.
I’m 3:03 in and I think mic A is the Rode NT-1, reason it picks up the singers breath and other mouth sounds more, its more sensitive, the Neumann is warmer and does not pick up as much, breathing etc. Really impressed with the NT-1 and have one. I will be more aware of its sensitivity due to this excellent demo. Thank you! Edit: As a singer, I’d pick the U47 because it feels like you can push it more, especially on big vocals and perhaps less editing out interference. Im no professional producer but that’s what my ears are telling me.
I love that 47. Sheesh. Especially when you push into it with more force, it's just so smooth and elegant. The NT1A handles like most modern mics in that price range with capsules machined in a factory instead of by hand.
This was great. I must admit to being surprised by how nominal the difference was when A/B dry although there was a very slight difference when played in context of the song where - to my ears - the vocal had a little more weight which allowed it to sit better, and definitely smoother on the upper mids/top. With that in mind I'd add that I assume the U47 would stack better over multiple overdubs. $24,750 better? Not a chance!
2 things: the sibilance (soft & manageable on thr U47, signature sharp & more "evil" on the Rode), and the low-mid thick richness. If he'd been even closer, with even more proximity effect, both would have been even more apparent. Still, that guy can sing and emote very well, and the mics are in a very good room, hooked up to a great audio chain - so most any mic wouldn't sound too bad!
Thanks for the video!! The Rode NT1 has harsh high mid to it. But with some slight EQ you could make them so close I doubt even the best ears would notice.
I bought a matched pair of Rode NT1's several years ago and have achieved great recordings with them. I've always thought about getting an even "nicer" mic, but this video really hammers down how so much audio gear has diminishing returns as you go for more expensive options. To my ears all it takes is a bit of EQ and perhaps some subtle saturation to get the Rode mic to sound 99.9% the same as the U47.
I personally think the difference is so subtle, and it comes down to increased midrange detail (responsible for the “fullness” you hear,) and the other major difference is a slightly less hyped top end, which you will honestly notice more on worse singers (or if not worse, just less control of their sibilance.) These differences literally come down to a couple db in both areas, but a couple db in the right spot can make all the difference, just ask a mastering engineer. The stock NT-1 is absolutely an amazing tool on it’s own. For the average home recordist, you can totally dial eq to simulate the U47 sound, even if it’s lacking just a bit on those mids. Most will never find themselves in need of the real deal U47. I ended up getting some other mics I liked better, and modded my NT-1 with a 47 style capsule replacement from micparts, and though it made it much darker, the detailed mids on vocals and acoustic instruments was immediately noticeable. Plus the whole deal was still a fraction of the og U47.
You don't hear the "richness" in the recording. I don't. The guy listening to his own voice guessed because he couldn't really tell. So, 'darker" (less high end) is the signature of an expensive mic? Really?
So, a while back, I took my mic that I owned at the time into the studio with me, intending to use it. It was a microtech Gefell m930 that I had just recently purchased, $1,000+ dollar mic, so nothing to scoff at. When I got there, instead of just going with it, we shot it out against 3 other mics, all vintage: a u47, a c12, and an elam 251. I genuinely wanted so badly to pick my own mic, because, of course I wanna use my own gear and I had just spent a good amount of money on it, but, after shooting them out, I couldn’t. Don’t get me wrong, it did hold its own, but the other mics, to my ear, absolutely did beat it out. I ended up going with the 251. My engineer actually preferred the c12, and I absolutely hated the u47, but I insisted on the 251. That being said, they all, to my ear, beat out the Gefell, which itself isn’t a budget mic. Anecdotal, but that’s just my experience. I don’t think they all sounded 19k better, but they did sound at least better enough for me to swallow my pride as a recent purchaser of a relatively pricey mic. After that, I ended up selling the Gefell, and saving up for a Chandler limited Redd mic. Still a multiple thousand dollar mic, but I do think it holds its own against the vintage ones, but I guess there’s something to be said about modern tube mics in the $2-$5k price range. Some other ones like this Soyuz I was looking into, I also really liked compared to the vintage ones.
Great work getting them to nearly match! I felt like the 47 was a bit richer too, but for me it felt like the noise floor was way better. There was silence between his words on the 47, not so much on the Rode. Not worth the price difference tho, that’s for sure!
That's odd because Rode Nt1 actually has the lowest self-noise of any mic on the market (except for LEWITT LCT 540 S) and vintage tube mic are notorious for being noisey. Maybe it's just the breath of the singer showing up louder due to more high end?
@@jasonk125 nevertheless to my ears, it sounded like more space between his words on the 47. So perhaps noise floor wasn’t the best way to describe it initially
i did a Mic Shoot-Out after NAMM 2019. I went to Vintage King LA and bought 4 Condensor Mics. ( Telefunken's TF29,51,41 , Neumann U87AI & from online the RODE NTK ( similar to K2 ) after Tracking they all had different Frequency Responses, Neumann was Supper HOT Signal, The Telefunken's were good but one had Low end Boost or too much Top & other Mid. So listing back in DAW ( Studio ) In blind TEST I picked The $565.00 RODE NTK !!! like you show & mention in your Vid ( Eq it anyhow ). Thx for making this for those who think they need THE ICONIC GEAR that we all know of :)
In my opinion the Neuman is picking up some of the "empty space" with the voice, which in a mix context lets it sit in it easier and more smooth. While the Rode seems to ignore more of those ambient frequencies in your studio and is more "focused" on the voice allow it to sound sharper, more high end. I'm sure its all about that tube and gold though, to get this "sound". A viewpoint from a Chem E. So who knows. But this is what I thought.
Excellent comparison. At the end of the day, the talent and message of the artist is 99% responsible for the enjoyment for the listener. We must keep in mind that the whole point of recording and mixing to for present the talent to the listener. Perseverating for many of the details of recording can actually. distract from the creative process. Well done. Excellent point about dynamic mics eliminating room problems.
It’s great that you did this shootout. But please, next time, don’t switch while you continue through the song. The BEST way to really hear differences is to loop a very short phrase and switch each time it loops. I’ve done a lot of shootouts myself and this is the way. Thanks!
I have a really interesting idea for such a comparison: record a full song, but record every take like here with two mics, the expensive one going directly into the high-end gear. The cheap mic goes into a cheap interface. Would be so interesting how this high end gear affects a whole mix. And of course mix one with high-end plugins/analog gear and the other one only with stock and free plugins.
@@GabrielPierreStudios let me give you a gift: buy an Apex460 WITHOUT MODS, install a 12AU7 tube, avoid extra loud sources and strong bass sources. It is like a 87 on steroids.
With all the gear you have any mic will sound good) Sure it's all about nuances, Neumann feels a bit more soft and balanced to me, but with proper mixing even a cheap mic can rock:)
It always depends on the voice, or the source, which mic you really need for it. I have an NT1A (totally different to the NT1) and always wasn't quite happy with my voice, it needed a lot of EQ to sound really halfway like I wanted it. So I bought an Aston Origin and I couldn't be more happy. My voice for instance has some high mid frequency which sounds kind of nasal with the NT1A, but not with the Origin. My wife's voice is great with the NT1A. Great to see you don't really need a U47 to get the sound you want to.
It is not possible with a simple eq. The difference between those two mics is a matter of Complex Distortions, artificial tones generated by the mic itself. Not frequency response.
@@doctortubes1 All microphones generate artificial harmonics. The U47 may generate a bit more due to the tube amp being a bit less linear than the solid state amplifiers in the NT1. However I can guarantee that amounts to just about 5% of the difference (if the harmonics are even audible), the other 95% being the frequency response. The guy in the video just put a rough eq to try to match it, if he actually put real effort to make them sound the same I can guarantee you wouldn't be able to tell which is which. If the guy in the video uploads the soundfiles I'll do it and let you try to figure which is which.
@@samot1808 i am the guy who knows what is going on inside mics and gears. 10 years UA official technician. Believe me: it is all a matter of harmonics & intermodulation. Regards.
I have an old u87i from 76' and ya, what a lot of people don't seem to get about the 87 is that it has *terrible* backside rejection. So put that in an untreated room (we call it gyprock here in Canada) and get those wonderful reflections in the 250~400hz range. Lovely stuff. I have a treated room but I don't mic up much anymore and when I do, I bust out the 7b for the most part.
Regardless of sound, another consideration is reliability and longevity. I don't use certain brands anymore because they're more likely to break over time. Sometimes you're paying for decades of use vs a few years, or less downtime. Thanks for everything you do sir!
Winner! Everyone else is going on and how this test would be better blah, blah, blah. A perfectly recorded shitty song with a poor performance will never sound as good as a good song with great performance recorded on an SM57.
Awesome video...This is how you compare 2 types of gear...you don't just plug 'em in and say "Yep they don't sound the same, test over". You let us hear both raw and in the mix and then see if you could adjust a knob or 2 to see if you can make them sound the same or close so we'll know what the possibilities are. Perfectly done!👍👍
Man! At the end after he EQs the Rodes it actually sounds better than the Neumann. But I’ve found that the real test is not in 1 vocal register. The difference between my Soundelux U99 which SMOKES Neumann mics, is mostly through the entire range the voice. You can get away with a not so expensive mic if the vocalist stays in the lower range and is a bit breathy. But a great mic will sound great throughout the entire vocal range of a singer voice no matter the volume. Moral, I’m now picking up that Rodes and testing it for myself 👍🏾🤗❤️🙏🏾
Fantastic video! Find the right room for the sound u like( doesn’t have to be a studio) .. and there are a tonne of great cheap mics and pres that will give u a colored or clean sound . We live in the best time for making music.
I recently binge watched the "On the One" series from Cory Wong's YT channel. In one video, he shows the soloed vocal tracks and they are super direct and clear and absolutely awesome sounding. Honestly, one of the coolest recordings I've heard. And I was like, damn, that's got to be one of those $10,000 Sony mics or something. Turns out, it was recorded with an SM7b in an airbnb... And I keep thinking about that.
great shoot-out! I'm only on laptop speakers today, but I legit preferred the nt1! Crazy. Only difference I could really hear was that the u47 was duller and less present. Worth noting that the difference between every u47 can also be vast, and potentially this u47 isn't one of the best?? My fav mic ever is a u47 my mate has, and whilst no side by side comparison, I swear his u47 sounds a lot better than this one. It just seems to have a je-ne-sais-quais warm, present, silky, fat (just think of every positive way to describe a mic other than "shiny") quality, however that could easily just be me being biased!
The only reason they continue is to make videos like this. The average listener doesn’t care. Just heard a great quote from Nickelback engineer “How do you get a better snare sound? Write a better song.” 😜
Songwriting has zero to do with a snare sound, what a dumb analogy for an engineer. Want a better snare sound, get a better snare, better tuned and better mics and mic placement like every other record with a great snare sound.
The average listener doesn't care, but as engineers we are not working for the average listener, we are not getting paid by the average listener. That's usually the difference between engineers/producers that do it as a living, and bedroom producers doing everything on their own, IMHO. We are getting hired to care about these tiny details so nobody else has :). Like most engineering and or craftmanship jobs in other fields to be honest :).
@@WheelieMix So you are not doing it for the average listener??? so the people who decide and pay for your music you are not doing it for???? without the people listening to the music the rapper/ singer won't get paid by the people which means you don't get paid by the rapper/singer what a really dumb take.
Personally I don’t like the 25k one as much because I feel like it’s too compressed and not bright enough if I wanted it that compressed I’d rather mix it to that state (also the vocalist killed it)
The Neve and Distressor are certainly the important choices if anyones ‘trying this at home’. One can copy e.q curves to match classic microphones in your D.A.W, should you wish. If you want to rent the mic and play pink noise into it, and then whatever mic you own, you will ( almost) perfectly match its character in your room via a null test. Such is the wonder of the digital age. A Rode NTV or NTK ought be closer still. for under $700.
U47 sounds richer, complete, natural. NT1 sounds brighter, but that's just it (99% of people immediatelly think something is better if it sounds brighter, so...), but NT1 makes me feel like there's a "hole" in the body of the sound. I think the difference starts to show a lot more once you start actually producing with it, adding compression, effects and stuff. I'm not saying NT1 is bad, not at all. You can def do amazing recordings with it. But, anyway...
@@doctortubes1 The tube in the U47 will certainly add some harmonics, something that the NT1 does not have, and which should certainly be taken into account when assessing this sound comparison, but nevertheless the NT1 has many reasons to honor it given that the singer himself (in the studio where recording was taking place) could not say with certainty which was the U47 or the NT1, although he initially seemed convinced that the differences would be enormous. The Rode K2 does have a tube and those richer harmonics can also be heard there. That being said, one can only conclude that the differences are minimal at best, and that with some processing (and in which sessions no processing takes place) one can get incredibly close (certainly close enough to make professional recordings). It is good that those vintage microphones are available as reference, because technological progress makes it possible to offer very comparable quality at a fraction of the price.
For me, the difference is really audible but the sound also is affected by the distressor comp, I record many times in some big studios with the u47 after making the vocal arrangements with a 2.500 mic and the difference in the air, body, and over all the mid-range made the session really make sense
@@BrantleyAllen when i said about the distressor is the amount of compressor dedicated in this video to the vocal line, destructive recording (insert compressor and color to the signal) is part of the recording vocal process; but with care. And finally when was the last time i record without processing? last week actually with a classical tenor singer using the input signal manually. Mixing is another history....
@@oh5222 Nope for sure, but a decent sensible mic will accommodate much easier a low cost preamp. We don't know how much 1073 gain is applied to the mic.
after a certain price point, around $300 plus with quality mics, it's mostly about how well the song is mixed. Expensive mics like the U47 are great and cool in concept but the overall mix ends up making the song a hit.
I wonder if it has more to do with where the raw sound sits initially and how it responds to eq. In your examples, when you brought up the high end on the 47, the top end was indistinguishable from the NT-1a. But if you really hone in on the mids, particularly on softer phrases, there's an imaging of the midrange that's much sweeter in the mix on the 47. Though not $22K+ sweeter that would ever come out of my or any sensible home studio owner's pocket!
I like the nt1 better!! It suited his voice so nicely. Years ago I was in the studio and we swapped out the very expensive mic for a nt1 and it was way better for my voice. You can also mod the nt1 and swap out the capsule.
The biggest difference for me was in the context of the mix. The U47 sounded more 3D and detailed in the upper mids. But yeah, for all the extra bucks - I'd rather dial in some decent eq and call it job done.
The room matters so much. A lot of amateurs or self-producers ought to use an SM7b, Dynacaster, or even SM57 or Audix i5 as they isolate one's vocal much better than a condenser mic.
in my experience i found out two important things in these mic comparisons: mainly, it heavily depends on the voice, on one the sm7b won, once the sm57 and once the rode nt1 (we also had a normal u47 that cost around 3.5k, a lewitt tube mic and two other ones i forgot) the other thing is at least imo, getting a nice clear full and crisp low end is more important to get out of the mic than that cripsy high end most advertise for great video tho also love the singers view on it!
Wow. I would describe the difference as utterly meaningless. It reminds me of when I went to the Audio Test Kitchen site a few years back and blind-tested the model of my mic (R0DE NT2A) against all the mics I "knew" were better but couldn't afford. Ended up liking the R0DE most of all, which shocked me but reaffirmed what a terrific value it is.
Hey thanks for the comparison! To me U47 sounds richer in the midrange which makes it more pleasant. Bud does it sound a hundred times better? I don't think so
Technology has gotten to the point where the only real reason one should buy a U47 is just to say you own one and impress clients who might get excited by that kind of thing.
The U47 sounded slightly warmer and seemed to hold the vocal decay a tad better (though that could be my ears tricking me). For the price difference it's astounding how similar they compared. I say this as an owner of the Rode mic. For most people, especially bedroom producers, self recording bands and hobbyists its more than good enough. In fact it's good enough for production quality releases. I guess having the best equipment isn't as important as doing the best with what you have.
warmer = less high end. That's all. Instead of boosting 3.5k on the U47, he could have a similar adjustment to the NT1 to make it sound like the U47. The point is, it's not a $22,250 difference. Even the guy who sung it guessed to which was which.
I do like the mids and lower mids of the U47 quite a bit more. The NT1 sounds thin in comparison but obviously with a nice tube EQ you could certainly attempt to impart some of the mojo and get closer.
I've owned a OG 47 and I can't really say that its overrated but it will definitely not work on every voice. To me vintage mics usually have a natural feel to them and its very easy to get them to sit in the mix. Also how they handle sibilance is pretty unmatched compared to modern mics. I will say this though; no mic is worth 10k+ and that's coming from a guy that has owned almost all "dream mics" you can think off.
I was listening to Rick Beato interviewing Bill Schnee about Steely Dan's Aja album. He was saying that he had turned a few musicians on to the U47 including Barbara Streisand. They liked that it made them sound more like they did to themselves. Meaning that it was a bit "warmer" than microphones that use an FET preamp. But honestly. Now that I've been listening to a lot of condenser microphones over the last few months I can't say that I notice that much of a difference between them. Maybe it's because my ears are old (60). But I can say that I do hear differences between a large diaphragm condenser and one that is smaller. You do get more of the bass in there. And I do notice a real difference between dynamic and condenser microphones. But many have said that you get a real diminishing return as you go up in price. So for most of us the $25K mic is not really worth it. At that point it is just a status symbol.
I understand that you took the NT-1 as a contender because of its popularity and cost, but there is some mid/mid-high harshness to it that I could never get past. Almost sounds like an unpleasant digital honk... Even if you boost/EQ the Telefunken mic, it's still much smoother and easier on the ear. I do think your point is right that many affordable mics can get close or identical to these expensive legends, I just think the Rode NT-1 is probably one of the poorest examples for a cheap mic that can sound expensive. There are many other affordable mics that do a far superior job, imho. Great video.
I'm getting my EV RE20 in a few days and can't wait to see how it reacts to my signal chain compared to my sm7b. On the surface without any processing they sound fairly similar, at least what i can tell from comparisons, with the RE20 sounding more scooped than the sm7b (which can sound a bit too muddy on my voice at least). I'm kinda hoping that it fits my voice better in the end after mixing - and it it doesn't, I might just suck at mixing vocals.
The high end hype in the Rode was annoying, but the point that a little eq can do so much, is valid. Ultimately, it’s all about the performance and decent mics can be eq’d to fit the track.
I used the both, the NT1 and a much more expensive Neumann mic in TV commercial productions with the same chain. No one could pick a quality difference between the mics at all. Same in music production. I am starting to think, that you pay for the name more than for the "better" sounding product. sure, there are better signal to noise ratios and so on, but I didn't come across any issue with lower priced mics, even in high end productions. Would spend a lot more on preamps tho :D
I am a mic nerd !!!!!!!! I used to borrow or buy different mics, but Im always ending up using my good old NT1a for the last 6 years in my studio. I dropped it 2 times - thanks to its weight and bad mic stands - and it still works :D Once i recorded a really bad singer with an AKG Solid Tube mic, and it sounded really bad. Then a great singer came to me, dropped an AT2020 there and boom, one take, comp+reverb and everyone was happy.
now im not an audio nerd unfortunately but i think more expensive mics capture the air in the voice a bit better, best way i can describe it is like DI input from an Acoustic guitar from a pic up vs having it setup with 2 mics, slightly different sounds not better or worse just depends what you're looking for
I once heard that the Neumann mics were the mics to desire. Now I'm not so convinced. What I took away from this is that one does not necessarily (any longer) have to be a gazillionaire to be able to make great recordings.
There are three models.The first is a Jim Williams with v HiFi components. But yes that one ( the second) has the boost that was eq’d into the u47 to match them.
The sound similar at low volumes but when he starts singer louder you can clearly hear the difference. More expensive mics are much more forgiving of decibel levels. They can stay smooth during a serious beat down.
What would be great would be a comparison that leaves the EQ alone on the U47 and rolls off the highs slightly on the NT1 in order to see just how close an NT1 can sound to the U47 as opposed to the other way around.
I think the Neve and Distressor played a much bigger role in the pro sound on both mics than the mics themselves. Doing the same test gain matched straight into a Focusrite interface vs. the Neve + Distressor chain and you'd hear a lot more difference.
100% agree
Absolutely 👍🏼
You will still end up mixing them and get the same results to our ears.
I agree but the goal is the same : its better to put 1k on a good preamp and 1k on a good comp/saturation hardware with a cheap mic than put your entire money on a vintage mic
@@pyrra That is true but the point is, a more neutral and realistic test would have been to compare both mics just dry into a normal affordable interface with no external preamps or colouration. 99.9% of the people watching this video don't have the money to buy a Neve or a Distressor and if they did, they wouldn't be buying such a cheap mic like a Røde.
Great comparison - I love that you recorded this properly with a great singer. This really helps you see the difference - and the lack of difference. I think the Neumann has that golden sound - it's really difficult to describe what exactly. It has presence but its not bright like the Rode, it's like velvet. The Rode sounds also fantastic, but its more present and bright and more in your face - like a modern pop vocal. So there is nothing with it either. I mean.. with some processing - the difference is not gonna be noticeable - but that Neumann sound is that wonderful smooth vocal sound that pops out without disturbing. I think the difference is more pronounced when you really jack up the volume - the Neumann sound you will enjoy at any volume. Also you should never discount the impact of the vintage mic on your mood and vibe - if it helps you feel better during decording, then it could again make a difference. But it's a difference that only world class musicians should care about.
Blimey, no disrespect but if he's a great singer what the hell was Otis Redding or Marvin Gaye or Steve Perry or...... 🤔
As someone who owns and uses these status symbol mics on a regular basis (u87, u67, C800G, 251, C12, M49, etc..) I can tell you that the most important thing is how well the room is acoustically treated. The difference between well designed mics, (no matter how cheap or expensive) becomes significantly small. Investing in room treatment often overlooked, but probably the most important factor in getting a professional studio quality recordings. in a properly treated space the differences between mics becomes more obvious, but the differences also become more negligible at the same time.
Honestly... the NT1 sounded fantastic. Also that singer was fantastic!
U47 sounds warmer and smoother especially in low-mid. Rode sounds a bit harsh in high frequencies but all those differences are so small. From practical point of view, NOBODY from regular people/listener will ever notice any difference between those mics. But, this review was super professional and clear not just for pro soundguys but also for normal people. Well done!
Thanks for this upload. I meet lots of bedroom artists (that are even less experienced than me) obsessing over microphones. My opinion is you can get any ~$400 microphone and forget about it. Dynamic or condenser. It will be great on vocals with the right processing.
This is hilarious! People think I'm crazy because I still use those cheap MXL vocal mics for some of my tracks. Rock tracks get the SM7B but ballads get the MXL. I might have to pickup one of these NT1s though! 👀 Great vid! 🤘🤘🤘
People went on and on about "transparent" recording until we could do it. Everyone decided they don't really like accurate recording equipment. They like the distortion, saturation and less high end. It's silly.
I actually upgraded to to the NT1A from one of those MXL mics. I'd say it was worth the upgrade. Not like it was mind boggling or anything, but the difference was noticeable.
I was the head technician at Abbey Road Institute London and we had a U47 lent to us from the main studios for our collection. The problem was though once the students knew its value they would use it on absolutely anything they recorded. Literally just moving the mic from instrument to instrument when it came time for tracking. It was like a sort of blind trust in the performance of the mic.
Best fixing comment, I'd like to know you and pick your mind...
I used a Rode NT1A for several years and switched to other microphones (TLM103, OC808) because it has a strange, definable character in the high frequency, which also creates a home effect in the final mix. It gives the sound a completely different character with the new microphone, the recording and the processing are also different.
I think that most errors can be corrected in a mix, but not completely.
@@jasonk125 The video shows a Rode NT1A, if I saw its type correctly on a microphone. :)
I have a Rode NT1 and it is much better, flatter, but still has the brand's characteristic character.
I’m 3:03 in and I think mic A is the Rode NT-1, reason it picks up the singers breath and other mouth sounds more, its more sensitive, the Neumann is warmer and does not pick up as much, breathing etc. Really impressed with the NT-1 and have one. I will be more aware of its sensitivity due to this excellent demo. Thank you!
Edit: As a singer, I’d pick the U47 because it feels like you can push it more, especially on big vocals and perhaps less editing out interference. Im no professional producer but that’s what my ears are telling me.
I love that 47. Sheesh. Especially when you push into it with more force, it's just so smooth and elegant. The NT1A handles like most modern mics in that price range with capsules machined in a factory instead of by hand.
Yeah, but you love it because you can't have it.
This was great. I must admit to being surprised by how nominal the difference was when A/B dry although there was a very slight difference when played in context of the song where - to my ears - the vocal had a little more weight which allowed it to sit better, and definitely smoother on the upper mids/top.
With that in mind I'd add that I assume the U47 would stack better over multiple overdubs. $24,750 better? Not a chance!
💯💯
2 things: the sibilance (soft & manageable on thr U47, signature sharp & more "evil" on the Rode), and the low-mid thick richness.
If he'd been even closer, with even more proximity effect, both would have been even more apparent.
Still, that guy can sing and emote very well, and the mics are in a very good room, hooked up to a great audio chain - so most any mic wouldn't sound too bad!
Yup, expensive, "warm" vintage mic = less high end.
Thanks for the video!! The Rode NT1 has harsh high mid to it. But with some slight EQ you could make them so close I doubt even the best ears would notice.
The ending was spot on 👍
I love this video ❤
I bought a matched pair of Rode NT1's several years ago and have achieved great recordings with them. I've always thought about getting an even "nicer" mic, but this video really hammers down how so much audio gear has diminishing returns as you go for more expensive options. To my ears all it takes is a bit of EQ and perhaps some subtle saturation to get the Rode mic to sound 99.9% the same as the U47.
I personally think the difference is so subtle, and it comes down to increased midrange detail (responsible for the “fullness” you hear,) and the other major difference is a slightly less hyped top end, which you will honestly notice more on worse singers (or if not worse, just less control of their sibilance.)
These differences literally come down to a couple db in both areas, but a couple db in the right spot can make all the difference, just ask a mastering engineer.
The stock NT-1 is absolutely an amazing tool on it’s own. For the average home recordist, you can totally dial eq to simulate the U47 sound, even if it’s lacking just a bit on those mids. Most will never find themselves in need of the real deal U47.
I ended up getting some other mics I liked better, and modded my NT-1 with a 47 style capsule replacement from micparts, and though it made it much darker, the detailed mids on vocals and acoustic instruments was immediately noticeable. Plus the whole deal was still a fraction of the og U47.
You don't hear the "richness" in the recording. I don't. The guy listening to his own voice guessed because he couldn't really tell.
So, 'darker" (less high end) is the signature of an expensive mic? Really?
So, a while back, I took my mic that I owned at the time into the studio with me, intending to use it. It was a microtech Gefell m930 that I had just recently purchased, $1,000+ dollar mic, so nothing to scoff at. When I got there, instead of just going with it, we shot it out against 3 other mics, all vintage: a u47, a c12, and an elam 251. I genuinely wanted so badly to pick my own mic, because, of course I wanna use my own gear and I had just spent a good amount of money on it, but, after shooting them out, I couldn’t. Don’t get me wrong, it did hold its own, but the other mics, to my ear, absolutely did beat it out. I ended up going with the 251. My engineer actually preferred the c12, and I absolutely hated the u47, but I insisted on the 251. That being said, they all, to my ear, beat out the Gefell, which itself isn’t a budget mic. Anecdotal, but that’s just my experience. I don’t think they all sounded 19k better, but they did sound at least better enough for me to swallow my pride as a recent purchaser of a relatively pricey mic. After that, I ended up selling the Gefell, and saving up for a Chandler limited Redd mic. Still a multiple thousand dollar mic, but I do think it holds its own against the vintage ones, but I guess there’s something to be said about modern tube mics in the $2-$5k price range. Some other ones like this Soyuz I was looking into, I also really liked compared to the vintage ones.
Jordan you and your channel is on fire right now, keep up the good work buddy! Cheers from Alaska, USA.
the neumann should sound better tamed upon compression? the NT1 can easily scrape eardrums when hitting final mix RMS w/o deessing
Great work getting them to nearly match! I felt like the 47 was a bit richer too, but for me it felt like the noise floor was way better. There was silence between his words on the 47, not so much on the Rode. Not worth the price difference tho, that’s for sure!
That's odd because Rode Nt1 actually has the lowest self-noise of any mic on the market (except for LEWITT LCT 540 S) and vintage tube mic are notorious for being noisey. Maybe it's just the breath of the singer showing up louder due to more high end?
@@easternsouvenirs Could be. They both sounded great in the mix.
@@jasonk125 nevertheless to my ears, it sounded like more space between his words on the 47. So perhaps noise floor wasn’t the best way to describe it initially
i did a Mic Shoot-Out after NAMM 2019. I went to Vintage King LA and bought 4 Condensor Mics. ( Telefunken's TF29,51,41 , Neumann U87AI & from online the RODE NTK ( similar to K2 ) after Tracking they all had different Frequency Responses, Neumann was Supper HOT Signal, The Telefunken's were good but one had Low end Boost or too much Top & other Mid. So listing back in DAW ( Studio ) In blind TEST I picked The $565.00 RODE NTK !!! like you show & mention in your Vid ( Eq it anyhow ). Thx for making this for those who think they need THE ICONIC GEAR that we all know of :)
In my opinion the Neuman is picking up some of the "empty space" with the voice, which in a mix context lets it sit in it easier and more smooth. While the Rode seems to ignore more of those ambient frequencies in your studio and is more "focused" on the voice allow it to sound sharper, more high end. I'm sure its all about that tube and gold though, to get this "sound". A viewpoint from a Chem E. So who knows. But this is what I thought.
Excellent comparison. At the end of the day, the talent and message of the artist is 99% responsible for the enjoyment for the listener. We must keep in mind that the whole point of recording and mixing to for present the talent to the listener. Perseverating for many of the details of recording can actually. distract from the creative process. Well done. Excellent point about dynamic mics eliminating room problems.
It’s great that you did this shootout. But please, next time, don’t switch while you continue through the song. The BEST way to really hear differences is to loop a very short phrase and switch each time it loops. I’ve done a lot of shootouts myself and this is the way. Thanks!
I have a really interesting idea for such a comparison: record a full song, but record every take like here with two mics, the expensive one going directly into the high-end gear. The cheap mic goes into a cheap interface. Would be so interesting how this high end gear affects a whole mix. And of course mix one with high-end plugins/analog gear and the other one only with stock and free plugins.
Right !!!
Would love to see this one because most of us don't have the expensive stuff
@@GabrielPierreStudios let me give you a gift: buy an Apex460 WITHOUT MODS, install a 12AU7 tube, avoid extra loud sources and strong bass sources. It is like a 87 on steroids.
@@doctortubes1is this legitimate?
Love that you went back to Revolution to do this test. Couldn’t tell much from my Beyer Headphones so I’ll review tomorrow on my HS80’s. Nice vid.
With all the gear you have any mic will sound good) Sure it's all about nuances, Neumann feels a bit more soft and balanced to me, but with proper mixing even a cheap mic can rock:)
Wow... That guy really can sing! Loved his tone ❤
No kidding! I want to start a band with that guy jeez that voice is awesome 😮
are you deaf bro ? i hear a lot of autotune fake vibrato on each word
@@catloverextreme Sounds more like a bad Rascal Flats impersonation.
That guy's band's name is Play Oliver
It always depends on the voice, or the source, which mic you really need for it. I have an NT1A (totally different to the NT1) and always wasn't quite happy with my voice, it needed a lot of EQ to sound really halfway like I wanted it. So I bought an Aston Origin and I couldn't be more happy. My voice for instance has some high mid frequency which sounds kind of nasal with the NT1A, but not with the Origin. My wife's voice is great with the NT1A. Great to see you don't really need a U47 to get the sound you want to.
how about the opposite, trying to reduce NT1's brightness/harshness to match the U47? achievable?
It is not possible with a simple eq. The difference between those two mics is a matter of Complex Distortions, artificial tones generated by the mic itself. Not frequency response.
@@doctortubes1 Wrong, the difference was essentially just the frequency response.
@@samot1808 no way to close the gap with eq only. The U47 generates a lot of artificial harmonics. The NT1 not.
@@doctortubes1 All microphones generate artificial harmonics. The U47 may generate a bit more due to the tube amp being a bit less linear than the solid state amplifiers in the NT1. However I can guarantee that amounts to just about 5% of the difference (if the harmonics are even audible), the other 95% being the frequency response.
The guy in the video just put a rough eq to try to match it, if he actually put real effort to make them sound the same I can guarantee you wouldn't be able to tell which is which.
If the guy in the video uploads the soundfiles I'll do it and let you try to figure which is which.
@@samot1808 i am the guy who knows what is going on inside mics and gears. 10 years UA official technician. Believe me: it is all a matter of harmonics & intermodulation. Regards.
The great mic con. There's an entire website dedicated to proving this.
What’s the site?
@@crm1411the great mic con search that
I have an old u87i from 76' and ya, what a lot of people don't seem to get about the 87 is that it has *terrible* backside rejection. So put that in an untreated room (we call it gyprock here in Canada) and get those wonderful reflections in the 250~400hz range. Lovely stuff. I have a treated room but I don't mic up much anymore and when I do, I bust out the 7b for the most part.
Amazing comment. I'd live t9 talk about thus all day....
Regardless of sound, another consideration is reliability and longevity. I don't use certain brands anymore because they're more likely to break over time. Sometimes you're paying for decades of use vs a few years, or less downtime.
Thanks for everything you do sir!
Maybe - but you can buy 15 Rode mics for the price of a single VF14m valve. And sooner or later they will run out of the NOS. Then what?
I have two NT1s. They do what I want them to do. Great for vocals and as drum overheads.
Love this guys voice! Obviously, good gear makes a difference, but a great performance trumps good gear every time.
Winner!
Everyone else is going on and how this test would be better blah, blah, blah. A perfectly recorded shitty song with a poor performance will never sound as good as a good song with great performance recorded on an SM57.
Awesome video...This is how you compare 2 types of gear...you don't just plug 'em in and say "Yep they don't sound the same, test over". You let us hear both raw and in the mix and then see if you could adjust a knob or 2 to see if you can make them sound the same or close so we'll know what the possibilities are.
Perfectly done!👍👍
Hey that's Play Oliver! Good to know he's still around!
The U47 sounded somewhat richer but it's insane how little difference there is
I’m still around!
@@heymikeriley that's awesome, are you still releasing new music?
Man! At the end after he EQs the Rodes it actually sounds better than the Neumann. But I’ve found that the real test is not in 1 vocal register. The difference between my Soundelux U99 which SMOKES Neumann mics, is mostly through the entire range the voice. You can get away with a not so expensive mic if the vocalist stays in the lower range and is a bit breathy. But a great mic will sound great throughout the entire vocal range of a singer voice no matter the volume. Moral, I’m now picking up that Rodes and testing it for myself 👍🏾🤗❤️🙏🏾
Fantastic video! Find the right room for the sound u like( doesn’t have to be a studio) .. and there are a tonne of great cheap mics and pres that will give u a colored or clean sound . We live in the best time for making music.
I recently binge watched the "On the One" series from Cory Wong's YT channel. In one video, he shows the soloed vocal tracks and they are super direct and clear and absolutely awesome sounding. Honestly, one of the coolest recordings I've heard. And I was like, damn, that's got to be one of those $10,000 Sony mics or something.
Turns out, it was recorded with an SM7b in an airbnb... And I keep thinking about that.
great shoot-out! I'm only on laptop speakers today, but I legit preferred the nt1! Crazy. Only difference I could really hear was that the u47 was duller and less present. Worth noting that the difference between every u47 can also be vast, and potentially this u47 isn't one of the best?? My fav mic ever is a u47 my mate has, and whilst no side by side comparison, I swear his u47 sounds a lot better than this one. It just seems to have a je-ne-sais-quais warm, present, silky, fat (just think of every positive way to describe a mic other than "shiny") quality, however that could easily just be me being biased!
The only reason they continue is to make videos like this. The average listener doesn’t care.
Just heard a great quote from Nickelback engineer “How do you get a better snare sound? Write a better song.” 😜
it always has boiled down to SONG!!!!
Songwriting has zero to do with a snare sound, what a dumb analogy for an engineer. Want a better snare sound, get a better snare, better tuned and better mics and mic placement like every other record with a great snare sound.
@@obiwan5999 Then record it in a shitty song and no one cares.
The average listener doesn't care, but as engineers we are not working for the average listener, we are not getting paid by the average listener. That's usually the difference between engineers/producers that do it as a living, and bedroom producers doing everything on their own, IMHO. We are getting hired to care about these tiny details so nobody else has :). Like most engineering and or craftmanship jobs in other fields to be honest :).
@@WheelieMix So you are not doing it for the average listener??? so the people who decide and pay for your music you are not doing it for???? without the people listening to the music the rapper/ singer won't get paid by the people which means you don't get paid by the rapper/singer what a really dumb take.
Personally I don’t like the 25k one as much because I feel like it’s too compressed and not bright enough if I wanted it that compressed I’d rather mix it to that state (also the vocalist killed it)
I sometimes pick the more expensive but with this im 100% happy with the cheaper one. I like these types of videos and hoping for more.
great content like always man
Hell yeah i’m using AT2035 mic and it’s awesome! 😂
The Neve and Distressor are certainly the important choices if anyones ‘trying this at home’. One can copy e.q curves to match classic microphones in your D.A.W, should you wish. If you want to rent the mic and play pink noise into it, and then whatever mic you own, you will ( almost) perfectly match its character in your room via a null test. Such is the wonder of the digital age. A Rode NTV or NTK ought be closer still. for under $700.
cant stop watching this channel !
Just like you said in the beginning, the Neumann recorded more ambiance and sounded better raw - but with some processing you can get very close.
U47 sounds richer, complete, natural. NT1 sounds brighter, but that's just it (99% of people immediatelly think something is better if it sounds brighter, so...), but NT1 makes me feel like there's a "hole" in the body of the sound. I think the difference starts to show a lot more once you start actually producing with it, adding compression, effects and stuff. I'm not saying NT1 is bad, not at all. You can def do amazing recordings with it. But, anyway...
The "hole" is lack of artificial harmonics & intermodulation that a great mic always have.
nt 1 is a different mic it has warmer sound,nt1 a is more bright
@ let me say, the NT1 is a duller mic due to lack of artificial harmonics.
@@doctortubes1 The tube in the U47 will certainly add some harmonics, something that the NT1 does not have, and which should certainly be taken into account when assessing this sound comparison, but nevertheless the NT1 has many reasons to honor it given that the singer himself (in the studio where recording was taking place) could not say with certainty which was the U47 or the NT1, although he initially seemed convinced that the differences would be enormous. The Rode K2 does have a tube and those richer harmonics can also be heard there. That being said, one can only conclude that the differences are minimal at best, and that with some processing (and in which sessions no processing takes place) one can get incredibly close (certainly close enough to make professional recordings). It is good that those vintage microphones are available as reference, because technological progress makes it possible to offer very comparable quality at a fraction of the price.
@@ward63 nope. The comparison is not well done, due to preamps, mixer, ecc NOT transparent.
I have an NT1....I have had it for years...Glad to have it even more now!
For me, the difference is really audible but the sound also is affected by the distressor comp, I record many times in some big studios with the u47 after making the vocal arrangements with a 2.500 mic and the difference in the air, body, and over all the mid-range made the session really make sense
Perhaps. I suppose we could believe you. When was the last time you recorded a vocal and mixed it without processing at all? I bet that's NEVER.
@@BrantleyAllen when i said about the distressor is the amount of compressor dedicated in this video to the vocal line, destructive recording (insert compressor and color to the signal) is part of the recording vocal process; but with care. And finally when was the last time i record without processing? last week actually with a classical tenor singer using the input signal manually. Mixing is another history....
The difference is so miniscule that it made me want to buy the rode to experience using a neumann
Don't forget Neve 1073, EL Distressor and surely a costly AD converter. NT1 in a Focusrite Scarlet will not sound the same for sure.
@@Vincefromsin Well, the U47 won`t sound the same either. Would it?
@@oh5222 Nope for sure, but a decent sensible mic will accommodate much easier a low cost preamp. We don't know how much 1073 gain is applied to the mic.
after a certain price point, around $300 plus with quality mics, it's mostly about how well the song is mixed. Expensive mics like the U47 are great and cool in concept but the overall mix ends up making the song a hit.
I wonder if it has more to do with where the raw sound sits initially and how it responds to eq. In your examples, when you brought up the high end on the 47, the top end was indistinguishable from the NT-1a. But if you really hone in on the mids, particularly on softer phrases, there's an imaging of the midrange that's much sweeter in the mix on the 47. Though not $22K+ sweeter that would ever come out of my or any sensible home studio owner's pocket!
I like the nt1 better!! It suited his voice so nicely. Years ago I was in the studio and we swapped out the very expensive mic for a nt1 and it was way better for my voice. You can also mod the nt1 and swap out the capsule.
The biggest difference for me was in the context of the mix. The U47 sounded more 3D and detailed in the upper mids. But yeah, for all the extra bucks - I'd rather dial in some decent eq and call it job done.
The room matters so much. A lot of amateurs or self-producers ought to use an SM7b, Dynacaster, or even SM57 or Audix i5 as they isolate one's vocal much better than a condenser mic.
in my experience i found out two important things in these mic comparisons: mainly, it heavily depends on the voice, on one the sm7b won, once the sm57 and once the rode nt1 (we also had a normal u47 that cost around 3.5k, a lewitt tube mic and two other ones i forgot)
the other thing is at least imo, getting a nice clear full and crisp low end is more important to get out of the mic than that cripsy high end most advertise for
great video tho also love the singers view on it!
Thanks Jordan, insightful video...
Here's proof that these expensive microphone are just a lot of hype. Video well done!
3:53 the tube you point to is not a VF14, it looks more like an EF86.
It is Ef86 , in U67 mic...
Wow. I would describe the difference as utterly meaningless. It reminds me of when I went to the Audio Test Kitchen site a few years back and blind-tested the model of my mic (R0DE NT2A) against all the mics I "knew" were better but couldn't afford. Ended up liking the R0DE most of all, which shocked me but reaffirmed what a terrific value it is.
Hey thanks for the comparison! To me U47 sounds richer in the midrange which makes it more pleasant. Bud does it sound a hundred times better? I don't think so
Technology has gotten to the point where the only real reason one should buy a U47 is just to say you own one and impress clients who might get excited by that kind of thing.
The Tube you show in 3:54 is not the VF14, that´s a russian EF86 for the circuit of a U67, not for a U47!
The U47 sounded slightly warmer and seemed to hold the vocal decay a tad better (though that could be my ears tricking me). For the price difference it's astounding how similar they compared.
I say this as an owner of the Rode mic. For most people, especially bedroom producers, self recording bands and hobbyists its more than good enough. In fact it's good enough for production quality releases.
I guess having the best equipment isn't as important as doing the best with what you have.
warmer = less high end. That's all. Instead of boosting 3.5k on the U47, he could have a similar adjustment to the NT1 to make it sound like the U47. The point is, it's not a $22,250 difference. Even the guy who sung it guessed to which was which.
I do like the mids and lower mids of the U47 quite a bit more. The NT1 sounds thin in comparison but obviously with a nice tube EQ you could certainly attempt to impart some of the mojo and get closer.
Good video and test, problem is, how do we find an original tube in 2023 for that :( And you did not like tha U87AI ?
In the direct comparison the U47 seems a bit saturated. Is that the magic?
great video...the u47 was definitely better no question, the low mids were more prominent and in the singers upper range it was way less harsh...
I've owned a OG 47 and I can't really say that its overrated but it will definitely not work on every voice. To me vintage mics usually have a natural feel to them and its very easy to get them to sit in the mix. Also how they handle sibilance is pretty unmatched compared to modern mics. I will say this though; no mic is worth 10k+ and that's coming from a guy that has owned almost all "dream mics" you can think off.
Exactly.
I heard you sing Hallelujah a while back. It gave me goosebumps and made my wife cry. It was beautiful.
@@legacyShredder1 thanks man 🙏
Very well said
I was listening to Rick Beato interviewing Bill Schnee about Steely Dan's Aja album. He was saying that he had turned a few musicians on to the U47 including Barbara Streisand. They liked that it made them sound more like they did to themselves. Meaning that it was a bit "warmer" than microphones that use an FET preamp. But honestly. Now that I've been listening to a lot of condenser microphones over the last few months I can't say that I notice that much of a difference between them. Maybe it's because my ears are old (60). But I can say that I do hear differences between a large diaphragm condenser and one that is smaller. You do get more of the bass in there. And I do notice a real difference between dynamic and condenser microphones. But many have said that you get a real diminishing return as you go up in price. So for most of us the $25K mic is not really worth it. At that point it is just a status symbol.
Love the song! Mike Riley right. What is the song called? is it available streaming? stuck in my head. help.
I understand that you took the NT-1 as a contender because of its popularity and cost, but there is some mid/mid-high harshness to it that I could never get past. Almost sounds like an unpleasant digital honk... Even if you boost/EQ the Telefunken mic, it's still much smoother and easier on the ear. I do think your point is right that many affordable mics can get close or identical to these expensive legends, I just think the Rode NT-1 is probably one of the poorest examples for a cheap mic that can sound expensive. There are many other affordable mics that do a far superior job, imho. Great video.
In the A/B test. A sounded warmer when soloed to me. Which i believe was the NT-1
Love this
"You either feel it, or you don't..." right, that sums it up.
I'm getting my EV RE20 in a few days and can't wait to see how it reacts to my signal chain compared to my sm7b. On the surface without any processing they sound fairly similar, at least what i can tell from comparisons, with the RE20 sounding more scooped than the sm7b (which can sound a bit too muddy on my voice at least). I'm kinda hoping that it fits my voice better in the end after mixing - and it it doesn't, I might just suck at mixing vocals.
That mic has a super nice low end to it. Super smooth. Hope you enjoy your purchase man!
Wow! what a good comparison.
Good idea. You might want to also try different singers, as results will surely vary with different voices and singing styles. Just a thought.
Great comparisson! The Rode NT1 was my fist LCM and yes. I still like it a lot… enen I use my Neumann TLM49 more often instead now.
The high end hype in the Rode was annoying, but the point that a little eq can do so much, is valid. Ultimately, it’s all about the performance and decent mics can be eq’d to fit the track.
And this is how close it is at the extreme ends of the budget. Go put a few $1500 -$2500 mics in there and that difference really evaporates
Without the high end bump being added, the 47 is noticeably less present in the lower passages. Love the Rode❤❤❤❤
I used the both, the NT1 and a much more expensive Neumann mic in TV commercial productions with the same chain. No one could pick a quality difference between the mics at all. Same in music production. I am starting to think, that you pay for the name more than for the "better" sounding product. sure, there are better signal to noise ratios and so on, but I didn't come across any issue with lower priced mics, even in high end productions. Would spend a lot more on preamps tho :D
Another great reality check ...again!
Nice video, an eye opener for sure!
Cool video! Idea for another video... record an entire song with amateur bedroom gear and see if its possible to sound pro
I am a mic nerd !!!!!!!! I used to borrow or buy different mics, but Im always ending up using my good old NT1a for the last 6 years in my studio.
I dropped it 2 times - thanks to its weight and bad mic stands - and it still works :D
Once i recorded a really bad singer with an AKG Solid Tube mic, and it sounded really bad.
Then a great singer came to me, dropped an AT2020 there and boom, one take, comp+reverb and everyone was happy.
Once you get above 200$ or so like above the nt1, mic differences are eq-able, so differences are really fake
The pream and compresor make hard to choose 😂
now im not an audio nerd unfortunately but i think more expensive mics capture the air in the voice a bit better, best way i can describe it is like DI input from an Acoustic guitar from a pic up vs having it setup with 2 mics, slightly different sounds not better or worse just depends what you're looking for
I absolutely love Rode products! Awesome company:]
I once heard that the Neumann mics were the mics to desire. Now I'm not so convinced. What I took away from this is that one does not necessarily (any longer) have to be a gazillionaire to be able to make great recordings.
@3:55 that's an EF86 in a U67, not a VF14 in a U47
The origional NT1 is a great sounding mic if you can get hold of one, for me the recent one has that slight 5K boost that makes it a little bright.
There are three models.The first is a Jim Williams with v HiFi components. But yes that one ( the second) has the boost that was eq’d into the u47 to match them.
The sound similar at low volumes but when he starts singer louder you can clearly hear the difference. More expensive mics are much more forgiving of decibel levels. They can stay smooth during a serious beat down.