OktavaMod RODE NT1a vs. '70's U 87

[Piedpiper]

Originally Posted by nbenford

Oh yea, sorry for the delay!

Sample 1 is the Rode, 2 is the 87ai.

It makes me wonder what people are listening on that this is not obvious.

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by Piedpiper

These samples show the same relationship of the two that the original samples show. The first is clearly the brighter, noisier, edgier, more sibilant Neumann, and the second is the warmer, richer, smoother, less sibilant modded Rode. Those who prefer the Neumann probably want the extra cut that it offers. Apples and oranges. I prefer the orange. It bears repeating that the modded Rode bears little resemblance to an unmodded Rode with no discernible trail of breadcrumbs to its Rode lineage, and well it shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Piedpiper

It makes me wonder what people are listening on that this is not obvious.

I'm not sure I follow since in both instances, you chose the Rode as the Neumann.

The Rode has a huge bottom and sibilant top. That is in direct contradiction to a "real" Neumann, which were originally created for broadcast on tube radios.

Mids and low mids were essential.

[Piedpiper]

Originally Posted by Mike P

I'm not sure I follow since in both instances, you chose the Rode as the Neumann.

The Rode has a huge bottom and sibilant top. That is in direct contradiction to a "real" Neumann, which were originally created for broadcast on tube radios.

Mids and low mids were essential.

oops! misread it!

I'm not sure what you mean by both instances. In Michael's test I chose them correctly. In the second test I characterized them correctly but assumed the smoother one was the Joly modded Rode since the Joly was the smoother less sibilant in the first test. I was so sure of myself that I read it wrong when the identities were revealed! Let that be a lesson to me!

Interesting that the 87 was the smoother warmer one this time, maybe a testimony to the surface mount components in the NT1a as Michael has mentioned. Non sibilant warmth is certainly Michael's signature but I guess you can only do so much with the Rode.

My comment still stands in regards to the differences in sound being obvious, aside from their identities.

And thanks for the correction! I had this funny feeling as I was writing that post...

[Matti]

-Or if you look at the pic you see the Neumann is the upper one,
maybe the sample was spoken more on axis to the " Rode" ?

Cheers

Matti

[Piedpiper]

could be, no mention of the distance from the speaker.

[Matti]

Yes, there are always so many variables...

Matti

[Michael_Joly]

Originally Posted by MATTI

-Or if you look at the pic you see the Neumann is the upper one,
maybe the sample was spoken more on axis to the " Rode" ?

Cheers

Matti

Yeah, in his email to me nbenford mentioned this. For normal VO readings in his studio a single mic would be positioned at the best sounding location and angle for the talent. When I do simultaneous A / B tests I tend to work the mics further back to minimize angular errors between them. But getting the mod'd NT1a in the right location relative to the source does result in wow, just WOW ; )

[alexstobbe]

Any possibility of making this modded microphone multi-pattern?

[nbenford]

Yes, the position for the test was not preferable to either mic, but it certainly didn't give either mic an advantage. I usually have the 87 like it is here with F. Murray Abraham (photo), above the reader "looking" down, pointing towards the mouth. In this test, of course, I had to have them in front of the reader, which wouldn't work for a session as the voice talent can't READ THE SCRIPT! Having the mic above looking down is mostly so they can look at the music stand and to avoid plosives.

We always record a ways back from the mic, usually the length of the actor's pinkie to thumb when in a "hang loose" position, from mouth to pop filter. The pop filter is also a few inches from the mic. So, if you look at the photo from the test, the speaker was NOT right on the pop filter but maybe 8" back, plus a few inches for the pop filter. This also cuts down on horrible mouth noises like clicks and spit pops.

I've attached an audio clip from the modded NT1a in that very position from a session we did on Tuesday. No comparison sample, though.

[Mike Jasper]

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

Yeah, in his email to me nbenford mentioned this. For normal VO readings in his studio a single mic would be positioned at the best sounding location and angle for the talent. When I do simultaneous A / B tests I tend to work the mics further back to minimize angular errors between them. But getting the mod'd NT1a in the right location relative to the source does result in wow, just WOW ; )

That's my often-criticized methodology -- I put each mic where it sounds best, just as I would in any real-world application. It may not be science, but it works for me.

Jasper

[Chrislpp]

Originally Posted by nbenford

Oh yea, sorry for the delay!

Sample 1 is the Rode, 2 is the 87ai.

Before knowing I preferred the RODE then.
Great mod or someone is yanking our chains :P

[Michael_Joly]

Man, that F. Murray Abraham does a mean 30 year old chick voice!

[nbenford]

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

Man, that F. Murray Abraham does a mean 30 year old chick voice!

Ha! No, the recording is by a fantastically talented actor and opera singer Natasha Uspensky. Don't remember what that Abraham shot was from. Some audio book a few years ago I suppose. Same booth and mic though.

[Lifted]

Originally Posted by nbenford

Oh yea, sorry for the delay!

Sample 1 is the Rode, 2 is the 87ai.

Thanks! Rode just sounded so much better to me in this application.

[Chrislpp]

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

Man, that F. Murray Abraham does a mean 30 year old chick voice!

How many shootouts are there, I have heard your voice (I assume it was) and the guitar then the last voiceover.

Are there any more to come? I only noticed a big difference on the voiceover.

[jeremysdemo]

I have a question as well.....

What exactly is going into this MOD?

The reason why I ask is if a person had a list of those components they could order these mics from the manufacture that is making them for Rodes without the stuff you are removing (in bulk making them cheaper) and produce an affordable new usable mic for resale.

Of course it then would not be a Rode MOD but a new brand.

keep shinin

jerm

[Michael_Joly]

There is the original A / B test of the OktavaMod'd NT1a vs the U 87 that started this thread (my voice and acoustic guitar), then there is the male speaking voice demo'ing the same mics provided by nbenford and finally a female VO test, single mic, showcasing the mod'd NT1a.

More shootouts to come - I've set my schedule for several rounds of extensive A / B mic tests in and around LA early in April. The usual suspects will be in attendance - U 47, U 67, U 87 et al, we'll be recording piano, acoustic and electric guitars, drums, male and female vocals. I'll have a big box of modified mics with me.

Originally Posted by jeremysdemo

I have a question as well.....

What exactly is going into this MOD?

The reason why I ask is if a person had a list of those components they could order these mics from the manufacture that is making them for Rodes without the stuff you are removing (in bulk making them cheaper) and produce an affordable new usable mic for resale.

Of course it then would not be a Rode MOD but a new brand.

keep shinin

jerm

My Rode NT1 / 1a mod involves slicing off the headbasket, machining the body on milling maching, attaching a new MJE-K47 headbasket, removing the stock capsule, modifying the PC board to accept a Neumann-style post and saddle, installation of a new MJE-K47 capsule and upgrade wiring to Evidence Audio LYRIC HG. The Rode electronics are fine, low noise circuits and I only change the input coupling capicitor to my preferred type.

[Piedpiper]

The results will be a great resource, not only to compare your versions to the usual suspects, but also to each other. I hope your methods facilitate this. Posting these systematically on your website would be very helpful in choosing which mics would be more suitable for a specific desired result, realistically, perhaps only a loose guide, but still useful. Thanks for all your work.

[Michael_Joly]

Originally Posted by Piedpiper

The results will be a great resource, not only to compare your versions to the usual suspects, but also to each other. I hope your methods facilitate this. posting these systematically on your website would be very helpful in choosing which mics would be more suitable for a specific desired result, realistically, perhaps only a loose guide, but still useful. Thanks for all your work.

Good point!

Dr. Bill Pearson has been pulling the studios, mics and talent together for these tests. He's quite rigorous as people have seen from his "madness" series of shootouts. We'll do our best to work efficiently and make a lot of recordings that hopefully will be broadly useful to folks.

[the247s]

[Michael_Joly]

Yes, the answer is in post #37. Folks are still arriving at this poll from my website. That's why you'll see occasional new posts where folks are guessing the identities of the mics - because they haven't seen the disclosure yet.

What has been fascinating to me has been the voting results. It has remained just about the same once participation reached 100 votes or so.
This indicates a statistically reliable conclusion - there is very little preference difference between the OktavaMod'd NT1a and the 70's U 87.

[Track 7]

My Rode NT1a sat in the mic cabinet for over a year due to sibilance issues on vocals. I also ended up using other mics for other applications simply because I like them better on those instruments.

That has all changed now after getting my mic back from the "Michael Joly mod on the Rode NT1a!" On vocals the sibilance is gone! No more rushing to a de-esser. What really amazes me about this mod is the amount of detail that the mic captures! I haven't found anything that I wouldn't use it on now. In fact, I can now sell three of my mics that are really no longer of use! So, my NT1a went from a "not being used mic" to a "go to" after the mod. A complete transformation. Best money ever spent. Worth every penny.

[Basslik]

Noobie here and all due respect:

After listening to all files and clearly it's obvious they are so close in nature that I know it's only going to be folks that work with the 87 day in and day out that can tell the difference, my feeling is that all you pros could make the Rode a usable piece of gear, and to be a fraction of the cost of the 87 it's a no-brainer.
I remember reading a artical years ago with George Martin & his engineer stating the fact that it's really not crucial what gear you use, if the musicians have talent then it will shine through and will get you on the dance floor, and of course they also mentioned you get 10 engineers in a mix room and you will have ten different mixes, most likely be no general consensus on any given mix.

question #1. this sibilance/mid scoop that someone has referred too?

can corrective EQ-ing, or de-essing be an option for either mic without being disappointed, if even needed

question#2.

I tried to read most all the posts, and Michael is their a MOD for the RODE NT1 original?, I have a matched pair and when my tax refund comes in I would really like to MOD both of them, and it still keeps them as a matched pair?

Thanks in advanced to all you talented pros for all you help.

OVERKILL IN A MP3 WORLD

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Basslik

I tried to read most all the posts, and Michael is their a MOD for the RODE NT1 original?, I have a matched pair and when my tax refund comes in I would really like to MOD both of them, and it still keeps them as a matched pair?

I'm pretty sure I saw where Michael said that the NT1's are actually preferable as the noise floor is lower. Or maybe I'm just imagining things again, but I'm pretty sure he said that somewhere.....

[Piedpiper]

Originally Posted by drBill

I'm pretty sure I saw where Michael said that the NT1's are actually preferable as the noise floor is lower. Or maybe I'm just imagining things again, but I'm pretty sure he said that somewhere.....

yup. new ones sport surface mount components.

[Basslik]

Originally Posted by Piedpiper

yup. new ones sport surface mount components.

So there is an option for the original NT1's ? a side note, heard both of your guy's work, simply *WOW*

[bananarama]

Originally Posted by Lifted

Thanks! Rode just sounded so much better to me in this application.

The application "She sells seashells by the seashore TKK" + guitar.

Why not finding a demo singer on craigslist, giving him $50 and really testing the mics?

I have always wondered why microphone companies don't offer more and better audio samples. I'm sure perfum makers would kill to have internet in odorama, and us, we get so many short clips with bad singers.

[Sinocelt]

Originally Posted by Delré

The application "She sells seashells by the seashore TKK" + guitar.

Why not finding a demo singer on craigslist, giving him $50 and really testing the mics?

I have always wondered why microphone companies don't offer more and better audio samples. I'm sure perfum makers would kill to have internet in odorama, and us, we get so many short clips with bad singers.

This very morning, Michael has taken a plane to meet drBill in LA for a more serious shootout. Unlike you, what I most want to know is how a mic performs on the spoken voice -- I hope for some narration, not just songs and instruments.

[bananarama]

Originally Posted by Sinocelt

This very morning, Michael has taken a plane to meet drBill in LA for a more serious shootout.

One day after a suggestion ... and he took the plane ... that is customer service. This is what I believe.

***It's kind of a joke/not blank statement. thumbsup

[Sinocelt]

Originally Posted by Delré

One day after a suggestion ... and he took the plane ... that is customer service. This is what I believe.

thumbsup