TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
Sign up for your digital AM at
www.audiomedia.com
RØDE NT1 and M5 Matched Pair STUDIO MICROPHONES
The updated NT1 and new M5s hold up RØDE’s tradition of providing high quality in an affordable package, writes Stephen Bennett.
THE 80s were the decade in which technological developments such as affordable multi-track tape machines and sync-able MIDI devices allowed musicians and engineers to move from expensive bespoke recording facilities into what we now call project studios. When I listen back to the
recordings made using this equipment, I’m struck by how good the DI’d instruments sound – but I’m also appalled by how poor the drums and vocals sound in comparison to those that I hear from similar contemporary setups. The exception is often the electric guitar, captured using a relatively inexpensive Shure SM57, one of the few affordable microphones available then that remains in common use today. Microphones such as the Neumann U87 and AKG 414 were out of reach for those not working in commercial facilities; so most project studios would have been filled with cheap dynamic microphones and poor sounding condensers. By the time the noughties
were upon us, certain enterprising companies began to import low-cost, decent quality microphones from China into the UK and elsewhere – but these often suffered from poor manufacture and quality control. Peter Freedman was one of these early entrepreneurs, importing, testing, and upgrading Chinese-built microphones before resale to customers in Australia. These apparently sold as fast as ‘a rat up a drain pipe’ – and so the RØDE NT1 (Rodent 1, geddit?) was born. The ‘Ø’ was apparently added as an homage to Freedman’s early years when he lived in Stockholm – but
34 February 2014
confusingly, it’s a letter that’s not in the Swedish alphabet!
THE RAT IN THE STUDIO – THE NT1 RØDE microphones are now designed and assembled in Australia and the original NT1 was superseded several years ago by the improved NT1a. The latest incarnation of the microphone arrived in my studio as part of a kit, comprising a sturdy Rycote- based suspension cradle with a neat detachable pop shield, whose fitting makes sure that it sits at the correct distance from the capsule. Rycote’s suspensions are my ‘to go’ microphone supports just now and I was pleased to see one supplied with the NT1. The microphone itself retains the classic design embodied most famously by the U87 – though it’s slightly smaller than Neumann’s ubiquitous condenser. It’s beautifully finished in a scratch-resistant matte black and should easily withstand life in the studio. The kit comes in a
cardboard box rather than the aluminium case sported by some of its price-comparable rivals, but I’m personally always happier to see manufacturing costs going into the product than the packaging. The NT1 is a JFET-based 48V (or 24V) phantom-powered cardioid pattern condenser microphone with a shock-mounted 1in gold-plated diaphragm. RØDE boasts that the NT1 is the quietest studio condenser microphone in the world, with only -4.5dBA of self-noise. I had no problems at all with the microphone during the review period even on quiet sources, so I have little doubt that this claim wouldn’t stand up to bench testing. The most obvious use for the NT1 is recording vocals,
“These two microphones are
now top of my list when asked the
question ‘what’s the best low-cost
microphone you
can recommend?’” Stephen Bennett
so the first thing I tried it on was a bass drum! I often use a low-cost Chinese manufactured microphone on the outer skin of the drum when I can’t use a Neumann FET U47, so I was keen to see how the RØDE compared. The result was excellent and the NT1 handled the pressure levels admirably – its specification quoting a maximum SPL of 132dB. I compared its performance on vocals against the low-cost condenser that I most often recommend to students – the Studio Projects B1 – as well as my 1980s Neumann U87 and a vintage AKG 414 that I like to use on female vocals. Compared to the older microphones, the NT1 had noticeably more output at a given gain setting and exhibited a slightly brighter sound that still retained enough body and harmonic subtlety to bring out the positive attributes of both male and female voices. The B1 does exhibit some of the high-end brittleness characteristic of Chinese sourced microphones, but the RØDE NT1 was a lot smoother in this important
high-frequency area. Crucially, the NT1 takes equalisation and compression better than some other low- cost microphones I’ve tried. Looking at the supplied specification sheet, the NT1, like many ‘vocal’ microphones, exhibits a slight frequency ‘hump’ from around 6kHz to about 10kHz and the off-axis frequency response quoted appears to be quite in line with my experiences in using the microphone.
MUSIC OF THE SPHERES – THE M5 The design of RØDE’s NT5 small-diaphragm ‘pencil’ condenser could also have been inspired by a Neumann microphone – in this case the classic KM84 with its
removable cardioid and omni- directional capsules. I tend to use my KM84s with the cardioid capsule fitted about 95% of the time and the microphone under review here – the M5 – suggest that RØDE believes I’m not alone in this. The cardioid M5s were supplied as a matched pair – again in a sturdy cardboard box – along with microphone clips and foam windshields. RØDE claims the difference in sensitivity between the microphones is ±1dB and each pair comes with a certificate confirming this specification. The microphones are
shorter than the NT5 at 100mm in length and feature a 0.5in gold-plated diaphragm, transformerless circuitry, and the same quality of external finish as the NT1. In the kind of applications the M5 is likely to be used, small is indeed beautiful, and the matte black body should make it less visible when recordings are being filmed. I decided to try the M5 in
some applications where I’d normally use my KM84s,
www.audiomedia.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44