Just decided to recite a poem I knew by memory. It's a dark one, but a goodie.

One mic is the Lewitt, the other the Rode. You tell me which one you favour. I had to adjust for the proximity effect to some degree with one of the mics (Rode NT-1) to make sure there was a comparable tone for the test to be fair. (You don't need to be as close to the Lewitt - that much is certain).

One day I'll do a bit of singing, but I thought for now the basic dialogue setup for a test would be fun.

Enjoy!

 

The first track have sensibly more lows than the second... but that's the only thing I can tell. I couldn't tell which is which...

(Witch is witches?.... )

All these mikes specifically home-studio oriented have basically the same sound because they aim the same market: the amateur / semi-pro market. They all lack personality and relief to my ears...

...Except of course those based on tubes, or the ribbon ones, here you can say: yeah, there's a significant difference. It doesn't mean they are any better, it depends closely on your usage and style.

 

Last edited: May 6, 2022

Thanks for the feedback. I guess you never saw the 'Audio Myths' seminar held by Ethan Winer and company? Your ears (nor mine) are nobody's gold standard for anything. The electronic measuring instruments that read results of tests are key to determining quality for sure. But as to what our ears really hear? It's the power of suggestion ... that 24k gold plated cables make a difference in the studio ... that a $2,000.00 pair of headphones or studio monitors are better than a $500.00 pair etc. We con ourselves, and as Paul Simon wrote, 'A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'.

 

Last edited: May 7, 2022

In my country, almost every fancy studio have their "bluffer mic" to show .. :D
and most of them uses U87 .. always

 

What I wanted to express is the fact that when, in the 90's, Rode released their inexpensive (for the times) NT-1 mike, who was the first (to my knowledge) to be really affordable by non-professionals, they created a market, with its rules.

This mike became soon the prototype of the affordable mike, and all the competing companies around the world begun to copy the NT-1 to conquer their part of this new market.

The sound of the NT-1 is really a reference in studio condenser mikes, and the number of models that mimic its sound is close to infinite.

The problem here, is the market. If your target market is expecting a precise kind of sound, you can't escape that. If you wanna sell, you have to obey to the model. It's why I dare to say that many, many affordable mikes lack relief and personality... compared to other mikes that bet on their difference to attract the attention, and, why not, try to create a new market.

It's not, per se, necessary a bad thing. There is number of situations where one, amateur or pro, could need precisely this kind of sound.

You talk about myths, but it's precisely what the amateur market is based on. An amateur is more sensitive to unreasonable arguments than an experimented professional, who is supposed to only trust numbers and extensive tests in situation to determine what is best for a given purpose... or not.

An amateur / beginner / newbie can't have the same distance and reflections than a pro, because he/she is mainly an emotional client. And the amateur market is precisely, I'd say mainly, based on emotion and buzzwords.

 

I more enjoyed the 1st mic as the high end seemed not as harsh, but I'm pretty deaf now,so....

 

Yes, here as well, there are only two quality relevant components.
THD+N and frequency response.
And the most clear results regarding this for studio recording deliver DPA mic's (4006 and 4011).

Those super expensive tube mics really are only a show off.
What can help of course.

 

Neither of those have a tube in their circuit, but they aren't exactly cheap. Maybe you're thinking of the 4041T.

 

From what I hear, Mic 1 should be the good mic and Mic 2 the cheap one. So, my guess Mic1 Rode, Mic 2 Lewitt.

 

Last edited: May 7, 2022

Both cost about the same. The Rode mic in this test is not the NT-1 you can buy now though. The old generation of NT-1 and NT-2 mics are supposed to sound quite a lot better than the modern ones you can buy now.

 

You are right. I though the second mic was the new lewitt 1040.
So, my guess is that Mic 1 is the good mic and this is maybe the Rode. Mic 1 sounds much much better that Mic 2.

I've edit my previous post too.

 

Last edited: May 7, 2022

Mic 1 sounds better.

 

Mic 1!

 

Hi guy! Mic 1 is the Lewitt and Mic 2 (2nd track below) is the RODE NT-1.

FUN FACT: Did you know that the name of the Rode mic company came from crack/joke about rats?
RODE NT = RODENT !
So next time you sing into one of their mics, pretend it's a rat. Might change the whole dynamic of your performance!

 

I also have two LCT 440 Pure. Best budget LDC's I've ever heard. Ever since I bought my first Lewitt mic I've not bought a single one from another brand

 

I don't agree about Rode's quality. I've own for 15 years a Rode K2. Of course another price point from Rode NT. It's a very very good mic and when I bought I prefer it from Neumann TLM 103.