Rode NT5

Rode Microphones NT5 small diaphragm condenser NOT a rodent

I had a quick session with the Rode NT5 small diaphragm condensers as drum overheads. The NT5 mics feature an attractive silver finish. They are quite small in size. The black sticker at the base of the mic does look sort of old school Radio Shack.

These microphones sounded pretty damn good. They really pick up the entire sound of the kit, with enough low end to make a kick mic optional in some cases. Toms and snare sounded tight and punchy while cymbals sounded smooth and realistic.

I was able to create a very realistic stereo spread with typical X/Y placement about 20 inches above the cymbals. The cardioid pattern seemed tight, as the mics did not pick up as much room sound as I'd expect.

The Bottom Line: The Rode NT5 small condensers are a very realistic pair of overhead mics that should require little or no EQ in most cases for a good tight mix.

--Warren Dent

Rode Microphones

Rane MS 1b

Rane MS 1b not a bad little pre

Looking for a mic preamp to add to your setup? The Rane MS 1b gets the job done well for a nice price.

The Rane MS 1b is a single channel mic preamp featuring up to +66 dB of gain with 48v phantom power, a signal/overload LED and phase reverse. Input and output are balanced XLR. The power cord looks like a telephone cable connector, and does not ground the unit. You must ground the unit yourself on the grounding screw located on the rear of the unit.

So how does the MS 1b sound? The MS 1b is a surprisingly nice little box, offering a neutral clean sound for the most part, with low self-noise. We compared it to several preamps in my own collection, as well as several in my buddy Bob's collection and the Rane held its own indeed.

So what are the characteristics of the MS 1b's sound? Clean, neutral with a sort of thin low-end response. The thin low-end worked very well with sources you'd want to roll some low frequencies off. The MS 1b is designed for paging and DJ type duties where strong low freq response could be annoying. There is a bit of a scratchiness to it. I'm not saying it's going to go "krrkkkkrkrtttkktktchck" when I say scratchiness but I mean in comparison to some of the more expensive preamps we compared it to there was certainly a slightly scratchier sound. The high-end response is extended to 200 kHz which naturally adds some more high-end noise. But for the $199 list price, this is certainly not a major complaint.

On snare drum with an SM57 it's fast with good punch to it. The transient response is certainly better than many entry level preamps found in lower cost mixers. Overall snare sounds punchy and neutral with good overtones.

On vocals with dynamic and condensor mics, it's not as much of a stand out compared to higher-end units, but it gets the job done admirably. Used at normal levels it produces basically an unhyped, clear sound. I actually liked pushing the MS 1b a bit, getting a small amount of distortion out of the box for effect. There's this area you can push the box in vocally to get a bit of the "Little Richard" type of sound. I like that effect on some voices. The Rane has a more predictable break up range when overdriven than many preamps if you want to go for some fuzz on a vocal.

On acoustic guitar with a small diaphragm condensor, the Rane did its best. Again, the somewhat thin low-end complimented the sound but there was also a nice overall tone with good attack. Some nice acoustic tracks can be had with this box.

The Bottom Line: As a general purpose preamp, the Rane is certainly a well priced addition to the studio. I recommend using it on acoustic guitar and snare work as it takes a nice step away from entry level preamps on these sources and holds its own against many higher end units. For those seeking a different flavor preamp (and only a preamp, there is no DI) the Rane MS 1b should be getting quite a few calls to duty. List price $199. Recommended.

--Warren Dent

Rane Corporation

Rane G4 Quad Gate

Rane shines with its new analog controlled G4 Quad Gate

Rane is one of those companies that recording engineers often overlook. They make a lot of gear for DJ applications and live sound, but they have many tools for studio use as well. The Rane G4 Quad Gate is one of those pieces. I was able to spend some quality time with the G4, and have found it to be a useful studio tool.

The G4 is an analog controlled digital four channel gate, ducker and expander in an all steel 2U chassis. There are 1/4 inch and XLR active balanced/auto-unbalanced inputs and balanced outputs. There are 48 kHz, 24 bit converters in and out. The power supply is internal (no wall wart) and clean. The unit can be used as four channels or you can link channels 1 + 2, or 3 + 4 for dual stereo use for any combination you like. The unit is attractive. I like the combination of black face with white print and the yellow, red and green LEDs. The LED metering is very fast, and allows monitoring of the sidechain as well as the main signal being processed. The chrome switches are a nice touch. The layout is easy to learn and navigate.

Being an analog controlled digital device, it's got "real" analog knobs with fine control. The digital domain also allows for look ahead or what Rane calls "Pre-Ramp" gating which allows the gate to be 100 percent effective on drums and other fast attack sources. The digital domain is also not susceptible to RF interference, which I never found any problem with whatsoever using the G4.

The manual is worth a mention. First of all, it took about three minutes of scanning to get the hang of the entire device. But most importantly, it's written in plain English and can be easily understood. A lot of folks hate manuals, Rane included a quick start page that anyone with reasonable skills will be satisfied with and up and running in seconds with a full grasp of the device.

My first run at the G4 was ducking a bass guitar under a kick drum. I ran a bass guitar track out of my DAW and into channel 1 on the G4. Next, I ran a kick drum track into the side chain and selected external with the side chain switch. Selecting listen allows you to monitor the side chain only, selecting normal allows you to monitor your input signal as it's being effected.

The G4 has a 12 dB per octave low cut and high cut adjustment which allows you to tailor your external or internal sidechain signal. The controls are not very surgical but useful enough to be somewhat selective. I was able to focus in on the low end to clear out some space for the kick drum without affecting the higher frequency response of the bass guitar track. This allowed for some very smooth and transparent ducking that sounded great. The kick drum was able to stomp right on through the mix much clearer now.

The ducking feature proved useful also on a stereo guitar mix, when using the main vocal as a sidechain I could get some of the midrange guitar sounds out of the way a bit to allow the vocal to pop out front in the mix.

Next up was the G4's gate, which is a look ahead sort of gate. This gate is quite simply a nice sounding and easy to use function. You don't lose a thing, you can select "0 ms" for attack time, an advantage of making this a digital box. Between threshold, attack, depth, hold and release adjustments you can shape everything from a guitar track to a snare drum.

You can trigger the gate with a sidechain if you like for some funky results. Got a boring snare drum? Run some white noise into the G4 and trigger a snare to open it up, then blend the two to taste in the mix. Need some boom for your toms? Try running some synth bass through the gates and trigger it with the tom track. The possibilities with the G4 are great, but to top it all off it's a great sounding unit. It's clean and doesn't color the sound in any negative way.

The expander is a nice shaping tool that is easy to work with. I was able to breathe some life into a "dynamically challenged" acoustic guitar track with good results. This is similar to the gate function except the hold control is unavailable in expander mode, and the ratio control is used instead of depth. This effect can be as subtle or as wild as you need it. Again, you can key the expander off of a sidechain for some interesting results.

The Bottom Line: Rane's G4 is a creative tool for sure. Its ease of use and clean sound would be welcomed in any studio in need of some good envelope shaping. Then there's some of the wilder uses as I mentioned above, which make the Rane a fun piece to reach for when you've got an idea to mangle something or just keep it in its place. List price is $999 and can be found for less on the street. Recommended.

--Warren Dent

Rane Corporation

Presonus Eureka

Eureka! Presonus gets it mostly right with its recording channel

I've owned PreSonus gear in the past, specifically the DigiMax eight-channel pre, and I wasn't a big fan of that unit. Most notably, my opinion of the unit's performance on low-output dynamic microphones was especially poor. So, when my dealer encouraged me to take a listen to the new PreSonus Eureka, I already had a negative disposition for PreSonus preamps. Still, I'm always up for playing with a new toy so I said I'd give it a shot.

The box itself is a channel-strip type arrangement with a microphone preamp and direct input section followed by a compressor and EQ. The compressor and EQ are order switchable and both have a bypass mode. There is a master output control to provide 10 db more or less gain before output and an analog meter in the center of the unit providing output level monitoring, including the ability to monitor the compressor’s gain reduction.

The preamp section features several standard controls including high-pass filter, phase invert, 48v phantom power and a 20 db input pad. There are also less commonly seen features including adjustable impedance and "saturation" controls.

Tunable impedance seems to be a hot topic in preamp design lately, but in my tests using an SM57, Sennheiser 441 and Earthworks TC30K, I always picked the 2500 ohm setting, the highest offered by the Eureka. The 600 ohm setting was interesting on snare drum with the SM57, making the sound thicker and more strained.

The other non-obvious control on the preamp is the saturation feature. The documentation behind this knob indicates a current depletion technique designed to control the generation of second order harmonics adding a "pleasing analog tape or tube like distortion." It adds something for sure, but I'm not sure if I'd call it pleasing. I would liken the sound to a fog or haze in the signal, as if someone were screaming into a telephone handset from across the world. Each time I tried adding even subtle amounts of color I preferred the sound of the saturation control fully off.

OK, so I don't like the sound of the Eureka preamp's special features, but what about the preamp itself? This little preamp is really great! Again and again I was impressed with the very useable quality coming out of the unit. For my own edification, I compared the Eureka to a Millennia Media HV3D. First, I tried the Eureka on a 10-inch popcorn snare drum with an Earthworks TC30k microphone. To my ears, there was very little difference in sound between the Millennia Media HV3D and the PreSonus. This was especially surprising given the notoriously hot output of Earthworks microphones and the transformer coupling of the PreSonus versus the transformerless Millennia. Both preamps delivered great, focused sounds ready for tape.

Second was the same source using a SM57. For this test, I was surprised at the difference in the Eureka vs. the Millennia. Admittedly, I used two different SM57s so I could cut both takes at once, so much of the difference may be difference between microphones. That said, the Millennia seems to have a good mid-range thing going on and seemed a bit more punchy, but there's clearly a lot more high frequency information plus a certain “spread” to the sound coming out of the Eureka. For a Pop record there's no question I would have chosen the PreSonus over the Millennia

Next up was a Fender Precision Bass using the direct input on the Eureka. For this comparison, I also plugged the bass into the wonderful Millennia STT-1 direct in. While I still preferred the openness and richness of tone from the Millennia, the PreSonus is a great sound with plenty of punch. I also felt this was the one place where the saturation control might be useful if one likes a dense, thick bass sound with lots of mids instead of an open, clear one.

Finally, the last test was voice. I had Dave Dye, lead singer for Submarinehead, sing a bit from a new comedy song a cappella and tried both the Millennia HV3D and the PreSonus out side-by-side. Dave is very fond of the sound of the Sennheiser 441 for vocals (as am I), and this microphone can be challenging for preamps because of its very low output. In this test, both the HV3D and PreSonus were set at their highest gain settings possible, with the Master Out on the PreSonus also maxed out.

The sound from both preamps was open and clear. To my ears, the PreSonus was a slight bit harsher on the sibilant sounds, and in general had a bit of crunch on the top. There was no doubt, however, the Eureka sounds great and performed admirably at this application. To me, vocal handling separates great preamps from the mediocre ones, and the Eureka was just dandy on Dave’s voice.

One thing I noticed is the very, very low noise floor of the PreSonus. Usually ultra-low noise performance like this is reserved for "money" preamps like the Millennia. Even at max gain (in the neighborhood of 65db), the PreSonus was whisper quiet -- only very slightly noisier than the HV3D. This is a huge improvement from my experience with the DigiMax, and a welcome one. I would not hesitate to reach for the Eureka for quiet, sensitive sources and low output microphones.

During a mixdown session, I also found the compressor useful. I got great sounds using the line-in on snare drum with shades of tight and squashed to punchy and resonant. The Eureka was also good on vocals, though it left me wanting a bit more squash as the compressor tops out at a max ratio of 10:1. The sound is reasonably uncolored, and I was impressed at how easy it was to get a good sound without excessive pumping and breathing, even when squeezing sounds heavily. I would not hesitate to put the PreSonus on snare drum for tracking or mixing.

The EQ was by far my least favorite. For starters, the parametric EQ is arranged such that the Gain, Q and center knobs are in different positions on each band! Yes, they are in the same order, but because PreSonus arranges them in a "three triangles" pattern with the center triangle inverted, they are in different positions vertically band-to-band. This awkward arrangement plus the very small print on the front panel was an endless point of frustration using the device.

Beyond the ergonomics, the sound of the EQ was less than stellar. It reminded me a bit of a Mackie console -- very forward in the mids, a crunchy top and a boomy bottom. The Q control just won't get wide enough for smooth, wide boosts or cuts. I also felt the EQ, at notch settings, starved too much punch from the sound.

The Bottom Line: The PreSonus Eureka features a good pre, solid compressor but not so good EQ. Still, the good outweighs the bad and the unit sells at a reasonable price. When you take into consideration the Eureka's street price, one can do little else than applaud PreSonus for a job well done.

--Jim Dugger

Presonus

Oktava MK-319 modified by OktavaMod

OktavaMod puts new sonics and some zing into MK-319

I own an Oktava MK-319, which is a large diaphragm made in Russia condenser microphone. It's laid around without getting use for a long time. I bought it back in my bedroom recording days. It just did not seem to give me satisfactory results on anything.

I now own a commercial recording studio. While I've upgraded I thought it was time to give a go at upgrading my MK-319. I decided to try getting it modified by Michael Joly, who owns an online business called OktavaMod. I felt skeptical about the whole thing. But, Michael quoted me a price of $99. I felt I did not risk losing much if the mic came back without a significant improvement.

First thing... I found Michael to do the rarest of things for a techie. He gave me a fast turnaround. I think eight days went by from the time I shipped out my mic until it came back all modded out including a cleaned grille sans the dent that I shipped it out with. Thanks for the undent, Michael.

With my MK-319 back in my hands, I wasted no time in getting to work. I recorded test tracks of the modded Oktava MK-319 through an A Designs Audio P-1 mic pre and an OSA MP1-C mic pre. I tracked two different C.F. Martin guitars. The modded MK-319 captured sounds from either guitar that I'd not encountered before whether tracking hard strumming or delicate picking.

I found the modded MK-319 to be sensitive to position (moreso than I would have imagined from any mic in the less than $2,000 range). I found that moving the mic just 1/4 inch produced dramatic changes in the tracked result. I compared the modded MK-319 tracks to several other tracks recorded in the past with different mics including the Audio-Technica AT4033 and a Peluso 22 47. I generally liked the tracks made with the modded MK-319 more than the others about 85 to 90 percent of the time.

I tested the mic on vocals. I cut several tracks of various male and female voices, in various musical styles. I found myself thinking of words such as clarity and power. The modded MK-319 seems suited to vocal styles other than screaming rock. I liked it on middle and lower register voices. I did some more A/B'ing with some older tracks and found myself preferring the modded MK-319 tracks when I wanted to hear "smooth."

I thought the mic seemed to sort of ooze a vintage sound. So, I went so far as to record a mono track of a small group consisting acoustic guitar with male and female vocals from about five feet from the sources. It worked. Playback revealed a sense of a small intimate living room concert.

I next tried the modded MK-319 on electric guitar amp for a blues project. I set the mic up about 18 inches from the speaker and slightly off axis. I got keeper tracks, giving up that elusive smoky, old school blues sound. I thought the modded MK-319 held its own on clean guitars, dirty guitars, and anything in between. It didn’t matter. I even gave it a whirl on Fender Rhodes. And, I captured that "tone" I equate with the greats of the electric piano such as Ray Charles.

As I gathered more and more experience with the modded MK-319 I found myself thinking the mic close to the old FET U47 microphones. I did not say identical. I thought the vibe to be close.

I learned that different mic preamps imparted their character on the modded MK-319. What this means to you is that the modded MK-319 will accentuate any differences in mic pres, thus opening up your pallet of sound even more.

I got to talk to Michael Joly on the telephone about his history. I learned of his former work in mic design for David Blackmer, founder of Earthworks, and that he likes to think of himself as “an empirical engineer.”

I want to thank Patti Spurgeon Irvin for providing her extraordinary vocal talents in my evaluation of this mic.

The Bottom Line: If you own an Oktava MK-219 or a MK-319, then get it modded now. Not only does your mic deserve it, your clients and your recordings deserve it as well. Recommended.

--Ken Morgan