Rode NT1a vs ADK A6 plus Two
There are a number of comments I expect to hear when microphones are discussed. Someone is likely to call the Rode NT1a harsh, strident, shrill, or some similar indication of high frequency problems. And when asked to recommend a mic for recording acoustic guitar, the ADK A6 is one of the more common responses. So how obvious are the differences between these two mics in a four way blind comparison?
If you’ve read my posts about mic comparison you know what I mean when I say comparison – all the mics recording the same source in as close to the same location as possible, with the level of the recorded tracks matched as carefully as my equipment and patience allow. Here’s the mic array I set up for the comparison:
Four mics ready to test
The mics I’m comparing are the two I mentioned before, the Rode NT1a and ADK A6, plus a couple from my collection. I chose a Schoeps CMC54 as a kind of reference standard, and for something a little different, an ElectroVoice RE15 dynamic.
I used AudioTools from Studio Six to generate a 1 Khz test tone. All the mics were connected to the preamps of my RME UFX interface. The wonderful TotalMix software let me fine tune the preamp gain to get a pretty close level match. Then I recorded the test tone simultaneously on all four of the mics and used the Sonalksis FreeG trim/meter tool to fine tune the levels. With the tracks trimmed I then recorded a bit of slack key using my Martin OM18GE and rendered each track as a separate 44.1/16 WAV file.
Hear the Difference
As usual, my comparison clips are uncompressed WAV files. They won’t stream very well if at all, so you should download the files to your local system before attempting to compare them. It’s also really valuable to listen to these in a double-blind comparison tool like Foobar2000 and its ABX comparator. Not only does this tool hide the labels, it also makes it easy to concentrate on small sections, hear them repeatedly back to back, and track the statistics of your choices.
So how do these sound to you? Do you hear one of these mics as noticeably better than the others? Notably worse? Please leave a comment here if you’d like the key to the comparison.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 5th, 2013 at 10:38 am and is filed under Audio, Comparisons, Recording. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Thomas said in post # 1,
on March 8th, 2013 at 4:33 am
Hi Fran, I’m not very good at this, but for the fun, here are my results
I find the r. quite “bassy” everything is put in relief (maybe too much), for me the third mic of the comparison
the s., for me, has the less bass, lacks a bit of definition for me the fourth mic
the t., well equilibrated, good mediums for me the winner
the u., second just after the t.
Thomas said in post # 2,
on March 8th, 2013 at 4:33 am
Hi Fran, I’m not very good at this, but for the fun, here are my results
I find the r. quite “bassy” everything is put in relief (maybe too much), for me the third mic of the comparison
the s., for me, has the less bass, lacks a bit of definition for me the fourth mic
the t., well equilibrated, good mediums for me the winner
the u., second just after the t.
Fran Guidry said in post # 3,
on March 8th, 2013 at 8:25 am
Thanks for visiting and commenting, I’ve sent the key via email.
Fran
Mike Smith said in post # 4,
on March 18th, 2013 at 7:23 am
Fran,
Here I prefer U. Behind U, I’d rank r,s, and t – in that order. If it the guitar was mixed with other instruments I’d have to listen to r and s again – I might reverse their order!
Thanks for the test.
Best,
Mike
Randy Cordle said in post # 5,
on March 18th, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Best to “lest best” u, s, t, r. I especially thought that r was rather lack-luster and lacked focus in general. Maybe that’s my old, over-rocked, tinnitus riden ears, though!
Carolyn Stephens said in post # 6,
on April 3rd, 2013 at 3:32 pm
I’m going to come back later and listen through my Sony MDR-7506 headphones. That will remove the mixer and monitors from the comparison. Thanks for doing this.
For me T was the clear winner and U was the least impressive (lacked lows and had brittle highs). I liked the gentle highs of R-they were present but sat nicely in the mix and didn’t jut out. The lows were a little much for my taste, but not bad. S had highs that were brittle, but a nice low end. If I were going to buy a mic I would go for T first, and second choice would be R.
Fran Guidry said in post # 7,
on April 3rd, 2013 at 6:13 pm
Thanks for commenting, Carolyn. For now I’ll wait for your second listen before sending you the key, unless you request differently.
Fran
Carolyn Stephens said in post # 8,
on April 4th, 2013 at 7:26 pm
Things changed a little with the headphones as opposed to having the mixer and monitors in the signal chain.
The S mic sounded a lot more balanced, the highs weren’t so brittle. They had definition but didn’t poke out of the mix. For some reason though the highs didn’t seem to meld with the bass. It was as if there was a shelf of highs, and a separate shelf of bass. Not a bad sound, but it didn’t seem to be cohesive to my ears.
Poor U was still disappointing in every regard. No use going on about it’s shortcomings.
T was my first choice through the monitors because it cut through without being intrusive. It is now my second choice (listening through headphones). It had pleasant highs but the bass was just a little too prominent for my taste. But I’m talking about being just a little out of balance. I wouldn’t have a problem listening to this mic in a recording. If a vocalist was singing in front of this song, the mic might be just the ticket.
R sounds round and balanced. Overall it is the most cohesive sound.
So which mic is the best with headphones? It is between R (the pleasant round sound) and T (the brighter/more definition sound). Tell me how you are going to use the guitar part and that will tell me which mic to choose. They are both winners.
But of course the headphones have their own EQ so you have to take that into consideration.
Fran Guidry said in post # 9,
on April 4th, 2013 at 7:50 pm
Thanks for sharing such a detailed evaluation. I’ll get the key off to you in email right away.
Fran
Smurf said in post # 10,
on April 8th, 2013 at 1:52 pm
I would say U – S – T – R, from clear to “boomy”
I am also going to guess that U is the RE-15, tho it has been years since I used one! LOL
Smurf said in post # 11,
on April 8th, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Side note – Your link to the Classic Series has been broke for awhile, but you can still find them available for download on the Acoustica site..
http://www.acoustica.com/plugins/vst-directx.htm
Hope this helps!
Fran Guidry said in post # 12,
on April 8th, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Thanks for the info and for the comment on the mic comparison. I’ll get the key off to you in an email.
Fran
Anton said in post # 13,
on April 19th, 2013 at 7:21 am
Hi again Fran!
I’m really glad to find your site! Your shootouts make much more sense than most of them out there. I really like your scientific approach!
That said, looking at the picture it appears as if the Schoeps was positioned in not a very favorable way, having big part of it’s soundfield obscured by the grill of the ADK. I wonder what effect this had on the sound.
As to the samples, my opinion is very much like that expressed by Carolyn, except that I feel the definition that T provides in every part of the spectrum is superior by far to every other mic, and so it comes out first (ADK?). R is “nice” but less detailed and a bit darker (NT1A?), then S being yet darker and having considerably less definition in the high-mids, but overall pleasant-sounding (the obscured Schoeps?). Last comes U, which is even more dark and has a bump in the high mids where it is least detailed (re-15?). Overall, in this application U produces a profoundly unbalanced and harsh impresssion.
I agree with Carolyn that T would work best for the soloist, R and S would better fit in the mix on second and third roles. U will perhaps work better with some other instrument than the acoustic guitar.
Cheers
Anton
Fran Guidry said in post # 14,
on April 19th, 2013 at 9:51 am
Thanks Anton, I’ve sent the key via email.
Fran
Bill Simpson said in post # 15,
on June 2nd, 2013 at 11:31 am
Very much looking forward to the key! I have a NT1A on order and so naturally I’m curious as to how it stacks up against the other 3 mics in your test.
I found that ‘r’ has a sort of scooped sound, more emphasis on the low end with crystal clear highs.
‘u’ sounds to me like it has the most mid-range
‘t’ sounds very nice… open and airy
‘s’ sounds a little pinched
In my opinion, ‘r’ sounds more like what a good OM18GE should sound, with ‘t’ a close second.
Fran Guidry said in post # 16,
on June 2nd, 2013 at 11:48 am
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Bill. I just emailed you the key.
Fran
Igor Pavlyuchenko said in post # 17,
on July 17th, 2013 at 5:54 am
Hi!
Very interesting and revealing test-thanks for doing this!
I like S and R the most. Could it be Schoeps and Adk?
T and U following. T-rode?
Mail me the results, please.
Best regards!
kris heidt said in post # 18,
on August 5th, 2013 at 2:51 am
cool test!
I was surprised at how similar all these mics sounded. I’d be interested to know what preamps and ad/da was used?
I liked “t” the best, it was well balanced and the overall clearest.
I liked “r” the least, it had a bit more bass, and the bass seemed a tiny bit muddled
“s” and “U” were different, but I couldn’t decide which one I liked better. “s” was cleaner, maybe slightly compressed, “U” was warmer sounding, but had louder background fuzz, possibly from more preamp gain.
~kris
Fran Guidry said in post # 19,
on August 7th, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Hi, Kris,
I’m emailing you the key.
The interface I’m using these days is the wonderful RME UFX. I used the preamps and a/d of that interface.
When I’ve compared preamps and a/d converters I’ve never heard enough of a difference to prefer one over the other based on sound. There have been big differences in workflow, but when I use careful level matching, the same source, and double blind comparison, I can’t tell a $100 M-Audio DMP3 from a $2000 John Hardy, and I’d be surprised if other people could hear the difference either in controlled double blind tests.
But then almost no one ever does carefully controlled double blind tests.
Fran
David Erskine said in post # 20,
on August 9th, 2013 at 9:33 pm
I am forming my views through some average headphones, because I can’t access my studio monitors at present.
u – seems bright and open
t – offers warmth and more bass depth
s – is full, bright and present
r – seems a fraction dull
My choice is “u” closely followed by “s”
Mikey said in post # 21,
on September 14th, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Hi Fran, I love your tests. I especially love that you have some very high end gear and compare it fairly and evenly to some much more affordable stuff. I always use Foobar’s ABX for comparison and do quite a few of my own comparisons following your methods – thanks a bunch.
Regarding this test, as far as noise level goes I rate them quietest to noisiest: t, s, r, u. For the tonality I can say that U is harsh and unpleasant and that the other three are very similar with some ‘hard to pin down maybe not even there’ type differences that I cant consistently pick.
I would love to know which is which.
cheers, Mikey
Mikey said in post # 22,
on September 14th, 2013 at 6:26 pm
yay! it posted! I’ve tried to post on your site many times but it’s never worked before…
Fran Guidry said in post # 23,
on September 15th, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Thanks for commenting, Mikey. I’m very glad you were able to get a comment in. I just sent you the key.
Fran
Julie Watson said in post # 24,
on December 10th, 2013 at 10:56 am
Nice playing! liked them all except r which I thought was muted. Preference for t
Fran Guidry said in post # 25,
on December 10th, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Hi, Julie.
Thanks for visiting and commenting. I just sent you the key via email.
Fran
Felipe said in post # 26,
on January 16th, 2014 at 12:46 pm
In my opinion: u < s < r < t
Can you send me the key please??
Fran Guidry said in post # 27,
on January 16th, 2014 at 10:25 pm
Thanks for commenting. Not shure which is which in your list, but I’ve just sent the key via email.
Fran
iason said in post # 28,
on July 10th, 2014 at 1:28 am
Thanks for the comparison!
It’s interesting… it took me a while to get into it. For the first few minutes all the clips sounded exaclty the same to me! I even asked myself whether it was a joke and all clips were actually from the same mic! But after doing A-B loops back to back in Audacity, the differences slowly became apparent.
From best to worst on my system:
u, s, r, t
I find t has the clearest bass but the treble is too thin.
r is a little too boomy.
u and s a quite similar to me, with u having slightly clearer low/mids..
Davd Falkowski said in post # 29,
on July 24th, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Funny how varied the comments are. For the record, I am listening on Audio Technica ATH-M40x headphones direct from the sound card in my Macbook Pro.. My perception:
r – not bad, very good mid presence, slightly brittle highs, and somewhat muted low end. i would use this mic in a mix.
s – my least favorite, boxy and brittle
t – great for a solo recording. very open and natural. a bit boomy on the low end, but that could be solved with placement.
u – very nice. the most balanced across the frequency range.
Please email the key.
Fran Guidry said in post # 30,
on July 24th, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Thanks for visiting and commenting. As I said in the email with the key, I find the differences so small that I use whatever mic is mounted when I’m ready to record. Perhaps my solo acoustic guitar is easier to record than a more complex source, but I just don’t hear an _emotional_ difference between the mics.
Fran
Davd Falkowski said in post # 31,
on July 25th, 2014 at 11:32 am
So I listened to these through my AI into my home stereo with Linn Nexus speakers (which I find quite neutral and natural on acoustic instruments). My perception did change a bit.
r – similar response, overall perhaps a bit less muted and lows a little clearer. Very sweet upper mids. Still my choice if in a mix.
s – this one opened up with the better source. The lows and mids were quite smooth. The upper end had a hard to describe unnatural percussive sound. A shade dark overall.
t – same openness as before. Less boominess in the lows than before. Just a tad more brittle highs than before. Still my choice for solo if I could EQ the highs .
u – Still balanced through the mids, but lacking at both ends. A little less open.
Of course, slight changes in mic placement could completely benefit or hinder any of the mics. I’d like to do a comparison where the sweet spot on the instrument is found for each mic. FWIW, I keep going back to an older pair of made in U.S. Shure SM 81’s for acoustic guitar, mandolin,…..
That said, I find my analysis, and everyone else’s, a bit amusing now that I know which mics are which. Goes to show, the end of the signal chain is the determining factor.
Thanks for you time and efforts!
Fran Guidry said in post # 32,
on July 25th, 2014 at 12:48 pm
Thanks for the followup. I’d love to have some SM81s and SM80s around here, but I have too many mics already.
I hope you won’t be offended if I mention that any sighted comparison is pointless. We humans just aren’t wired to be able to cancel out our reaction to labels.
I’d also ask about your methodology in making these comparisons, because another huge issue is _attention_. Human sensory bandwidth gets reduced hugely by the first processing stage after the initial capture and a feedback loop from the brain is responsible for a lot of that reduction – the result is that perception is very much dependent on which fragment of the signal we give our focus.
The classic demonstration of these two phenomena working together is the “phantom knob,” the audio illusion that causes us to tweak a setting to perfection, then learn that the device is not even in the signal chain.
A decent ABX tool helps a lot with both of these problems, and I’m working on a blog post about a new cross-platform tool for audio file comparisons: http://lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx
Fran
Davd Falkowski said in post # 33,
on July 25th, 2014 at 6:47 pm
I tried my best to forget which mics were which, but as you say, it is impossible to delete our preconceptions and expectations.
After putting the files in iTunes, I set each file, one at a time to repeat itself. I listened to each file many times in succession while making notes. I then listened several more times and double checked my notes to see if I was still hearing what I had notated.
I did this sitting across the room from the computer and sound source.
I saw your blog post for today. Thanks for the links.
Shaun Toole said in post # 34,
on November 3rd, 2014 at 9:08 am
I put the four wav files in Sony Vegas Pro where I could easily switch between them. Individually, the four sounded very good, but when I was able to switch between the sources as they played, their differences were revealed. My favorite is u – it seems to have more detail in the midrange. t lacks the midrange in favor of the high and low ends. r seems louder than the rest, and possibly more distorted, while s is pleasantly warm. So I would rank them from most favorite to least: u, s, t, r. Thanks for the opportunity to evaluate these mics. I’m considering two of them for voice over work.
Fergus said in post # 35,
on January 7th, 2015 at 3:07 pm
I enjoy all your comparisons Fran, I am so curious to know the results. Can you send me the key?
Todd said in post # 36,
on January 13th, 2015 at 9:57 am
Thanks for making these recordings. I’ve been contemplating which mic to buy to record acoustic guitar, and it’s great to have comparisons like this. If you would, please send me the key so I know which mic was which. Thanks so much!
Fran Guidry said in post # 37,
on March 22nd, 2015 at 11:00 am
I finally figured out that Gmail was putting blog posts in the spam folder instead of my inbox for the last few months. I believe I’ve responded to all the key requests and other comments and found a solution to the problem. My apologies.
Fran
Jimmy O said in post # 38,
on October 22nd, 2016 at 7:15 am
U sounded the best to me.
Please send the key.
John S. said in post # 39,
on January 6th, 2017 at 11:56 pm
Am hoping you are still monitoring this, as I would love to find out which mics went to which samples. I currently use an ADK 51A, which I understand is the forerunner of the ADK A6, and I’m considering purchasing a Rode NT1A. Anyway, enough about me, on with the show. My choice, from best to worse: R, as it seemed to have a strong but controlled low end(which is what I’m looking for); U, which seemed to be balanced across the range; T, open, but weak on the bottom; S, something lacking, can’t put my finger on it.
Fran Guidry said in post # 40,
on January 7th, 2017 at 8:32 am
Thanks John,
I’ve sent the key.
Fran
Jeffrey Knecht said in post # 41,
on December 16th, 2017 at 3:35 pm
Thank you, so many pics so little time. The Octava MK319 worked well for me but went kaput, bought a RODE NT1, sounds real and ok. Thinking of getting ADK A6 as soon as I found your videos of the last mikes. The sound of the ADK is it for me.
MIC CHALLENGE …..u….s…..t……r is the way the best to lesst is heard over here.
Thank you, look forward to seeing the key