Budget, flattish, full-range LDC. Rode NT1000?

[Multicore]

I appears to have a much flatter response than most of the popular budget LDCs. Same as the NTK but with solid-state preamp. I'm not very experienced with mics. They sell used for under $200. What do you think?

 

[Multicore]

Wait. I have a Cross-Spectrum calibrated UMIK-1 and I know how to use REW.

So can't I flatten any mic that has colored (hilly?) full range response by making a sweep with both of them?

 

[staticV3]

Sweeps won't capture things like proximity effect, polar pattern, plosive rejection, but yeah in a controlled environment you can EQ one mic to sound like the other.

 

[dasdoing]

If you have 2 mics with different polar patterns flatness becomes a question of definition. if both measure the same at the same spot (in a room that is) only one can be neutral. For in-room measurements, a restricted pattern measurement mic would be more interesting to reflect more of what our ears hear. our ears are far from being omni. proximity effect is what makes this complicated to do. you could have several mic compensation curves for several distances though.

 

[SuicideSquid]

I appears to have a much flatter response than most of the popular budget LDCs. Same as the NTK but with solid-state preamp. I'm not very experienced with mics. They sell used for under $200. What do you think?

If you want a reasonably neutral LDC and have an interest in DIY, I strongly recommend Microphone Parts' kits. The S3-87 is a very balanced, natural sounding mic with low noise and reasonably flat frequency response and multiple polar patterns. They also offer kits to replace circuits and capsules in existing mics.

I've built 87 and 47-style mics and have been very impressed. You're getting performance more like a $1,000-$1,500 microphone for around 1/3 the price. The 47 mic kits are a bit more 'coloured' with a transformer-coupled circuit that introduces some even-order harmonic distortion, while the S87 uses a transformerless circuit that's very low noise/low distortion. The 87 capsule is a little brighter than the 47 but easily EQ'd to preference. The kit also includes a socketed capacitor you can use to alter the high frequency response of the microphone, to have a modest HF boost or a more flat profile.

Companies like Rode that market budget microphones are notorious for marketing BS, misrepresenting frequency response (usually by dramatically over-smoothing the mic's response), distortion characteristics, and noise floor.

 

[SuicideSquid]

Wait. I have a Cross-Spectrum calibrated UMIK-1 and I know how to use REW.

So can't I flatten any mic that has colored (hilly?) full range response by making a sweep with both of them?

Yes but:

1. As soon as you move the mic you need to re-run your UMIK-1 measurements to reflect the new mic position. Assuming you're using for music production, you may want the mic 12" away from a vocalist, 3' away from a cello, and 6" away from a speaker cone of a guitar amp - the FR of the mic is going to change based on its different position in the room and proximity to the source, and what polar pattern you're using.

2. A significant part of a mic's 'sound' is its distortion profile and noise floor, so if you EQ a transformerless mic and a tube mic to be 'flat' they may still sound different because the tube mic is introducing even-order distortion and likely has a higher noise floor than the transformerless mic. This may be desirable in some instances, depending on the sound you're going for. I might choose a transformerless mic to record a flute, and a tube mic to record a vocalist, for example.

 

[DVDdoug]

I don't own a studio mic but from what I've read, Rode has a good reputation at any price-point.

Studio mics aren't usually "flat". The UMIK-1 isn't flat either but it comes with an individually measured calibration file so you should be able to use them together to flatten the other mic.

This may not help in whatever you're trying to do but you might find this interesting - Where Does The Tone In A Microphone Come From?