Topic: The sound of Nak mics

[stlram]

I don't mean to be flaming but rather wonder if I am the only person who finds Nak mics, CM 100/300 and 700 the most over hyped mics ever made. Back in the early 80's, 83-84, when I first started taping I pluged into several tapers that used these mics. I did so upon the recommendation of other tapers who loved them. Well, it didn't take long for me to determine that I didn't like them, finding them too far removed from the original source. Anytime I recorded with them they seemed to give a way differant sonic impression than what I remembered at the show.

I went to Senn. 421's or 441's, AT's and then AKG 460's, 480's, Schoeps CCM4, etc. blah, blah, blah..............for a more enjoyable and accurate sound. Listening to recordings made with Nak mics always gave me a head ache within 7-10 minutes, forcing me to turn it off and find something else that sounded more relaxed.

Anyway, IMO, here is what I think Nak does wrong:

1) They mess up the timbre of instruments
2) They tend to compress, thus compromising dynamics
3) They have a mid bass boost that adds punch but loses defination "one note sounding"
4) They exagerate the high end adding splashiness
5) The midrange has an uneasy edginess to them

Again, IMO this is the house sound that I have found throughout the entire Nak series.

After 23 years of recording I haven't found one mic that annoys me more than Nak. Am I the only one that thinks so? Are my ears that screwed up? Why are folks so in love with these mics? Is it that they compensate for the sonic deviations of their playback systems?

I have noticed that on a boom box the coloration of the Nak mics are not noticable and can sound pleasing but on anything accurate they sound like finger nails on a chalk board.

Do I need to get my hearing checked or are there some serious problems with these mics?

[ts]

You forgot to mention CM1000's

[stlram]

That is the only one I don't have much experience with. But anyway, what are your thoughts?

[ts]

Chances are you were probably patched into Naks with CP4 caps, and I here what your'e saying. 99% of the time I used the shotgun caps and although they do sound OK on headphones, or a "boombox" or even a car stereo at low volumes, they can get annoying at loud volumes. I only wish I could go back to all those old GD shows I taped, and with the vast amount of knowledge we have today with ts.com, I prolly would have been running card caps or even omnis. But not having all this info back then, we did what everyone else was doing.

700's and 1000's are different beasts than the more popular, or more widely used 100's and 300's. Sorry, I can't comment on technical aspects of anything. Maybe someone else will chime in. But I know what my ears like

[stlram]

To me it didn't matter if you ran the CP1 caps or the CP4's. I have plaenty of old masters to use as references and although the CP4 gave a hollow sound the CP1 (cards) created the sound I discribed. As for the 700's, I have several tapes mastered with them and they too have the same Nak sound.

Nak reminds me of cheap wiskey, it'll get you drunk but what a hang over you'll have!!!

[Busman Audio]

what do you run? 
Some people can't afford to buy the highest end mics but still want to run a rig of their own. Just like any other microphone on the market certain mics sound better in certain circumstances.

[stlram]

I understand what your saying about wanting to run a rig of your own but that is not what I'm talking about or trying to hint at.

What I'm saying is that on its own merit Nak mics, IMO, are extremely colored, however others seem to like their sound. (I'm not talking about colored in a pleasing way either) They seem to do more wrong than they do right.

After taping for 23 years I have been fortunate to buy what I want in recording gear. I don't think it necessary for me to list what I run since it is not related to what I'm talking about. But trust me I can afford almost any mic I choose.

If I was starting out today there are plenty of mics I would choose over the Naks in the same price range that don't do as much wrong as the Naks do.

An example would be any model AKG mic, many AT's and the cheap mini DPA's.

I remember taping Arlo Guthrie in 1983 with a d-6 and dynamic AT's that sounded better overall than Naks, and those were some rough sounding mics.

[charles]

Was the last time you patched into a Nak taper in the 80's? If you so, you might want to try it again. Technology has changed a lot since then. Yes...I know the mics are the same.....but the rest of the rig has changed pretty dramatically. Have a listen to this show:

http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=10499

There are many more like it.

All in all, though...everyone has different ears. I can accept that some people don't like Naks. I do!

[d5]

around '84 when the Dead taper's section was established, a lot of people started using the shotguns in order to deal with the distance. personally, i don't like the sound of the tapes made with nak shotgun's, but i have a couple tapes (oxford plains) made with cardiods made up close to the source that don't sound too bad.

[charles]

Hey man...if you don't like Naks...buy your own mics. Hey...as you said "you can afford any mic you choose"....so...get your own rig.....and remember, "to each his own."

What's this thread called anyway.....Nak bashing? What are we acomplishing here?

[stlram]

Charles, I have had my own rig since 1984 and no I'm not trying to bash Nak mics. I'm trying to find out whether others agree with my long held assesment on the house sound of nak mics. Think of it as more of a critique. I'm sorry if I offended you by presenting this topic. I take it that you do not agree with my assesment?

[Patrick]

I don't mean to be flaming but rather wonder if I am the only person who finds Nak mics, CM 100/300 and 700 the most over hyped mics ever made. Back in the early 80's, 83-84, when I first started taping I pluged into several tapers that used these mics. I did so upon the recommendation of other tapers who loved them. Well, it didn't take long for me to determine that I didn't like them, finding them too far removed from the original source. Anytime I recorded with them they seemed to give a way differant sonic impression than what I remembered at the show.

I went to Senn. 421's or 441's, AT's and then AKG 460's, 480's, Schoeps CCM4, etc. blah, blah, blah..............for a more enjoyable and accurate sound. Listening to recordings made with Nak mics always gave me a head ache within 7-10 minutes, forcing me to turn it off and find something else that sounded more relaxed.

Anyway, IMO, here is what I think Nak does wrong:

1) They mess up the timbre of instruments
2) They tend to compress, thus compromising dynamics
3) They have a mid bass boost that adds punch but loses defination "one note sounding"
4) They exagerate the high end adding splashiness
5) The midrange has an uneasy edginess to them

Again, IMO this is the house sound that I have found throughout the entire Nak series.

After 23 years of recording I haven't found one mic that annoys me more than Nak. Am I the only one that thinks so? Are my ears that screwed up? Why are folks so in love with these mics? Is it that they compensate for the sonic deviations of their playback systems?

I have noticed that on a boom box the coloration of the Nak mics are not noticable and can sound pleasing but on anything accurate they sound like finger nails on a chalk board.

Do I need to get my hearing checked or are there some serious problems with these mics?

I respect stlram's comments, but as a dedicated Nak user, I am going to have to put my two cents into the argument.

1) They mess up the timbre of instruments

I think that alot of different factors will mess up the timbre of a sound.  The room, that crazy wind in the ampitheater, your mics being a centemeter off center.  Timbre is just such a variable, and I think that a better mic will produce a more true timbre, but I also think that Nak's do just fine with it!

2) They tend to compress, thus compromising dynamics

This one I really can't agree with.  I think that when used properly in the right setting, Nak's will not compress.  For example, if you use the cp4 shotgun caps in a bar taping a band without a pa, you may get some odd effects, because the Shotguns are unneccessary in that setting.  This also depends almost soley on the other equipment it is plugged into.

3) They have a mid bass boost that adds punch but loses defination "one note sounding"

That may be my only valid complaint about my Nak's.  Ideally, every tape I make would have that slightly comressed, punchy, tight bass sound that you might hear on a digital soundboard recording.  Nak's can make the bass a bit muddy, and like you said, "one note sounding."  A good example would be the Dead at Bonnaroo 2004.  Every tape I hear has Phil tottally IN YOUR FACE.  But it definitely came out worse through the Nak source I have.

4) They exagerate the high end adding splashiness

I've never had a problem with this.  Actually, it's quite the opposite.  I usually have to compensate for the slight (and I emphasize slight) high cut by moving my rig closer to the speakers/sound source.

5) The midrange has an uneasy edginess to them

Now this makes me mad, just kidding!!!   To me, Nak's have the warmest midrange of their microphone type.  It's no wonder that countless pairs (and even trios) of Naks have been ran through reel to reel tape machines.  The mics have this warm, fuzzy blanket around their sound, and I just can't get over that vintage-y analog type sound coming through on your speakers during transfer.  Once again, if used in the wrong situation, or with a bad sound source, your mids will come out harsh.

But then again, if you are taping a bad sound source, your tape is going to sound bad, no matter what mics you use.

So thanks, stlram, I enjoyed analyzing my favorite (and only) mics in the world!

Please, let's hear some more thoughts!

[Tim]

I've been listening to a lot of old GD Nak tapes lately... they certainly have their own flavor. They have a pretty recognizable color to them. In that respect I'll agree with you....

[charles]

stlram......no, you didn't offend me. Thought the cheap whiskey comment was a bit much....but no, not offended. And I hear your opinion too....Naks do have a different sound....and like I said, we all have different ears and different opinions on how different mics sound. If you're trying to find out if others agree with you....they do. A lot of people here don't like Nak's. Some people do. It all goes back to the different ears thing. If we all liked the same thing and had the same opinions...life would be pretty dull.

[jhirte]

I agree on the bass. can be a bit boomy/tubby/one note-y. I only used the roll off once when I ran my Nak301's, and it rolled off WAYyyy to much.
Was running Nak301 -> D8 at that time.

I am interested in getting another pair though, and getting them modded for stealth use...