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...

[charles]

Ever tried using the roll of and making minor eq adjustments during edit?

[ts]

The roll off on the mic didn't work too well. Used it once myself and was not pleased. The only thing that gets me with my Naks is the boomy bass at times. I've been using HP1 on my V3 with my CM1000's(no roll off on the mic body)to compensate for it. Good idea to hijack this one.

[Busman Audio]

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.

Your examples are not in the same price range as a set of Naks. I am currently selling a CM300 set with the CP1 and CP2 caps for $250. None of the mics you listed are in that price range.  Just pointing out that you have your facts wrong.

[shaggy]

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.

They are the most BASHED mics ever made, mate!

Please take a moment and go here:

http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=17312

download BIODTL or Candyman, please

There is a SBD of this show and YET people were so grateful I recorded this and transcribed it to archive.org.....I don't think you can say that Naks are overrated.  For this and many other shows there are NO other audience sources.  

So, what would you rather have, cheap whiskey or dick?

Let's put an end to this shit.  Can we just post examples of shows we really like here?  

http://www.taperssection.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=34375.0

Please use archive.org link so we can make it easier for the nay-sayers.

[rockumal]

So on the flip side what mics do you like?  I think I know what you mean about the Nak sound (although I don't mind it) telling us what you do like might help paint a more complete picture...

[d5]

http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=17312

Ah, the Jerry come back from death's door step shows... the weather sucked, but they were fun shows never the less

[shaggy]

So on the flip side what mics do you like? I think I know what you mean about the Nak sound (although I don't mind it) telling us what you do like might help paint a more complete picture...

Who cares what he thinks, he is trying to stir the pot.  Naks are relevant to the history of taping, they most certainly are not overrated, just talked about hugely do to the fact they are the MOST used mikes over the years.

http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=17312

Ah, the Jerry come back from death's door step shows... the weather sucked, but they were fun shows never the less

The Candyman is amazing, listen to the audience!  No SBD of that show gives you that 'warm and fuzzy' feeling, eh? 

Nay sayers: GO ON and DL IT!
 

[ts]

Hey Andy, I taped those shows too. Just dug out my dat copies from cassette. Haven't burned 'em to CD yet. I was towards the back of the OTS and was using the usual back then, CM304's>D5M. Did the New Years run too. Although my favorite New Years taping was '83, end of '86 was BIG fun, and Man this Nak talk is even more fun .
ts

[shaggy]

I agree with the statements he made about the sonic charactersitics, except the comments about the high 'splash' end bit and the mids 'edginess' bit.  The lows can be loose and undefined.  What I fucking hate to hear is that they are overrated!  What an opening to 'stir the pot'!  It is like saying the NY Yankees are overated!  They are simply the most loved and despised Baseball team in history due to their popularity.  Same applies to Naks.  They certainly have a 'flavor', all mics do...you are totally fooling youself if you believe the higher end stuff like Schoeps and Neumanns aren't 'flavored'.  Believe me, I have whored around the section looking for a patch from mics that will be most suitable for the hall or situation.  Back in the 80's, you didn't see Schoeps or Neumanns flying at every single show, BUT you could always find a pair of Naks or Senns (and they sounded worse than Naks in the section, IMHO).

Now check this shit out, leegeddy (Marc Kim) mods them to be like 'actives'.  So, are we gonna keep on hearing how much they 'suck' or how 'overrated' they are?  You can bet the FARM we are going to never hear the end of how overrated' they are now.  Why?  B/C not everybody has the dime to drop on those german mics.  The more choices we have, the more shit is gonna get taped, be it with a 'statue of liberty' RS vocal mic > WM-D3 or insert your favorite mic here > insert your favorite mic-pre here > insert your favorite D/A here or analog recording device here etc etc....

On another note, 'What made these have mass appeal?' would be the better rephrase of the question!  Rethink your statements and have better judgement before you start to piss the crowd off, stlgoat.  I think Nak did a great thing by introducing electret mics at a price that was most certainly affordable.  These mics HELPED MAKE the taping scene!  You are talking about a company with a major reputation back then, you think they would sully their name with an inferior sounding mic?  Look on ebay, they still fetch $200+ a pair!  Probably went up a tad bit now Marc is modding them.  Twenty year old plus garage sale 'colored' japanese  mics!  Only mics I know that hold value like that....well, you know...those german mics!  Need I say more?  Have you listened to the example I posted?  That show, if you need any reminding is nearly 20 years old!!!

I am venting....I do apologize.  I have had a rough week with my new job.  Off of my sopabox...(hops off).  Stlfan, this is all in jest, I hope you understand that words can be like little knives.  Be careful with the words you use, especially since you are a newB.

Hey Andy, I taped those shows too. Just dug out my dat copies from cassette. Haven't burned 'em to CD yet. I was towards the back of the OTS and was using the usual back then, CM304's>D5M. Did the New Years run too. Although my favorite New Years taping was '83, end of '86 was BIG fun, and Man this Nak talk is even more fun .
ts

Yes, it is STILL fun. I am so happy to hear that people who are on this board actually TAPED back then and have a better understanding of this Nak phenominon.   I taped at one of the very first GD shows where there was a sanctioned taping section, BCT 10/28/1984!

Tony, you should transfer the show 12/15/1986 show and get it up.  The reason I seeded it was there was no audience of 12-15-1986 circulating in the digital age.  I remedied that, and for that I am proud of my past Nak heritage.  I actually like that tape alot too...it has the most atmospheric Nak sound I have ever heard; could be the 10 feet seperation between the mics! 

ANDY

[leegeddy]

i've always liked the sound of recordings made with cm300>d5/d6/dat, and i'll always will. not much more to add than that.

marc

[jazzunit]

Hey All,

I saw this thread and felt compelled to post. Personally, I think the Nak's have a tight, narrow sound, which is good.  I've heard countless tapes done with naks that are just devistating and I think it often just boils down to location, location, location.

I do think that there were/are a couple of user errors that often plagued inexperienced Nak users. These being:.

1) The -10db attenuators weren't used, causing the mics pre amp to be over modulated and thus distorted at high SPL shows.

2) Tapers trying to use the the shotgun caps on the CM100 bodies, completely eliminating the pre amp & attenuator circuitry which would often cause distortion on peaks.  anybody else experience this?

Otherwise, I do agree that the Naks are respectable mics and definately helped forge the taping community we know today.

On a related note, I always thought that the Tascam PE-125 was a dead ringer for the Nak CM300 right down to the last resistor. Anybody agree?

Dave

[shaggy]

Tascam PE-125, Teac ME-120 and Nak CM-300 are the same exact thing but just rebranded!  More proof that these companies that have a stake in their brand name recogntion chose these Primo mics for a good reason.  Any more testments to this mic would be appreciated.

[jessedscott]

For some reason, I got rid of my CM300's and kept my 100's. I like the sound of the 100's better for some reason? They seem more bright to me. Maybe a little more "clear". Again, just the way I hear it. I think the 300's handle bass a little better, imo. Not that the 100's don't.


Also, with the use of better pre's and AD's, what's not to like....


I will get around to BTing my Phish IT. 3 Nak's 2 304's and 1 302>pmod UA5>D8, from the section. Brian Costigan, at one time, had them for download when he had phatphiles up and running. Lot of people loved the the sound. I wouldn't mind trying the 700's or the 1000's either. That is if someone would let me barrow them for a couple of shows.

[shaggy]

JDS, it is true.  The CM-100s have less of the overdrivng bass than the CM-300s.  In fact, those of you who DL'd the 12-15-1986 show will note the absence of the thundering bass...no lo cut was employed....but we were using a pair of CM-100s!  I think they were pretty cheap,  the typical selling price for a new single CM-100 was in the range of $150-200 a mic, I believe.  The CM-300s were $200-250 a piece.  Remember, we are talking 80's prices!

Tim, Marc's STS9 recording is pretty tight!  Those franken-Naks do rock!  Can't believe I sold all my Nak gear!  Gonna have to pick another pair up at some point or go and get JK active box for these CK61 caps.

Jazzunit , good point on the attenuation!  Many of the non-Dead realted up front shows suffer from this problem.  Need the -10dB cut or the max SPLs was in the 120dB range. 

+T to you all for chiming in.  Naks still have a place in our community.

[peterbilt]

I like the Nak 300's.

I prefer to run them on stage if possible, but from a small distance from the stage (without a CRUSHING volume) they also present a nice representation of what i have heard that evening. Granted, I tape in small venues, but i have only on a few occasions found the "boomy" bottom to be to much, and that was predominantly an on stage issue more than the mics.

The splashiness that was mentioned...well I must admit that it may present a more annoying tone to folks taping in bigger venues, but with my experience, they recreate the sound of a cymbal that I heard in the room, not the crystal clear piercing tone that was heard exactly where my mics were placed (does anyone know what I'm on about here?). So yes, there may be some coloration to them, but for my needs and likes, they are just right sometimes.

The mid issue...no way (for my head anyway). I have always been happy with the way the 300's recreate these tones on playback.

So IMO, the 300's are great, and I plan to keep the ones I have for quite a long time.





But I still can't wait to get those MBHO's in my house

[ts]

I agree with the statements he made about the sonic charactersitics, except the comments about the high 'splash' end bit and the mids 'edginess' bit.  The lows can be loose and undefined.  What I fucking hate to hear is that they are overrated!  What an opening to 'stir the pot'!  It is like saying the NY Yankees are overated!  They are simply the most loved and despised Baseball team in history due to their popularity.  Same applies to Naks.  They certainly have a 'flavor', all mics do...you are totally fooling youself if you believe the higher end stuff like Schoeps and Neumanns aren't 'flavored'.  Believe me, I have whored around the section looking for a patch from mics that will be most suitable for the hall or situation.  Back in the 80's, you didn't see Schoeps or Neumanns flying at every single show, BUT you could always find a pair of Naks or Senns (and they sounded worse than Naks in the section, IMHO).

Now check this shit out, leegeddy (Marc Kim) mods them to be like 'actives'.  So, are we gonna keep on hearing how much they 'suck' or how 'overrated' they are?  You can bet the FARM we are going to never hear the end of how overrated' they are now.  Why?  B/C not everybody has the dime to drop on those german mics.  The more choices we have, the more shit is gonna get taped, be it with a 'statue of liberty' RS vocal mic > WM-D3 or insert your favorite mic here > insert your favorite mic-pre here > insert your favorite D/A here or analog recording device here etc etc....

On another note, 'What made these have mass appeal?' would be the better rephrase of the question!  Rethink your statements and have better judgement before you start to piss the crowd off, stlgoat.  I think Nak did a great thing by introducing electret mics at a price that was most certainly affordable.  These mics HELPED MAKE the taping scene!  You are talking about a company with a major reputation back then, you think they would sully their name with an inferior sounding mic?  Look on ebay, they still fetch $200+ a pair!  Probably went up a tad bit now Marc is modding them.  Twenty year old plus garage sale 'colored' japanese  mics!  Only mics I know that hold value like that....well, you know...those german mics!  Need I say more?  Have you listened to the example I posted?  That show, if you need any reminding is nearly 20 years old!!!

I am venting....I do apologize.  I have had a rough week with my new job.  Off of my sopabox...(hops off).  Stlfan, this is all in jest, I hope you understand that words can be like little knives.  Be careful with the words you use, especially since you are a newB.

Hey Andy, I taped those shows too. Just dug out my dat copies from cassette. Haven't burned 'em to CD yet. I was towards the back of the OTS and was using the usual back then, CM304's>D5M. Did the New Years run too. Although my favorite New Years taping was '83, end of '86 was BIG fun, and Man this Nak talk is even more fun .
ts

Yes, it is STILL fun. I am so happy to hear that people who are on this board actually TAPED back then and have a better understanding of this Nak phenominon.   I taped at one of the very first GD shows where there was a sanctioned taping section, BCT 10/28/1984!

Tony, you should transfer the show 12/15/1986 show and get it up.  The reason I seeded it was there was no audience of 12-15-1986 circulating in the digital age.  I remedied that, and for that I am proud of my past Nak heritage.  I actually like that tape alot too...it has the most atmospheric Nak sound I have ever heard; could be the 10 feet seperation between the mics! 

ANDY

Andy, I just listened to some of my masters from that run and New Years. There not bad. Not as upfront sounding as yours, but hey, you were upfront and I wasn't. Can't wait to get my Frankens. Oh yea, how do you get a show up on archive?

[charles]

Where did stlram go anyway. Seems to have faded off as this thread has developed and support has built up. Hmmmmm?

[Mark]

I've been running Nak's (CM300's) for about 2yrs now, and really like the sound, but then again, I don't have the budget or the annual use to justify upgrading.  BTW: I might be selling my rig soon for anyone interested in a full Nak set up, I have all but the CP-3.  Also have a friend that might be selling a field mod MX100.  ( I sold it to him, so I know the history of the pre).

[Mark]

I didn't read all the posts here, and will when I sober up..........but the Nak's I own, with the rig I run, is both affordable and very listenable to my ears in my basement where my "studio" is located.  Bash the Nak's all yo like......for each his own.  Do they compete with a $$$$ rig, nope.  Do they sound good to me for what i paid, hell yeah!!  If you don't like em, don't download the torrent that is of the Nak source.  No need for negativity, sure there is better, but there is also worse, such as no tape of the show you might have attended.  Hmmmmmmmm, think about it.

[jimmc]

JDS, it is true.  The CM-100s have less of the overdrivng bass than the CM-300s.  In fact, those of you who DL'd the 12-15-1986 show will note the absence of the thundering bass...no lo cut was employed....but we were using a pair of CM-100s!

Jazzunit , good point on the attenuation!  Many of the non-Dead realted up front shows suffer from this problem.  Need the -10dB cut or the max SPLs was in the 120dB range. 

+T to you all for chiming in.  Naks still have a place in our community.

I've been running Naks for about a year and I love them.  I decided to buy mine from hearing the recordings made by Mark (the post in front of mine here). I just bought some SP C4's, but I'm not gonna sell my CM300's until I'm positive I want to always run these instead of my Naks. I love my Naks enough to hold them when I could use the money for other things.

One thing I'd love to hear more insight about is the talk of using the -10dB cut. I havent been using it w/ my rig, but I've been very pleased w/ the results so far. Someone on page 2 of this thread even posted my 10-27-04 moe. show as an example of some Nak recrodings. Basically, can someone talk more about this in easy to understand terms ?  I might be taping tonight, maybe I'll switch the -10dB on to see what it sounds like.
Is the -10dB being on ideal in all situations, or just certain locations (FOB, stage lip...).
Thanks in advance for anything on this topic.
Go team Nak !!
Jim

[leegeddy]

I've been running Naks for about a year and I love them.  I decided to buy mine from hearing the recordings made by Mark (the post in front of mine here). I just bought some SP C4's, but I'm not gonna sell my CM300's until I'm positive I want to always run these instead of my Naks. I love my Naks enough to hold them when I could use the money for other things.

One thing I'd love to hear more insight about is the talk of using the -10dB cut. I havent been using it w/ my rig, but I've been very pleased w/ the results so far. Someone on page 2 of this thread even posted my 10-27-04 moe. show as an example of some Nak recrodings. Basically, can someone talk more about this in easy to understand terms ?  I might be taping tonight, maybe I'll switch the -10dB on to see what it sounds like.
Is the -10dB being on ideal in all situations, or just certain locations (FOB, stage lip...).
Thanks in advance for anything on this topic.
Go team Nak !!
Jim

my limited experience with the cm300s is via my Franken-Naks, which require P48 so the following may not apply to the normal cm300s.  i have not engaged the 10dB pad since i was getting clean normal levels in a heavy bass show (STS9).

imho, the P48 powering really opens up the capabilities of these mics.

btw, is there a Team Nak in the Team Forum? i searched and searched.....

marc

[jimmc]

btw, is there a Team Nak in the Team Forum? i searched and searched.....

marc

I've never looked either. I was just kind of being a smart-ass. It comes easy to me. 
I'll start one right now.
Jim

[ts]

Yes Marc, the 48V mod on my CM1000's did the same.

[stlram]

thanks for the input. it appears most folks agree wirh me, outside of the midrange i discribed, so i guess my hearing is pretty much spot on. btw, idon't have any problem with folks using them or enjoying the. i just wanted to know whether others were hearing the same.

since i raised this question some folks took to being critical towards me by marginalizing my question and questioning my experience. as if experience really means anything.  'from the nouth of babes you often get the truth".

anyway, as i have indicated i have been taping since 1982 and have mastered over 2000 shows. many of you may have taped along side me or plug out of me at some time. i have plenty of nak masters and when there isn't a better source i would gladly take a nak recording and have done so.

i think it is fine to discuss the flavor or sound of equipment with out becoming defensive or personalizing it. i do not over identify with any piece i own or have owned in the past. they are what they are and nothing more or less. i woul certainly enjoy discribing othe equipment so to assist others in their purchasing choices.

that being said: the mic i'm presently using are schoeps ccm4's and akg 460's.  i use a v3 and a d8. i have a maranius 442 for mixing and multi micing.

 i bought a d 6 back in 1983, d5 in 1985, an sv250 in 1989, asv255 in 1990, a sony d10pii in 1995 and recently a d8 as a stop gap towards higher rez. i've owned at815's, akg 460's, 480's, and schoeps but have extensive use of 184's 414. 441, 421`, 300. ect.

i don't live in st l but rather in ny and my name is ray. i've done a lot of trading with matt h, who i met in texas at a bobby show. we often trade dead shows after tours, for which i'm grateful for. i enjoy getting multiple copies of shows so that i can compare equipment

what i enjoy in a recording is an accurate soundstage, timbres, dynamics 'macro and micro'.   

at 200 a pair they are fairly affordable, however i would suggest that folks save a bit more money and buy a used pair of akg 460 for around 400-600, jmo.

[leegeddy]

well written post, ray. i agree...personal preference is the key.

at 200 a pair they are fairly affordable, however i would suggest that folks save a bit more money and buy a used pair of akg 460 for around 400-600, jmo.

why stop at akg460? why not save up an extra $300 for a pair of 480s for around $900? hell, for another $500 skm140s are in the picture. the argument is endless.

my point is that for around $200-250, these Nak mics play a role in the taping world. again, personal preference in sound is emphasized.

marc

[shaggy]

Ray,

You said:

since i raised this question some folks took to being critical towards me by marginalizing my question and questioning my experience. as if experience really means anything.  'from the nouth of babes you often get the truth".

Dude, you totally were trying to stir the pot earlier; recall your 'cheap whiskey' comment.  If you have been around the block for so long, you should have enough sense to make comments like that on this board. I know these boards are a tempting place to take it out on the crowd, but if you wanna rough it up with others go to a polictical board.  We all share a passion for taping, so let's help each other out and stop with the inane white trashy 'Ford vs. Dodge trucks' talk.  I have held back from giving you a -T but you get one now for marginalzing our comments with the above quoted comment.  

And you said you can't listen to these Nak sources anymore; then why the heck are you trading with Matt Hiles?  That guy is Mr Nak!  

ANDY

[zhianosatch]

dwonk, for goodness' sake, take it easy. it sounds like you're getting pretty butt-hurt and we both know there's no reason to.

[stlram]

Like I said, there is no reason to take it personal. I never said that nak mics didn't have a place in the taping world. Cheap wiskey has a place in the drinking world and after a tough hockey game I drink cheap beer, so what.

My question was, are folks hearing the same colorations with naks that I hear. Man, you could say the same about the 460's which does some good things but misses on refinement and 3 dementionality when compared with other mics and I certainly wouldn't take any offense. You could present why Schoeps sound has a bit of a veil and call them over priced yuppy shit and I could care less.

In the end and IMO, the issue wasn't my question or comments but the over personalization/identifaction that folks have towards equipment, much like sports fans have towards the team they follow. Using metaphors is a good way to get to the point. It is easy ploy to dismiss the message by attacking the messenger. Also, if you are offended by my comments then you really need to lighten up and enjoy life a bit more. I would suggest take up another hobby. (Don't be offended by this statement it is a joke! We need all the tapers we can get!)

Anyway, if I hurt your feelings forgive me but don't try to stop a discussion by attacking the messenger and not the message. It is intellectually dishonest. If you feel that naks are a great value and sound reasonably good, then that's all you have to state. But to marginalize my question by questioning my experience or motives does not address the presenting arguement.

In the end I offer you a fond farewell with this topic!

Sincerely, Ray

[hexyjones]

back to the original issue a bit...

One thing I've noticed is the NAK300s seem to be less successful in many of the traditional configurations...XY, ORTF...(NOS is ok)...

But sometimes it seems like it's best just to put about 12 inches between the mics and just point them at the stage...

[Brian]

after reading all of this i have one question for stlram:

in your "[23 years of taping]"  when did you learn that microphones can compress the signal

were you trying to say that it has a poor transient response? better yet,  how does a microphone compress the signal being fed to it?  I'd ***REALLY*** like to know. thanks!

[shaggy]

Zhiano,

Yep, I bit on that one pretty bad....now I feel like and ass.  But only b/c I lost my head a bit there.  I wished people were more sensitive about what they say.  I defended the Nak crowd (even though I am not officially a Nak owner anymore) and tried to make Stlram see that he was trying to 'stir the pot'.  He even made the 'Insert your favorite sports team' degradation analogy.  I think I mentioned in earlier in my Yankees comparison.....you yell 'they suck', and you've just stirred the pot.  I don't think he read any of my comments except for the last one I made.  Not like he said that but how could someone say they have tired of the Nak sound and then turn around and says he trades with Matt Hiles who is a HUGE Nak fan and runs those mod 700s on Dead tour currently?  I am trying to catch the little discrepancies in his statements, which to me are pretty flip-floppy. 

ANDY

[stlram]

Every recording instrument compresses the sound to some degree and some more than others. Technology is not at a point where it can 100% recreate the dynamics of the original source. Also, there are other types of compressions which occur that consist of macro and micro dynamics within the performance its self. Sometimes equipment can create aberations with both or any of these types of dynamics. This is a fact and not someting I made up. When you become aware of these variables they become more apparent with in the recording.

As for my feelings on the Nak sound it remains the same. I've done some thinking about people's feedback and it seems to me that folks generally agree that Nak has a house sound that some do not find annoying. Other's admit that they have definate aberations but enjoy the sound and yet other's like my self find them somewhat annoying.

In summary, it seems that folks are drawn to nak's because of their history and perceived value to sound factor and not because they find them to be true to the source. Yes I know, no mic is true to the source but in the case of nak they deviate in a differant way which draws attention. Again, some are sensitive to this and others aren't.

As for Matt H. and our past and future trades, as I said I am always appreciative of a copy of any show and having multiple sources of a show is of great value for all the obvious reasons. I don't think Matt is offended that I may think Naks are over hyped and that they IMO sound less accurate than other mics. 

As I stated, in what I thought was a somewhat funny but accurate analogy, Nak 300 maybe the equal to cheap wiskey, it'll get you drunk for less money but then again maybe others think that Schoeps, BK and Neumanns are over priced yuppy crap. Sorry if this offended you but that is why I presented the similar tendency for folks to over identify with equipment much like a sports nut and the need to seperate our emotional affections from our objectivity.

BTW another mic on the used market that I think is better than the CM 300 and can often be purchased used for around the same price is AKG's 300 series.

[LeftoverSammy]

Every recording instrument compresses the sound to some degree and some more than others. Technology is not at a point where it can 100% recreate the dynamics of the original source. Also, there are other types of compressions which occur that consist of macro and micro dynamics within the performance its self. Sometimes equipment can create aberations with both or any of these types of dynamics. This is a fact and not someting I made up. When you become aware of these variables they become more apparent with in the recording.

As for my feelings on the Nak sound it remains the same. I've done some thinking about people's feedback and it seems to me that folks generally agree that Nak has a house sound that some do not find annoying. Other's admit that they have definate aberations but enjoy the sound and yet other's like my self find them somewhat annoying.

In summary, it seems that folks are drawn to nak's because of their history and perceived value to sound factor and not because they find them to be true to the source. Yes I know, no mic is true to the source but in the case of nak they deviate in a differant way which draws attention. Again, some are sensitive to this and others aren't.

As for Matt H. and our past and future trades, as I said I am always appreciative of a copy of any show and having multiple sources of a show is of great value for all the obvious reasons. I don't think Matt is offended that I may think Naks are over hyped and that they IMO sound less accurate than other mics. 

As I stated, in what I thought was a somewhat funny but accurate analogy, Nak 300 maybe the equal to cheap wiskey, it'll get you drunk for less money but then again maybe others think that Schoeps, BK and Neumanns are over priced yuppy crap. Sorry if this offended you but that is why I presented the similar tendency for folks to over identify with equipment much like a sports nut and the need to seperate our emotional affections from our objectivity.

BTW another mic on the used market that I think is better than the CM 300 and can often be purchased used for around the same price is AKG's 300 series.

Jeeze, I feel out of the game hear on the perceived Nak bashing discussion. I'm still working on our major house move & having our hardwood floors refinished so I have been internet "homeless" due to my home based PC and DAW are packed and we have been workin our asses off to get the damn place remodeled before we get all settled.

I really don't have the energy or the desire to "constructively" comment on stlram's interpretation of the sonic characteristics of the Nak series mics, but I do feel (personal opinion here) that he does indeed suffer from some hearing damage (hee hee) While I do tend to agree somewhat with his comments, I find that if these mics (especially the 700's) are used close to the sound source (not from the section but FOB or on-stage) these mics can make some damn fine sounding tapes when used with a modern pre/AD combo (although there is definitely some coloration to the sound that is not always desirable to some "golden ears").

Ever hear any SKB on-stage recordings made by Dr. Bob??? He used (which are my mod 700's now) CM701>D5(as pre)>D7/D8 recordings at HSMF and other various venues that are really very, very nice sounding recordings. My biggest gripe with the Nak series mics is the self noise factor. They tend, especially compared to today’s newer designs, to be very noisy at low SPL levels. For louder bands its not much of a concern, but at acoustic recordings I found the self noise factor to be annoying enough to warrant upgrading to a much higher end mic (not to mention they don't have enough high end emphasis for MY liking and I found at times the low end to be over bloated and loose (muddy), especially the 300’s). I ran the 300’s and 700’s into a straight D8, AD-20, MX-100,  wMod UA-5, MX-100>mod UA-5 combo and a V3. I found the best results where with my V3 when I used the lowcut (HPF-2) for small club venues but once again found the high end to be not enough for my liking. Matt H. is prob one of tapers out there who continues to consistently still use his mod 700’s for all his taping needs (I only use mine now for select shows & a allow a taping buddy to borrow since I run my MG’s pretty much 98% of the time). I have many of Matt’s recording & he records plenty of shows. I found his CM701 > Mme  combo to be one of the best sounding Nak700’s combos out there and actually better sounding than the 700>V3 combo that I & Tony (ts) have used. My guess is the coloration that the Mme has counteracts or neutralizes any negative sound characteristics the 700’s may have. The V3 however is so transparent that it really emphasizes any negative or positive sound characteristics that the mics may have thus producing what some find undesirable (thus explained in many different, technical, descriptive manners).

This is just my .02 from my experience with all the Nak CM series (for exception of the CM1000’s which I have not had the opportunity to play with). Back in the day these mics were very decent mics for the money, stealth looking (black finish), batt operated and very durable. Yes the AKG’s and the upper end mics are all much better – BUT, the Naks did have there place in the taping area and in certain situations can really produced nice sounding tapes for the initial investment.  I loved to go on and on but alas I see no value rambling.

Nak-on

LoS

[stlram]

Sammy,

Excellent feedback. Now that's the kind of objective and humors feedback I was looking for!!!!!!!! Now where would you suggest I get my hearing tested!

Ray

[zhianosatch]

Zhiano,

Yep, I bit on that one pretty bad....now I feel like and ass. But only b/c I lost my head a bit there. I wished people were more sensitive about what they say. I defended the Nak crowd (even though I am not officially a Nak owner anymore) and tried to make Stlram see that he was trying to 'stir the pot'. He even made the 'Insert your favorite sports team' degradation analogy. I think I mentioned in earlier in my Yankees comparison.....you yell 'they suck', and you've just stirred the pot. I don't think he read any of my comments except for the last one I made. Not like he said that but how could someone say they have tired of the Nak sound and then turn around and says he trades with Matt Hiles who is a HUGE Nak fan and runs those mod 700s on Dead tour currently? I am trying to catch the little discrepancies in his statements, which to me are pretty flip-floppy.

ANDY

eh, it happens!

[LeftoverSammy]

Sammy,

Excellent feedback. Now that's the kind of objective and humors feedback I was looking for!!!!!!!! Now where would you suggest I get my hearing tested!

Ray

Ray,
There is always Wal-Mart!  But honestly any taper (or concert goer that is pushing 40 such as myself) should have their hearing tested. I too have seen hundreds and hundreds of concerts; not to mention I work for a very large aerospace company as a factory support engineer in a high noise work environment (i.e. - big bore rivet guns, power feed drilling equipment, etc). All this high level or even constant low level SPL's over time WILL degrade you hearing. Most commonly the high end frequencies. Ever have ringing in your ears for no reason??? Tall tail signs of hearing loss (can also point to other medical conditions, but common among those with hearing loss).

Its no joke.....I've been trying to get myself to purchase a pair of those fancy/smanchy attenuator earplugs the musicians wear. You can preserve what hearing you have left, but you need to get in and have it tested to benchmark where you are now, then test again 6months later to evaluate the level of degradation is occurring. I was kind of ribbin ya at the time, however if you do have some level of frequency loss, it CAN effect your ability to evaluate your recordings (in terms of sound capture) to a certain degree compaired to someone with perfect hearing. HOWEVER, experience and knowlege doesn't degrade over time as you get older but rather increase as you get older (although some would argue that fact).

Bottom line - clean the wax out dem ears o taping brother!! hee hee   

Peace,
LoS

[stlram]

Actually, I test my hearing several time per year with a test disk I have at home. My hearing drops off significantly after 16k, but that is fairly typical for someone my age. I have also been wearing ear plugs at concerts and when I do sound for sometime to save my hearing.

[ts]

I wish I could get more technical with my input in this thread. I don't think the CM1000's have any of those characteristics that losammy refers to with the 300's and 700's . The only problem I had with the 1000's was a boomy bass. The 1000's came with a separate power supply that has roll off. Sank warned me of this when I had them modded to 48V, but I told him the V3 has 2 position roll off. Failed to use it first time out and the wrong position second time out, so I did get some boom. Everything is fine now. Nice crisp highs, fat lows and nice mid. Maybe Matth will jump in. He can go into much more detail about the 1000's than I can.
Haven't used my 700's enough yet. Matth has modded 700's and his thoughts for my full 700's were to use the 0db barrel when running into the unbalanced 1/4 in. inputs of the MX100 and use the -15db barrel when running balanced straight into V3. Doing that he felt the Nak self noise was minimized. Modding the 700's to 48V should help with the noise factor(), but it will mean I'll need power supplys if I ever decide to run a 3mic mix with the MX. For now I'm leaving my 700's unmodded.

[stlram]

TS,

From what I remember Matt telling me he likes the 700's more than the 1000's but that was a few years back and some things may have changed. I do know he has been running a 3 mic mix. I'll have to look at the most recent DEAD run he sent me to see what he has been doing.

The boomy one note bass is something I've always found with naks, both the 100's, 300's and the 700's. I guess using the roll offs on the V3 could adjust for too much boominess but that is basically using equalization to compensate for linarity problems with the mic. But then again you've got to do what you have got to do and if it works, well then do it.

Ray

[jk labs]

Matth has modded 700's and his thoughts for my full 700's were to use the 0db barrel when running into the unbalanced 1/4 in. inputs of the MX100 and use the -15db barrel when running balanced straight into V3. Doing that he felt the Nak self noise was minimized. Modding the 700's to 48V should help with the noise factor(), but it will mean I'll need power supplys if I ever decide to run a 3mic mix with the MX. For now I'm leaving my 700's unmodded.

Interesting discussion. I'm just watching, for the most part :-)

But this noise issue I'd like to comment on. (Well I was going to ask for definitions of "macro and micro dynamics" but I've decided to be nice - it's weekend pretty soon and all). 

Where was I? Yes. The two major contributors to the selfnoise is the condenser element itself and the electronics buffering/amplifying the signal. When you put the -15 dB pad into the circuit, you lower the noise (and signal) from the condensor element but leave the noise contributed by the electronics alone. That way one could form an opinion on what part of the total noise is contributed by the capsule and what is contributed by the electronics.

Just modding for 48 Volts operation will not lower the self noise generated within the mic. However, if the mod also involves doing surgery beyond what's needed then the possibilty does exist that such a mod lowers the selfnoise.

A third thing that's natural to mention here is that the output impedance of the unmodded battery powered Naks  are quite high. A high source resistance means a POOR match when connected to low-noise inputs typical of high-end mic preamps (expecting 200 ohm or lower mics). The upshot is noise.  A properly designed "48 Volts mod" will however be able to effectively eliminate this contribution to the overall noise. 

Jon