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
Topic: The sound of Nak mics (Read 14129 times)