Rode K-2

2-Avalon 737sp, apogee rosetta 200,digi 003, mogami cable,mackie hr624mkii,

this mic definately have a low noise, and sounds purely good. However, i believe half the bad comments come from unexperience user, who stuffed up something wrong in there recording chain, maybe using a cheap old cable, this add noise and affect the recording quality,especially the high end frequency. The mic preamp, and how you sett it up, some dumboo will probably be hitting te red pot and wonder why the hack the mic is distorting.Or some may have left the compression on to hard and squashed the sound. To me this mic is definately a top sounding modern tube mic, and i mean modern here, so its clean and crisp but not vintage sounding. There is a reason why 50 more so audio company voted this mic as the TEC winner for best studio mic.Professional people will apply a very standard and effective way to test mic, and also in a studio where sound environment is controlled, and they know what setting they adopt the same setting for every mic they use to get a true comparison. I have bought this mic to studio with SSL desk, to protools hd based studio, and use it even at my home studio, is a top mic for vocal, and anything needed abit of tube warmth like cello, double bass, however, my only concern is that it may not work so well on acoustic guitar,it will work ok if you use it as a body mic, it will capture enogh low end, but at the 12th fret, is not what most ppl will grave for.Have fun guys, i am keeping my k2, for guys who write bad review, learn some basic audio tech skills before you write the next one.

20 odd years recording in a private studio and a number of years doing sound reinforcement professionally. I record to hard disk using mainly MOTU hardware. I have Millenia, RNP and Great River preamps and some custom built units (plus the pres in my Soundcraft desk). I monitor through Tannoys and some old Yamaha NS10s.

The specifications of this mic have been covered here, so I wont go over them again. I have to say, reading through these reviews, I have to think that Rode must have a major problem with quality control. The new K2 I picked up 8 months ago is totally sub-par, regardless of the preamp I try it with. It has high self noise and just sounds veiled. I actually sent it for repair under warranty, only to be told there was nothing wrong with it. But to my ears, it's the equivalent of throwing a blanket over my AT4050 and adding several dB of noise.

I keep a selection of NOS tubes in the studio. Replacing the stock Chinese tube with an early 1980's JAN Philips 6922 did actually improve the mic a little, but not enough for me to keep it.

To people who have bought this mic as their first condenser, or first condenser worth more than a couple of hundred bucks, I can understand how they'd give the mic a high score. But I have a pretty extensive collection of mics in my studio, and when I compare the K2 to other mics, both FET and tube, it's way down the list IMHO.

I don't want all of my mics to sound bright and I like that my Rode NT5's are a little darker than most. Someone in a previous review mentioned that the mic "lacked articulation". That hits the nail on the head for me, describing what's wrong with the K2.

I've been making music for plenty long, have been exposed to plenty of Neve, Studer, Neumann, and analog as well as cheapo consumer stuff to know what sounds good and what doesn't.

That said, my home setup is an SPL Gold Mike preamp into ProTools LE (with Digidesign hardware upgrades by blacklionaudio.com, who I HIGHLY recommend).

The K2 is a mic that seems to get varied responses here. I am totally happy with this mic, and after reading criticism of it I must ask: if you don't like it, how are you using it? Are you plugging straight into a computer recording system without a good preamp? Are you pushing the gain, giving ample heat for the tube to impart it's character? What other mics are you comparing it too--cheaper, glossy Chinese 'studio' mics?

For me, the K2 is the perfect mic in it's price range for a computer-based home studio. It definitely sounds more expensive than it is. The people at Rode have done their homework and cut corners only where necessary (the shockmount is cheaply made) while spending a bit more where it leaves a better impression (the mic itself is fairly heavy, made of solid brass I believe). As a result they have produced a mic that is well worth the retail price, and even more worth the used price you might get it for on ebay.

ps--as much as I love what you get from the factory, change the tube inside it! Spend another $35 for an improved tube, and it'll sound even more present. I ended up getting a Jan Sylvania replacement and could tell a difference on my vocal.

I've been playing music for about 20 yrs. now, recording off and on for about 10, but only became serious about recording 2 years ago. I've since started my own project studio, recording to Cubase SL, and now Cubase 4. I use Focusrite 428 and an Aphex 207 preamps (the Aphex is an AWESOME very inexpensive tube pre for vocals). My Studio monitors are KRK Rokit 8's. Other current mics: AT4040, SHure SM7B, Shure SM57, EV 767, Drum micing kit, Rode NT5 (matched pair), MXL 2001 (Never use it, though).

Previous reviews give the Mics tech info. So far I've tested the mic on Vocals (mid-high Female & all ranges of Male vocals), Room for Guitar cab, Room for Drums, and acoustic guitar. My Verdict to date? First, I like the coloration of this mic (is this the reason some don't like it? Maybe...) This mic truly shined for me on the female vocals, for this alone it's worth it. On the upper end of male vocals it's also very good, although not absolutly spectacular. On baritone and bass male vocals, it was a bit too brittle and thinner as compared to the SM7B, but was usable. This mic blew away the AT4040 in all aspects. For electric guitar, I wasn't so impressed... will stick with the SM57 until I can afford a Royer 121, or at least a Sennheiser MD421 or MD441. For acoustic guitar, I liked it... not for all applications but it definitely has its place, and where the K2 falls short I've found the Rode NT5s are fantastic. For room micing drums, it was little better than OK. I would still like to try it out with a second K2 for drum overheads for some Jazz tracks... I think it migh treally work out well there as well, but I'll know that much better at a later date. As a vocal mic, I'd give this a, 8.5-9. For an all around mic, I give it an 8. I'm very pleased with my K2, and for those that have had problems with it, it may be the voice it's been paired with (its not the best for aggresive male vocals), a poor or low quality preamp, or of course maybe they don't like the coloration. If you don't like the coloration, check out the Audio Technica AT4050, or the Shure KSM44, KSM32; and they'll also perhaps have more uses in the studio as all around mics. This is however the best mic I've heard on the female voice for under $1000. Also, you can change out eh tube to experimetn with its sound as well... this review, however, is for a stock K2.

I've been performing and recording for about 20 years. I've been heavily involved in both sound reinforcement and recording.

It seems that opinions are very divided on this microphone. I'm another who was disappointed with the K2. I really found it lacked articulation. The top end of this mic seemed very smeared to me.

After about 12 months, I had auditioned the mic for many recording projects but passed it over for alternatives. At this point I decided to sell the mic.

I have other Rode mics that I like very much. My approach to recording an instrument or voice is to capture the essence of the source. I want to capture the texture of the sound. This is something I could never achieve with the K2. The mic was masking the very subtleties I wanted to accentuate.

33 years as a guitarist-professional for last 6 years; part-time 10 years. I've recorded one album with a professional studio and worked with live sound and audio engineering for about 10 years. Recording in my home studio with Pro Tools and monitoring with Ultrasone PROline 750 headphones. I am a worship leader and have been recently interpreting classical hymns on guitar, and needed a mic to catch the subtlties of these performances.

The K-2 is a tube condenser large diaphram with vaiable polar patterns. I use it to mic high end acoustic guitars: Goodall, Charis, Loriente classical. After reading some of the negative reviews, here's my thoughts on why some folks didn't like this microphone. First, because it is a tube mic, the tube needs 2-3 days of "burn-in". I don't know if RODE does this with their stock tubes. This is especially true if you switch out to an NOS tube. (I highly recommend the Amperex Holland made 6922) Second, with tube audio equipment the rule of thumb is "the louder it gets, the better it sounds." With your mic preamp turn up the channel gain while turning down the master gain, and you will notice the dynamics getting fatter. If you don't do this, the mic actually does sound rather thin.(Which was on the criticisms from a previous review...) Third, don't use the cheesie preamps on home recording boxes! if you don't have a lot of cash, I've had great results with the Presonus Eureka and the Rane AP-13 preamps. Go DI into the back of your MBox and bipass the cheddar cheese preamp.

Now, the other stuff. I chose this mic over the Shure KSM44, the Audio Technica AT 4050, and the Neuman KM184. The Shure has great clarity, but I like it best for vocals. The Neuman has greater focus and isolates better because of its cardioid pattern & smaller diaphram. The AT sounded cold but accurate. I liked the warmth AND clarity of the RODE. The variable polar patterns makes it versatile: I can go from cardioid to omni--if i want to get some room dynamics. My one dislike is that the cardioid pattern is not that focused, and you still get a bit of room noise. I felt that the KSM44 did a little better--even for a large diaphram. The K2 really excells for applications that call for sensitivity and accuracy. After talking with my audio engineer friends, this mic is at the top of the heap before you start getting into boutique mics.

I've been recording for about 16 years. Already own other Rode mics plus a variety of others including Audio Technicas, Shures, CAD's, etc.

The K2 is a dual diaphragm, multi-pattern tube condenser mic. One feature that drew me to the K2 was it's continuously variable polar pattern, allowing the user to select, say, a loose cardioid pattern, with a little bit of omni pickup. I really like this concept.

After reading some glowing reviews, I had high hopes for the K2. But, unfortunately, I just don't like the sound of the mic. What others call a smooth top end sounds very fuzzy to me in a way that is unpleasant. I have hung on to the K2 for almost 2 years now, hoping that one day it would shine on some application. It just hasn't and I'm now resigned to the fact that it never will. Apart from the fuzz factor, I also find that this mic makes vocalists sound much more nasal than any other mic I own. I have not had a vocalist through the studio that liked this mic.

I had wondered if maybe my mic was a dud, until I met a fellow project studio owner who had the exact same opinion of his K2.

Obviously there are people who seem to really like this microphone. I don't know if we just have very different tastes, or if Rode has a major problem with consistency.

Certain mics have the "wow factor" for me. Some mics really find their own niche. The K2 just takes up a lot of space in my mic cabinet.

Been recording for over 20 years now in different setups, home, projekt and professional studios.
Today I own a project studio based around a Cubase 3 SX setup with an Emu 1829m interface and preamps, a focusrite preamp and som TC-electronics equipment for reverbs and effects.

It is a tube-driven large-diaphragm condenser with variable pattern, continuous from figure 8 to omni.
I picked this up as a alternativ mic to my Neuman TLM-103. The female singer in our band has a very bright voice that sometimes comes out a bit hard in the neuman, missing a bit of warmth.

Had it for two months now and it's been doing exactly what I wanted. It flatters the voice, adding a lot of warmth, and it has smooth highs that works very well with a bright source.
It's a lot easier to place the voice a bit closer in the mix.
I have used it on a few other sources as well with different results. On strummed acoustic guitars it's breathtaking. On pianos and grands it's not that good, with a bit of muddy results. I rather go for other mics there.

It's not a perfect allround microphone. As such the TLM-103 is a better choice, but if you got bright sources that needs some extra warmth and punch it's well worth trying. I'm more that pleaded anyway.

Rode is clever indeed my fellow reviewer! Let's do the math and work the vectors. Unless you're trying to create the next Am. Idol,
or trying to refine the cheezy vocals or redundant drum fills for radio or TV audiances, this mike might not fit your needs; although,
input equals output overall. Instrumentals only...signal input>2 Danish stereo combinators w/ 8+- effect units, incl. midi, stereo vol./panner pedal>Marshall TSL60>Lexicon Signature 284>2 Marshall
1960AX cabs (Pro Tools/ Sonar 5 Pro / Superscope(Marantz) "field recorder"), other software, Roland and/or Yamaha synth, E-MU sampler,
Tablas, 6 string bass, 4 other g's, keyboard, spices, dinner, controllers, 5 to 7 surround, couple of hardware mixers, tone generators, Gibson Echoplex, and all the other "stuff hanging around".
Thanks Rode...your ad isn't deceptive at all. It's the real deal!

Rode K2 multi pattern used in my main living space w/ cath. ceilings,
placed somewhat in the middle of the room so far,w/ optional Audix OM2 mike or two for additional miking of one of the Marshall 4X12 speakers, or other speaker outputs for various other instruments, as the musical compositions are very complex. The distillation, geometry, calculus and such, is that the K2 is the vital center-piece
in the recording process that eliminates a lot of headaches concerning a lot of thought processes, considering the mikes "leftover" headroom potentials within the equations. "Brand X"
recordings can become incredibly gratifying; although, with all this eq., I get the most out of keeping it simple. "Meet ya in the next world, and don't be late"! Steve.....................

I have been recording for 8 years. I record mainly RnB / Pop and other types of experimental music. I use Logic Platinum 6 on my G4 and use lots of vintage outboard to tame the digital sound of my DAW.

This valve mic is amazing for its price. I was looking for a mic which sounded smooth as well as detailed. This mic is all that and more. I love this thing on vocals, it sounds very upfront and warm. I love its proximty effect. I use the K2 mainly on male vocals, but at time i have also used it on females, with stunning results. I have a female singer that sings in the style of Dido, and through the K2 and some outboard i can get pretty close to Dido's tone.