Did the 149 sound better than the K2? Not much question there! I would love to own one.

However, what is more important, the sculptor or the chisel? The song or the singer?

I have a K2, and agree that it doesn't have the finesse in the high end, and the depth and roundness of the mids and lows.

I bought 2 NOS tubes (Telefunken and Mullard) that bring nice, slightly different improvements and flavors, use a little subtractive EQ, and with judicious compression, I am VERY happy. Does it sound like the 149? No! Does it remind me of a U47, heck no! Can I get some vocal tracks down for my voice that sounds best they ever have? yes!

At this point, I rather spend the $3,000 i saved on more mics in my locker for different sources.

Teh Neuman sounds more expensive but could imagine that in a busy mix the rode could be easier to integrate

Yes, it does - well spotted!

Well, you can imagine whatever you like, but speaking from direct experience, the reverse is true.

I thought the differences would be more slight, from some of the comments here. I don't get it.

The Neumann, is absolutely more open, relaxed, bigger, and smoother sounding. The K2 sounds compressed and straining to keep up with the neumann's relaxed way of dealing with the source.

The dynamic range sounds (feels) wider on the Neumann for sure.

The Neumann you could make sound like the K2 (not sure who'd want to), but you could never make the k2 sound like the Neumann. It already sounds constricted in the upper mids... how are you going to undo that?

It's not a more expensive snobbery thing for me either. I really am always hoping a budget mic will come out that sounds as good as the expensive models. This is slightly saddening, because it shows to get this sound, you will still always have to spend the money.

One last thing, and I am really truly surprised. A lot of people on here swear the difference is slight, and the RODE stuff holds up to mics costing "5 times as much". You hear this a LOT. Can these people hear?

This combined with all the recent RODE adverstising, such as the factory tour etc., had me thinking they had really stepped up the quality.

The video was claiming the fact that RODE's super hi tech computerized manufacturing made for better sounding, more consistent mics.
Not the case here at all.

They were talking down the small boutique outfits, claiming they were made at a "kitchen table". I think I'd take a handmade kitchen table mic over the robot RODE for sure, after hearing this.

I didn't like the RODE at all. Sorry. Almost sounds like a cheaper electret. Maybe a an ancient Audio Technica from the 1980's or something.

My apologies.

john

nice name, mate.

why do you think, the rode would be "easier to integrate" within a mix?

on what kind of instruments, particularly?

when it's about background vocals or stuff like that, i'd agree to some extent. But as soon as you'd like to shed some light on any meaningful element, i'd prefer a mic like Neumann, Telefunken or that like.

my 0.02 USD

1. I even hear a difference on my crappy computer speakers
2. How come the same source was recorded with such a big space between the mics?

The Rode sounds nice for its money. But the M149 seems still more creamy.

I'll always wonder what one's response would be, had they not been told what mics were being compared.

It would have been the same. I can't believe it's even controversial.

Either some new aesthetic has emerged that I'm not aware of or a lot of you guys need to treat your rooms.

-R

Oh no, I'm not suggesting that there is no obvious difference, or not. Just thinking that many people may not see the m149 as better when listening, had they not known which clip was the m149.

In other words, for some, it's "cool" to be of the lot who heard the more expensive mic as far superior, while for others, they actually have developed the ability to hear the differences in sonics that allow them to discern better quality, from poorer quality.

It's simply something that always makes me wonder who prefers a certain sound, because they know and hear better quality, and who prefers a certain mic, because they don't want to be the individual who doesn't know quality from crap. My post had nothing to do with the idea that the K2 is on par with the m149, whatsoever.

Hope the makes sense.

I guess my point is that the Neumann was so clearly and obviously superior to the K2 that expectation bias wouldn't be a factor. I mean, really, there's no comparison. Anyone could hear the difference blind, and I'm really surprised that anyone would prefer the K2.

I've gone on record in the past as disliking that particular Neumann, but in this example IMO the objective differences in quality is obvious. One mic makes a beautiful picture of the source, the other one is flapping in the wind.

-R

I hear ya.

Not close whatsoever, in my opinion, through laptop speakers. Naturally, my treated room would reveal this even more.

I have got both M149 and K2 (and others including ksm32, akg414 xlII, peralman tm1 etc and a host of pres) and a very well treated room. As far as vocals in concerned (and only vocals / VO) I reach for K2 99% of the time. I do not even remember using M149 in the past two years on my vocals. If you want a pristine sound go for a solid state like akg 414 with a non tube pre like grace m101 or isa one.

My K2 is never stwiched off. It is always on and man it sounds good and buttery through my solo 610 which is also on 90% of the time. I am a sound contractor and install PA systems but started several years ago recording vocals which is my passion. There are very few mics that I have not tested (like a c12 or U47) as they are hard to get. My two cents is that K2 matches my voice and others in my house and it sounds dam good with the stock tube. Changed a host of tubes in it but finally went back to the stock one. I have access to audio equipment from my supplier (as I do big purchases from him for my installations) so I keep testing different mics and pres for fun so have some knowledge in terms of mics and pres.

I like K2 (white), you might like M149 (black), who cares as long as it sounds(looks) good on you. Experimentation is the only option.

Spot On.

And the winner is M149 !

The Rode sounds good, but I prefer The bass response on the Neummann. Now IF one day I have the money to buy the Neumann, I'll prefer buy a lot gear and a K2

Darth Vader: "Nooooooooooooooooooooooo "
heh heh heh

Totally agree with you... M149 wins everytime over the Rode.

. Man I swear lol. People A bandit their ears leave their ears and their mind when they see cheaper all the time. M149 sounds way better on my Studio monitors

I was going to listen but seems like the files no longer are available.
Anyway, I sold my M149 earlier this year after not finding any use for it for years.

At whatever mic distance or polar pattern it always sounded harsh/piercing in the 1k to 5k area when pushed with dynamic and louder vocals but also on acoustic guitar. It's detailed and probably works ok for softer sources but that's not the versatillity I need in a mic.

Funny how our experience/ ears differ. Love the m149,but need to adjust the polar patterns; really sounds like different mics with different patterns. Very nice through a 1073.

Maybe there is a possible future where even young children will understand this sentence.

So what sources do you use it on?

Yep, huge fan of the M149 over here. Never sounds harsh when I use it, and I have a very mid-forward voice, particularly hot around 1 - 2kHz.

I rarely need to fuss around with patterns, either. Sometimes 1 click over towards fig8 sounds cool, and omni can work pretty well on acoustics. But 9 times out of 10, it's just cardioid with a roll off at 80Hz.

I guess it all just depends on how you hear things.

The Rode K2 is one of the best tube mics under $1,000. We'll made, consistency between mics, and decent design. But it can't compare with the Neumann. I would have compared it with Telefunken TF51 instead which has more of the high end magic that the Rode lacks.

Thats probably it. We all hear a bit different.