naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFI re Rode NT4 stereo mic.

Subject: Re: RFI re Rode NT4 stereo mic.
From: Rob Danielson <>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:53:41 -0500
Hi Syd--

I've used NT3's in numerous outdoors applications but not the NT4. 
The specs suggest they're similar. Humidity: not unusually sensitive. 
Toughness: excellent. Tone: Bright, but definitely strong below 80Hz 
so I use a special cable with roll-off -6dB at 80Hz when using in 
exterior locations.  Inherent Noise: I feel better than the specs 
suggest. I.E. in a pinch I used a NT3 as the center mic in M-S with 
an AKG 414 (gained-up for distant toads) and I was shocked that NT3 
only added a slight amount of noise above that of the AKG which is ~ 
12dB I think.  The only real question I had with pondering the NT4 is 
why does it cost so much more than two NT3's? If it's that much 
better than 2-NT3's in quality, that would be terrific cuz at $160, 
I've never used a better mic than the NT3. Let us know if you give 
the NT4 a try!

Rob D.

  = = =

>Syd Curtis wrote:
>>
>>  Hello Naturerecordists,
>>
>>  Anyone out there who has used the Rode NT4 Stereo Condenser mic., and can
>>  comment on it - especially as to how it stands humidity, which is sometimes
>>  a problem with otherwise excellent microphones?
>>
>>  MusicLab in Brisbane are the most helpful commercial firm (of any sort of
>>  business) that I've dealt with.  In a couple of days they fixed my 36 yr-old
>>  Uher recorder to satisfy my whim to record an Albert's Lyrebird in the same
>>  place and with the same recorder and Uher mic where I made my first lyrebird
>>  recording on 22.06.68.  (Wish me luck for tomorrow morning!)
>>
>>   And when I was collecting the Uher, MusicLab volunteered the advice that
>>  the NT4 is an excellent mic, and modestly priced for such high quality.
>>  With such a recommendation from MusicLab, I sit up and take notice.
>>
>>  Be glad of any advice, especially with reference to the specifications
>>  copied below, which I lack the technical knowledge to understand.
>
>I took a quick look at the specs and also looked at the equivalent
>Sennheiser mono Cardioids.
>
>The Sennheiser MKH is quieter and more sensitive by a fair amount. The
>ME is about the same mic noise levels, but still maintains a fair lead
>in sensitivity.
>
>It's worth noting that this mic will handle up to 143 dB, considerably
>louder than the Sennheisers. We don't ever have need of this sort of
>thing out nature recording as we are never close enough to see high
>sound levels. But it does point out something about the design
>expectations for this mic. It's designed for recording fairly loud
>sounds well, which is appropriate for it's intended studio usage.
>
>The mechanical design worries me just a little the thin stalks the two
>capsules are on constitute a weak point. Though if outside we will
>probably have this in a wind enclosure.
>
>As far as weather, I've seen nothing on that. It sure would be nice if
>manufacturers would include environmental tolerances in their specs.
>
>Good luck on your quest with the Uher.
>
>Walt
>
>



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU