How about two Shure 183 omni capsules. From prievious
postings on this list - it seems like they would fit well into this
discussion. I'm not sure how they compare to the NT4 or the
957. Past discussions on the 183s have suggested they have
relatively low noise, high sensitivity, low handling noise, very light
weight, very versatile, and low cost, plus they work fine with
minidisc plug in power. The main drawback may be the 183s do
not come ready assembled for 1/8" stereo: they require a
specially adapted cable. I do not own them yet, but I might once
I figure out exactly what parts I will need and how to assemble
them. I tried Dan Dougan's shoulder mounted 183s once and
the stereo effect was amazing.=20=20
John Hartog
--- In Michael Gallagher
<> wrote:
> >B McWilliams asked
> >For those who have worked with the NT4 and the Sony
> >957, could you describe the results you've gotten with
> >both? I'm in the same boat as the original poster -
> >little money, but looking to get one of these stereo
> >mics.
>
> I have been recording intermittently in the field for nearly four
> years. I have accumulated sessions on several hundred mini
discs. Work
> commitments restrict me three or four sessions per month.
>
> I have been using a Sony ECM MS957 mic from the beginning.
I got a Rode
> NT4 about eighteen months ago. I usually use the mics on a
stand,
> attached to the mic input of a Sony MZR900 MiniDisk recorder
via a 20
> meter cable. I usually record extended soundscapes from a
fixed mic. I
> often start recording well before dawn and record for several
hours.
>
> Both units are sturdy enough for field use. I prefer the sound of
the
> Rode. It is more sensitive that the Sony and picks up distant
birds
> better. However, it is more prone to problems in the field than
the
> Sony. Its diaphragms are buffeted by the slightest breeze. I
enclose it
> in a diy wind shield with some loss of high frequencies. It is
affected
> by moisture. I now keep it packed in refreshed silica gel.
> Nevertheless, on dewy mornings, after about an hour, its
diaphragms
> start to flutter. Through bitter experience, I no longer attempt to
use
> it on humid or rainy days.
>
> I like the sound of the Sony mic, but I wish it picked up distant
birds
> better. It lacks the sensitivity of the NT4. It is more reliable that
> the Rode, because it is much more forgiving. It works well on
rainy
> days and can be used with its foam windshield in a light
breeze. A
> single AA battery lasts for hundreds of hours.
>
> I will persevere with the Rode in the field. On still, dry days, it
> gives me the best sound I can get. I will fit a professional
quality
> windshield. I hope to find ways of reducing the effects of
moisture.
>
> For several weeks before I brought the Rode, I used a
borrowed
> Sennheiser MKH416 and a SoundDevices MP2 feeding the
line input of the
> MZR900. That equipment gave me the clearest sound I have
ever recorded.
> I would like, one day, to put together an MKH ms stereo rig
feeding to
> quality field mixer or a recorder with quality preamps - an outlay
of
> several month's wages.
>
> In the mean time, I am learning to get he best sound my mics
can
> capture. When I am unwilling to risk missing a clean recording
in the
> field, I use the Sony. I use the Rode NT4 outside only when the
> weather permits. When recording inside, I invariably use the
Rode.
> Whenever I need to be in the field with only one mic, I take the
Sony
> ECM MS957.
>
> Regards
>
> Michael Gallagher
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|