722 vs,.. Rode NT2-A!
Rob Danielson <>
Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:45:53 -0500
At 1:58 AM +0000 6/21/05, Rich Peet wrote:
>Having heard the results of Robs current field setup compared to mine.
> Well, I ran home and went to work for more than a week trying to
>Now we as a group have to talk Rhode into an Omni version of the NT-1
Be careful what you ask for:
Eventhough the self noise of the NT1A is lower and the response
between 125-700 Hz can be less prone to exaggeration, the wide,
spatial imagery and flexibility of m-s with mkh 30/40 m-s is pretty
hard to match with 2 cardioids,.. but now we can experiment M-S with
NT1-A and NT2-A or the Peet Cube with 4XNT2-A's.
The NT2-A circuitry looks very similar circuitry to the NT1-A. The
first downside I see is a fair amount less output (16mV/Pa vs
25mV/Pa) and a bit more noise (7dbA vs 5.5 dBA). Doesn't I didn't
see the weight and size info yet, looks longer and fatter. Rob D.
>as it clearly is outperforming the mkh line at a lot less money.
>And the 744? Well, it is clearly outperforming at a lot more money.
>--- In Rob Danielson <> wrote:
> I've resorted to judging performance in terms of
>> specific combinations of mics and pres. Some combinations work better
>> than one might expect, others much worse than the specs predict.
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Yahoo! Groups Links
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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: