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
>catch up.
>
>Now we as a group have to talk Rhode into an Omni version of the NT-1
Be careful what you ask for:
http://www.rodemicrophones.com/nt2a_desc.asp?menu=3Dnt2aMenu
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.
>a
>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.
>Rich
>
>--- 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."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|