[Top] [All Lists]

RE: 722 vs,.. Rode NT2-A!

Subject: RE: 722 vs,.. Rode NT2-A!
From: "Martyn Stewart" <>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:06:51 -0700
The idea of having two of these to form an M/S would be tempting for the
budget minded people but how bulky would these be in the field?
Then of course you would have to think about suspending them in a shock
mount, and then there is the windscreen, windjammer. A lot of work to desig=
and build one. I don't know, has anyone taken one of these NTIA into the
field, any sound bytes to hear?
For convenience alone, the MKH series is great to stick in a rucksack and
get out there including the windjammer. I would have to see what these
looked like and preformed outside a studio...


Martyn Stewart
Bird and Animal Sounds Digitally Recorded at:

N47.65543   W121.98428
Redmond. Washington. USA
Make every Garden a wildlife Habitat!


-----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of Rob Danielson
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:46 PM
Subject: [Nature Recordists] 722 vs,.. Rode NT2-A!

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:

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."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links

Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
Yahoo! Groups Links


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

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