<<<1) The MKH are designed to be rugged, very resistant to humidity, etc.
The NT1A is clearly a studio mic, has anyone actually taken it out into the
Sorry Tim, you beat me to it :(
Bird and Animal Sounds Digitally Recorded at:
Redmond. Washington. USA
Make every Garden a wildlife Habitat!
On Behalf Of Tim Nielsen
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: 722 vs PMD670
> <<<<Now we as a group have to talk Rhode into an Omni version of=20
> the NT-1a
> as it clearly is outperforming the mkh line at a lot less=20
Whoa! That's a dangerous statement. Noise floor is only one spec for=20
a microphone. It's not fair to compare the MKH line to this mic, I=20
think for a couple of reasons:
1) The MKH are designed to be rugged, very resistant to humidity,=20
etc. The NT1A is clearly a studio mic, has anyone actually taken it=20
out into the field.
2) How do they 'sound'. I buy Schoeps because in spite of their=20
higher noise (to the MKH) I think they're the best sounding mics in=20
the world. I love the imaging I get, and I personally think they=20
sound better than the MKH (which are great, don't get me wrong). But=20
the MKH are way better for humid recording, the Schoeps may very well=20
crap out (although I've never had it happen yet).
But noise floor alone is no way to decide between mics.
That being said, I think I'll buy one of these, might make a good=20
studio mic for recording very quiet sound effects
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Yahoo! Groups Links