[Top] [All Lists]

722 vs [was] NT1-A and moisture

Subject: 722 vs [was] NT1-A and moisture
From: Rob Danielson <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:55:29 -0500
We're getting close to realizing we can't make
useful generalizations about MD pres and best
refer to particular mic- preamp combinations when
making comments or judgements. I can't see what
there is to gain by generalizing about condenser
mics in outdoor use.  If was true, why does the
mkh 30 go out first sometimes?  I've been using
NT1-A's in the field for two years now, that
wouldn't be the case if they were unreliable.
There are spec sheets on line at Rode. I
understand that the NT1A and 2A are unusual
circuits as mics go. The electronics seal is
decent. You have to keep direct water contact off
of the capsule. Rob D.

  =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D

At 2:38 PM +0200 6/21/05, Klas Strandberg wrote:
>People - all condensor mic's are unreliable in the wilderness, except the
>MKH. It is not a matter of brand, but of construction.
>With it's RF modulation and membrane connected to ground, the MKH has
>outstanding reliability.
>Question: I hear a lot on the list about the perfection of R=F6de mic's..?=
>don't find them outstanding. I think they perform about the same as a lot
>of other mic's. Good, but no sensation...?
>And even if very carefully made, they must be unreliable in humidity.
>How high is the polarizing voltage? Anybody know?
>At 05:56 2005-06-21, you wrote:
>>  > <<<<Now we as a group have to talk Rhode into an Omni version of
>>  > the NT-1a
>>  > as it clearly is outperforming the mkh line at a lot less
>>  > money.>>>>>>>>
>>Whoa! That's a dangerous statement. Noise floor is only one spec for
>>a microphone. It's not fair to compare the MKH line to this mic, I
>>think for a couple of reasons:
>>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 field.
>>2) How do they 'sound'. I buy Schoeps because in spite of their
>>higher noise (to the MKH) I think they're the best sounding mics in
>>the world. I love the imaging I get, and I personally think they
>>sound better than the MKH (which are great, don't get me wrong). But
>>the MKH are way better for humid recording, the Schoeps may very well
>>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
>>studio mic for recording very quiet sound effects
>>"Microphones are not ears,
>>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>>A listening room is not nature."
>>Klas Strandberg
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
>S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
>Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
>"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


<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