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..?=
I
>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?
>
>Klas.
>
>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
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>
>>"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
>email:
>
>
>
>
>
>"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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|