[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 722 vs [was] NT1-A and moisture

Subject: Re: 722 vs [was] NT1-A and moisture
From: Rob Danielson <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:02:33 -0500
At 8:02 AM -0700 6/21/05, Tim Nielsen wrote:
>Rob, I just ordered a pair of the NT1A's to play with. The price is=A0
>pretty amazing, $400 for the pair (not matched of course, but I hope=A0
>they're close enough). I'm wondering, how are you using them in=A0
>Stereo? I'm mainly interested in them for recording on the Stage,=A0
>recording quiet sound FX, but I'll likely take them out and record=A0
>some very quiet night ambience, to see how they sound compared to my=A0
>various Schoeps (omni's versus MS). Are you doing sort of an XT=A0
>setup? Or are you spacing them apart?

They are wide cardioid polar pattern.  They'll be
easy to use with closer, tighter fields. The
issue for me for ambience has been getting even
tonal spread because they are basically treble
centered (like all cardioids and to some extent,
all mics). The best I've found so far is X-Y
spaced 12" at an angle of ~60 degrees. Rode says
90 tp 110 degrees but I haven't been able to
avoid a volume drop or too much treble loss in
the middle that wide. I'm very conscious of this
because I'm working in surround. If you can still
adjust the deal, I'd consider going with 2- 2A's
or 1- 2A and 1-1A and then returning either if
you're not happy with them. The M-S possibility
interests me the most.  According to my
calculations, the 2-A is 30 ounces;  the 1-A is
about a pound.  If you like the brightness of
schoeps, I bet you'll like these mics.  Rob D.

>I think when we talk about various mics being built to be used in the=A0
>field, often (at least myself) are mainly referring to the ease of=A0
>getting them inside a stable shockmount, and a good windscreen. So=A0
>the Rycote or Lightwave setup. That's partly why the MKH or the=A0
>Schoeps CMC series are great, you can really get them stable for hand-
>held use in the field.
>But the NT1A looks like a fun mic, we'll see when I get them.=A0
>Certainly for the price it's worth a shot.
>On Jun 21, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Rob Danielson wrote:
>>  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,=A0
>>  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=A0
>>  mic's..? I
>>  >don't find them outstanding. I think they perform about the same=A0
>>  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=A0
>>  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
>>  "Microphones are not ears,
>>  Loudspeakers are not birds,
>>  A listening room is not nature."
>>  Klas Strandberg
>>  Yahoo! Groups Links
>>  To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>[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

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