[Top] [All Lists]

722 vs PMD670

Subject: 722 vs PMD670
From: Walter Knapp <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:25:32 -0400
From: Klas Strandberg <>

> 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.

The advantage of the MKH is both technical and a long, positive track
record. I went to MKH for both reasons. Yes, I'm quite sure that there
are other mics with similar specs, and some might work in day in day out
nature recording. But I simply saw no reason to take the chance on a
unknown. MKH cost a bit, though not near as much as is represented if
you are willing to buy second hand. But, you buy something that you know
has worked for the greatest number of nature recordings. The mics
themselves are very reliable and long lived. Spread the cost over a
lifetime of recording and they don't cost much.

Buying a mic without a track record in nature recording is a risk. You
may end up buying several and spending more than you would if you had of
bought a MKH in the first place. Many people hop from mic to mic,
thinking that the mic alone will dictate the quality of the recording.
It's important to have a good mic, but experience in using that mic is
just as essential.

If economy is essential, it's worthwhile considering the Sennheiser ME
series mics. They too have a very good track record as nature recording



<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