[Top] [All Lists]

722 vs [was] NT1-A and moisture

Subject: 722 vs [was] NT1-A and moisture
From: Walter Knapp <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:22:51 -0400
From: Rob Danielson <>

> 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.

Note that the MKH-30 is a figure 8 mic, which is quite a different
mechanical design than a omni or cardioid. I don't think it's meaningful
to compare humidity sensitivity between the two groups.

When Rode makes a figure-8, compare that to a MKH-30.

One other small reason I went with the MKH series is that it's one of
the few series that includes a figure-8. In my M/S I'm using same brand
and series for both mics. Makes me at least feel like I have a somewhat
matched set of mics in my M/S.



<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