[Top] [All Lists]

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

Subject: Re: 722 vs [was] NT1-A and moisture
From: Rob Danielson <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:18:14 -0500
At 1:22 PM -0400 6/22/05, Walter Knapp wrote:
>From: Rob Danielson <>


>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.

The new, NT2-A is variable polar pattern (cardioid, fig 8 and omni)
and seems to be based on the same electronics as the NT1-A.
Hopefully, they'll be _fairly_ well-matched for M-S. The $600 combo
could provide great stereo imagery or it could be very poor--  no way
to tell this without field testing. The 30 and 40 work well together
above 200Hz  but the 40's stronger bass response makes the center
heavy unless addressed with EQ. No big deal.  With some EQ, I seem to
be able to cover about 230 degrees with tonal eveness with my mkh
30/40 pair which is impressive. That large capsules tend to be more
treble centric than small capsules, as Dan points out, could detract
from the tonal uniformity of the Rode MS stereo field. The 2A  alone
weighs as much as 4- 30/40 combos,.. Rob D.

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