Let us just hope that someone gets out in the field to use these rather tha=
n
quoting mic specs, I personally would like to hear results.
Martyn
Martyn Stewart
Bird and Animal Sounds Digitally Recorded at:
http://www.naturesound.org
N47.65543 W121.98428
Redmond. Washington. USA
Make every Garden a wildlife Habitat!
425-898-0462
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Rob Danielson
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:18 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] 722 vs [was] NT1-A and moisture
At 1:22 PM -0400 6/22/05, Walter Knapp wrote:
>From: Rob Danielson <>
<snip>
>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.
>
>Walt
>
>
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
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|