Thanks for the illuminating comparison, Greg. When I talked to Peter
Freedman about the SVM, he said that videographers would be very
impressed by the performance of this stereo mic. Unfortunately, that
can mean two different things ;-). I haven't known Rode to make junk
or tout bad specs. Do you recall if the SVM stood-up okay,
noise-wise? Rob D.
At 4:53 AM +1100 3/31/08, Greg Simmons wrote:
>In reference to Rode's SVM, Rob Danielson wrote: "...and it features
>an X-Y array which isn't very exciting or life-like as stereo goes,
>IMHO."
>
>I mention the following purely as a data point...
>
>In December 2006 I was making atmos recordings in the Himalaya, with
>seven audio students and a collection of different recording rigs. At
>the low cost end, we were using Rode's SVM into a Sony HiMD (set to
>record linear PCM). We were also using a Rode NT4 into a Marantz
>PMD670, and a Schoeps MS pair (cardioid M capsule) into a Nagra V.
>
>The consensus at the time was that the SVM produced a better and more
>'involving' stereo image than the NT4, and was more akin to the
>Schoeps MS pair. This suggests that the XY pair in the SVM deviates
>from the NT4, possibly with more directional polar responses and/or a
>wider angle and/or a small gap between the capsules (a la Gerzon). I
>am currently in the process of sorting all of those recordings, and
>will hopefully find something conclusive. I know we have a number of
>recordings made with the Schoeps MS pair and the SVM side-by-side, but
>I'm hoping to find some with NT4 and SVM together.
>
>- Greg Simmons
>
>_
--
|