Thanks Phil and Rob,
I had not noticed that. Looks like the Art Phantom 2 so.
And reading about stereo recording for ambient sounds, it does appear
from the notes i have read, that stereo gives a much more 'real' or
engaging soundscape.
If i can manage stretching the budget, i may try to go for two NT2000's.
Rob, given your experience owning 4 of these mics, how important is
that they are specially measured and matched?
Any response from Rode on them providing factory matched mics?
I have read somewhere that all the NT2000 are reasonably closely
matched anyhow. Is this true?
If i end up dealing with a sales guy who does not have the expertise,
nor the time to measure and match mics, is there any quick short test
they could do, to choose two mics reasonably similar? Eg sequential
serial numbers. Any other way?
Best Wishes,
Dave
--- In Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>
> At 1:15 PM +0000 1/9/09, Philip Tyler wrote:
> >Hi
> >
> >Just a thought, the Art Phantom III is only
> >single channel whereas the Phantom II is dual
> >channel.
>
>
> Phil is right. The Phantom II is what you want. Sorry! Rob D.
>
> >If your intentions are to move to stereo then
> >buying the Phantom II at the outset might prove
> >slightly more economical for you. A quick
> >'google' gave the Phantom III at =A334 and the
> >Phantom II =A337.
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >________________________________
> >>From: Dave Brocklebank <<dave%40burrenyoga.com>>
> >>To:
>
>><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
om
> >>...
> >>
> >>I guess i will also need a Art Phantom III which seems lighter than
> >>the ART II, and correct cables to feed into the RH1.
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
>
|