David,
I still love the NT1a, but they do have some shortcomings. The NT1a's are v=
ery sensitive to wind, and I recommend a custom 2-3 chamber windscreens for=
them. They are somewhat sensitive to moisture and may stop working under h=
igh humidity, foggy conditions. I use a small heater, while recording, unde=
r such conditions after they failed on me twice during warm, foggy conditio=
ns. The failure was temporary, but I lost some very good material. They are=
sensitive to picking up low frequency sounds very well, and sometimes that=
is too good for picking up distant jets/motorcycles. They tend to be rathe=
r bulky/heavy compared to other mics. Overall, when the shortcomings are so=
lved, you would be hard pressed to find a better mic for nature recording, =
where the lowest self noise is the most important factor. They are very ine=
xpensive and robust. I never noticed any sound coloration from them. To me,=
the recorded material has been very life-like. There maybe some high frequ=
ency issues if the sound source is at the right distance, due to them havin=
g a large diameter diaphragm, that may cause a "hole" effect, but I never n=
oticed that.
Happy recording,
Bruce Rutkoski
www.natureguystudio.com
- In "wildlifeanalysis" <=
.> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I am looking to pick up another stereo microphone pair for some surround =
recordings, but before I do, I wanted to get the pulse of the community on =
the NT1a. After hearing a number of field recordings made with the NT1a, I =
am convinced that if I was just starting out nature recording, I would buy =
a couple of matched pairs and save myself thousands.
>
> Are there any new value contenders out there I should take a look at, or =
are the Rode NT1a's still the kings of low cost, ultra-quiet, mics?
>
> David
>
|