Thanks for all the replies. I'm feeling better about the rode blimp! Microp=
hones are designed to pick up sounds and a blimp is not a vacuum so sound w=
ill be picked up when not being too careful.
Good point on the K-Tek pole terminating only to 3 pin xlr. The only mic I =
have that has 5 pins is the nt4 but I don't want to mess with any adapter s=
o I'll look at the Rode poles.
Who has what? I feel like it would be better to get the longer one and hope=
you don't have to go out too far (since the nt4 is a little beefy) rather =
than not having enough reach provided by the rode mini.
What recorders/pre-amps do you all use with your nt4?
Thanks for all the info.
peace,
sean
--- In Mark Brennan <=
..> wrote:
>
> I should also mention=C3=82=C2=A0that the NT4 for me is=C3=82=C2=A0just '=
ok' - good in some=C3=82=C2=A0situations but not good in others (ambient re=
cording).=C3=82=C2=A0=C3=82=C2=A0I hope to also set up a dummy head with Te=
linga omnis.Mark
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Rooke <>
> To:
> Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 6:32:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Boom pole technique and the Rode Blimp.
>
> =C3=82=C2=A0
> Moi Antti,
> Ive abandoned the NT4, mounted a dummy head on a rode SM2 shock mount wit=
h a layer of elastic silicone between the base of the head and the mount. O=
n the rode boom pole theres hardly any vibration pickup either tapping the =
pole or placing the pole on the floor and stamping my feet. Much better, bu=
t different mic's omni's vs cardioids and three layers of shock absorption.=
Pole handling noise is none existent beyond the noise the head receives vi=
a its ears not down the pole... The SM2 also allows the angle from the pole=
to the head to be varied a little. I might home brew something similar wit=
h reduced dimensions, the sm5 is rather large.
>
> T.
> Mike.
>
> --- In naturerecordists@ yahoogroups. com, a.saario@ wrote:
> >
> > HI Mike,
> >
> > We have a NT4 with a Rycote kit and as you mention one has to be rather
> > careful when moving around with it to avoid handling noise caused by
> > excessive movement of the microphone inside the suspended pistol grip. =
I
> > think it is partially a question of dimension and weight as have no suc=
h
> > problems with any of our other mics on that system.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Antti
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 7 May, 2010 11:29 pm, Mike Rooke wrote:
> > > I'd like to know if anyone has experience and advice when using the R=
ode
> > > NT4 in a Rode Blimp besides "move slowly"? - I noticed the NT4 is
> > > excessively sensitive to vibration even when mounted in the blimp whe=
re
> > > the cable is routed correctly, not touching the side cage of the blim=
p
> > > and the elastics are installed holding the NT4, the blimp cage handle=
s
> > > are closed tight, as per the instructions.
> > >
> > > The combination doesn't seem to work very well hand holding the blimp=
's
> > > handle without excessive vibration pickup if the grip / hold is shift=
ed.
> > > Swinging the blimp around too fast will cause the capsules to thump
> > > around. On the end of a boom pole the handling noise is also transmit=
ted
> > > to the mic even if holding the foam grip.
> > >
> > > Am I doing something very wrong or is the NT4 just a bad candiate for
> > > walkabout boom work? Im thinking of using it to collect some close se=
a /
> > > wave material, but its looking more likely that a tripod will be need=
ed
> > > providing the blimp itself isnt a vibration "monster".
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate any thoughts on the subject of boom use. Perhaps a lon=
g
> > > worn out thread..
> > >
> > > BR
> > > Mike.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr Antti Sakari Saario
> > Lancaster Institute for the Contemporary Arts (LICA)
> > Lancaster University, LA1 4YW, UK
> > Tel: +44(0)1524594496 / Fax: +44(0)1524 39021
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|