> and MUCH prefer the sound of the MKH.
>
> Never used either for nature recording, so others might have
> knowledge I don't.
Jeremiah,
In my pro days I used all sorts of mics and always came back to the
MKH series for noise and a very clean top end, especially when out of
a windgag. The AKG equivalents were much shriller sounding, althout
they also had a flat spec. It's also down to the phase response.
Windgags, mic mounts and the ground and other reflectios can alter the
HF response, including using a parabola. Check it out with a clean
white noise source like compressed air and a power spectum - or just
your ears as you move about.
I put my MKH 416's through a noise test, and the hiss level is on a
par with the SQN mixer input or lower. Their noise spectrum is about
the reverse of the human ear response curves, with a very low dip in
the mid KHz range. At the top end the hiss rises with frequency like
the thermal noise and the low end rise is inaudible in practice.
With the present snow blanket, the natural background is extremely low
here, and I think I can just detect high end mic hiss, but as soon asw
any wildlife pipes up it is well swamped.
David
David Brinicombe
North Devon, UK
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
|