John Crockett wrote:
> It might work better with the ME66 since the NT4 is such a bulky micropho=
ne and the capsules end up pretty close to the body of the blimp. I was usi=
ng my ME66 in its foam with a Windcutter furry thing over the foam, alongsi=
de the NT4 in the blimp, and the amount of wind infiltration was about equa=
l, so I would guess the ME66 would have been much better than the NT4 in th=
e blimp.
>
> My only complaint about the Blimp is how big it is. Maybe they are all li=
ke that, and maybe it is necessary to have a large diameter to the blimp, b=
ut I was not expecting it and almost sent the thing back when this gigantic=
box arrived!
>
> The NT4 is almost unuseable outside without a blimp. The ME66 does pretty=
well without it. Personally, for me the blimp would not be worth it for th=
e ME66. The foam/furrything works well enough.
Since the added bulk of a blimp annoys me, I compromised on using Windcutte=
r type furry sleeves on their own, directly over the foam casing. Even with=
very sensitive omni microphones I have observed an incredible reduction in=
wind noise, getting useful recordings even in continuous gusting gales. As=
a bonus, these are very inexpensive direct from cottage industry manufactu=
rers.
Certainly a blimp would be better but only the largest and heaviest / most =
robust would make a significant difference, I imagine.
Of course every situation is different. How you mount the mic has a lot to =
do with how much wind exposure it gets. I favour a low tripod so the mic ca=
n be close to the ground. This is easier to achieve without a big blimp.
-- Robin Parmar
|