My experience with the foam and fur on the ME66 hasn't been good in stronge=
r winds. After hearing so many comments to the contrary, I'm wondering if m=
y problems are due to an inadequate furry cover. I'm not even sure what typ=
e it is, it came with the second hand ME66 I bought. I've always thought th=
e fur seemed too short, so perhaps just replacing the cover would have done=
the job.
However, unfortunately the blim is now ordered, so I'll get to see what it =
can do. I had been thinking of the possibility of an NT4 in the future, so =
it won't go to waste.
Or, thinking of having tolug it around, maybe I should exchange it. What's =
the best model of furry cover that will go over the foam?
Peter Shute
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> On Behalf Of John Crockett
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2013 3:59 AM
> To:
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Blimp wind cover for ME66
>
>
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> I agree with you regarding the ME66. I don't feel the need
> for a blimp. The Windcutter/foam works well.
>
> Based on my contentment with the Windcutter for the ME66 I
> bought a Windcutter furry thing for the NT4 but what I found
> is that wind creeps in behind the foam/fur cover and blows
> out the capsules anyway because the NT4 foam windscreen is
> very loose in back (it's a funny shape having to cover two
> capsules in XY configuration and therefore does not form a
> tight seal). Rather than mess with trying to build my own
> screen that would seal the back of the capsules, I opted for
> the blimp, and I don't regret it, but it is much bulkier than
> I like and I'd rather have a simpler way to protect the NT4.
> I've tried keeping it low, but no matter what, the tiniest
> light breeze blows out the NT4 capsules unless it's in the blimp.
>
> John
>
> --- In
> <naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com> , "Robin" wrote:
> >
> > John Crockett wrote:
> >
> > > It might work better with the ME66 since the NT4 is such
> a bulky microphone and the capsules end up pretty close to
> the body of the blimp. I was using my ME66 in its foam with a
> Windcutter furry thing over the foam, alongside the NT4 in
> the blimp, and the amount of wind infiltration was about
> equal, so I would guess the ME66 would have been much better
> than the NT4 in the blimp.
> > >
> > > My only complaint about the Blimp is how big it is. Maybe
> they are all like that, and maybe it is necessary to have a
> large diameter to the blimp, but 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 the ME66. The foam/furrything
> works well enough.
> >
> > Since the added bulk of a blimp annoys me, I compromised on
> using Windcutter 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 manufacturers.
> >
> > 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 can be close to the ground.
> This is easier to achieve without a big blimp.
> >
> > -- Robin Parmar
> >
>
>
>
>
>
|