Hello friends,
nowadays I'm looking for a mic that is good in rejecting noises from the outside(car, buses, people scream:)) i.e tight cardioid or hypercardioid), is battery operated (because my phantom is pretty bad), and bellow 300$. I record in very problematic environment. Actually, I think about the Rode nt3 or the Rode m3. Which one is better in rejecting outside noises? disregard the quallity of them...i'm interested in their polar pattern characters.
Thanks, (sorry for my english)
Rode nt3 or Rode m3?
Re: Rode nt3 or Rode m3?
It might also be worth thinking about a dynamic mic like the Audix OM7 which is extremely good at rejecting off axis sounds.
James.
James.
-
- James Perrett
Moderator -
Posts: 16991 Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:00 am
Location: The wilds of Hampshire
Contact:
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration. JRP Music Facebook Page
Re: Rode nt3 or Rode m3?
I've deleted the duplicate post in the DIY forum.
The M3 and NT3 are both norminal cardioids. The M3 has a 0.5-inch capsule and built-in bass roll off while the NT3 has a 0.75-inch capsule and a flatter LF response. Other than that the two share broadly similar specifications.
I'm not clear on what you're trying to achieve, but for outdoor location work a cardioid (or even a hypercardioid) is rarely adequate. Dynamic mics are often perceived as being less sensitive to ambient sounds than electrets and cardioids, but even that effect usually isn't sufficient for good separation in location applications. Attenuation of sound sources 90 degrees off axis is only about 6dB with a cardioid which isn't usually anything like enough.
The industry norm for this kind of work is a short 'shotgun', or 'rifle' mic -- actually a hypercardioid with an interference tube on the front. This provides far superior rejection of off-axis sound sources for mid and high frequencies, and when used with a decent dose of high-pass filtering, the hypercardioid's pattern and tail don't cuase too much of a problem at LF either.
However, the interference tube only works properly when the off-axis sound is completely uncorrelated with the on-axis sound, so it works well outdoors or in large open spaces, but not very well in smaller rooms.
The broadcaster's standard go-to mic for location work is Sennheiser's MKH416 (or the newwer MKH60), but Rode have a pretty good version of it called the NTG3 which is a lot more affordable.
http://www.rodemic.com/mics/ntg-3
The other common approach to minimise unwanted external noise is to use a close-miking technique, usually with omni lavalier mics. The inverse square law of sound transmission means that the closer you can get to the wanted sound, the much weaker the unwanted ambient sounds will be.
hugh
The M3 and NT3 are both norminal cardioids. The M3 has a 0.5-inch capsule and built-in bass roll off while the NT3 has a 0.75-inch capsule and a flatter LF response. Other than that the two share broadly similar specifications.
I'm not clear on what you're trying to achieve, but for outdoor location work a cardioid (or even a hypercardioid) is rarely adequate. Dynamic mics are often perceived as being less sensitive to ambient sounds than electrets and cardioids, but even that effect usually isn't sufficient for good separation in location applications. Attenuation of sound sources 90 degrees off axis is only about 6dB with a cardioid which isn't usually anything like enough.
The industry norm for this kind of work is a short 'shotgun', or 'rifle' mic -- actually a hypercardioid with an interference tube on the front. This provides far superior rejection of off-axis sound sources for mid and high frequencies, and when used with a decent dose of high-pass filtering, the hypercardioid's pattern and tail don't cuase too much of a problem at LF either.
However, the interference tube only works properly when the off-axis sound is completely uncorrelated with the on-axis sound, so it works well outdoors or in large open spaces, but not very well in smaller rooms.
The broadcaster's standard go-to mic for location work is Sennheiser's MKH416 (or the newwer MKH60), but Rode have a pretty good version of it called the NTG3 which is a lot more affordable.
http://www.rodemic.com/mics/ntg-3
The other common approach to minimise unwanted external noise is to use a close-miking technique, usually with omni lavalier mics. The inverse square law of sound transmission means that the closer you can get to the wanted sound, the much weaker the unwanted ambient sounds will be.
hugh
-
- Hugh Robjohns
Moderator -
Posts: 43693 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Contact:
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Re: Rode nt3 or Rode m3?
I took it that the original poster lives in a noisy neighbourhood with poorly insulated windows.
I've also removed the duplicate thread in the Production forum.
James.
I've also removed the duplicate thread in the Production forum.
James.
-
- James Perrett
Moderator -
Posts: 16991 Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:00 am
Location: The wilds of Hampshire
Contact:
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration. JRP Music Facebook Page
Re: Rode nt3 or Rode m3?
Ah yes... you may well be right!
In that case, secondary double glazing is probably the best bet...
hugh
In that case, secondary double glazing is probably the best bet...
hugh
-
- Hugh Robjohns
Moderator -
Posts: 43693 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Contact:
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Re: Rode nt3 or Rode m3?
Hi Hugh,
sorry for posting this thread too many times.
I'm new here and I don't know which forum is popular.
I'm actually recording a classical guitar and I don't think there is a dynamic mic that is good anough for that task. The NTG3 is too expensive for me. regarding the close miking technique, the RODE M3 and the RODE NT3 are good in close miking or they probably make a bad bass effect?
sorry for posting this thread too many times.
I'm new here and I don't know which forum is popular.
I'm actually recording a classical guitar and I don't think there is a dynamic mic that is good anough for that task. The NTG3 is too expensive for me. regarding the close miking technique, the RODE M3 and the RODE NT3 are good in close miking or they probably make a bad bass effect?
Re: Rode nt3 or Rode m3?
If you're recording indoors and are trying to minimise the capture of external noise, then sound isolation of the room has to be the first step. Small gaps or vents around windows and doors are the usual culprit, so dealing with these in some way should be a priority. Double glazing or secondary double glazing, or making a tightly fitting acoustic panel to block the window can also be helpful.
After that, the mic polar pattern can help, but only if the unwanted sound is coming from a single direction -- you can aim the mic's polar pattern null at the unwanted source to gain some useful rejection. But if the unwanted sound is bouncing around the room or coming from multiple directions this won't work. Again, controlling reflections will help -- the classic duvet solution suspended behind and around the sides of the guitarist to kill reflections that would otherwise reach the front and sides of the mic can be very helpful.
After that you're looking at miking as closely as possible to maximise the wanted sound and minimise the unwanted... but close miking with a cardioid (or any directional) mic causes problems with the bass tip-up (proximity) effect as you've already noticed.
The solution is to use a small diaphragm omni electret/capacitor mic which can be placed as close as you like without any proximity issues. The downside, of course, is that close miking makes the mic focus on a relatively narrow area of the guitar and so finding the optimum position that gives a good tonal balance can take a little time and effort.
Hugh
After that, the mic polar pattern can help, but only if the unwanted sound is coming from a single direction -- you can aim the mic's polar pattern null at the unwanted source to gain some useful rejection. But if the unwanted sound is bouncing around the room or coming from multiple directions this won't work. Again, controlling reflections will help -- the classic duvet solution suspended behind and around the sides of the guitarist to kill reflections that would otherwise reach the front and sides of the mic can be very helpful.
After that you're looking at miking as closely as possible to maximise the wanted sound and minimise the unwanted... but close miking with a cardioid (or any directional) mic causes problems with the bass tip-up (proximity) effect as you've already noticed.
The solution is to use a small diaphragm omni electret/capacitor mic which can be placed as close as you like without any proximity issues. The downside, of course, is that close miking makes the mic focus on a relatively narrow area of the guitar and so finding the optimum position that gives a good tonal balance can take a little time and effort.
Hugh
-
- Hugh Robjohns
Moderator -
Posts: 43693 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Contact:
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Re: Rode nt3 or Rode m3?
I've been experimenting with mounting a miniature omni condenser on my steel string acoustic guitar, it's an odd kind of boundary mic, sort of. The experiment is evolving _exactly_ as Hugh describes. I'm evaluating this as a method for improving separation between vocal and guitar played simultaneously, and the results are really excellent. But finding the sweet spot for the mic placement to balance treble and bass requires a patient search each time I try a different guitar.
I've also had fun using two omni mics mounted on the instrument. I play fingerstyle and the difference in the tonal balance of the two mics really emphasizes the separation of the thumb lines on the lower strings and the fingers playing the trebles.
I'm using a pair of nice old Countryman EM-101 lav mics, but there are a world of low cost miniature omnis out there.
Fran
I've also had fun using two omni mics mounted on the instrument. I play fingerstyle and the difference in the tonal balance of the two mics really emphasizes the separation of the thumb lines on the lower strings and the fingers playing the trebles.
I'm using a pair of nice old Countryman EM-101 lav mics, but there are a world of low cost miniature omnis out there.
Fran
-
- Fran Guidry
Poster - Posts: 69 Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:00 am Location: Walnut Creek, CA, USA
Re: Rode nt3 or Rode m3?
If I may suggest an alternative approach, rather than the mic consider the guitar:
http://www.godinguitars.com/godinmultnylonseriesp.htm
or possibly another nylon acoustic-electric suitable to playing style.
I'm no orthodox classician, more of a fingerfumblestylist, but have always been well pleased with my Multiac nylon, and the Duet models with XLR are very recording friendly. I play a Nylon SA model, but were I truly a classical player looking for a mic'ing solution I might choose the Encore model.
Probably more than want to spend, but a good mic and effective acoustic treatment aren't necessarily cheap either.
http://www.godinguitars.com/godinmultnylonseriesp.htm
or possibly another nylon acoustic-electric suitable to playing style.
I'm no orthodox classician, more of a fingerfumblestylist, but have always been well pleased with my Multiac nylon, and the Duet models with XLR are very recording friendly. I play a Nylon SA model, but were I truly a classical player looking for a mic'ing solution I might choose the Encore model.
Probably more than want to spend, but a good mic and effective acoustic treatment aren't necessarily cheap either.
