Microphone Upgrade: Rode NTG4 to NTG3 - is it worth it?

[teclis22]

Hi Guys,

audio noob here.
I use a microphone for speech only. My usecases are

Discord (private with friends)
Skype (for work)
WebEx/Zoom (University)

thats about 90% of the time

Maybe some book reading for Lets reads for friends

thats about 10% of the time.

Currently i use a NTG4 wich is above my head in roughly a 45degree angle and depending how i sit (straight or leand back) approx 18 to 25 inches away from me. I move my head between 4 screens.

Set up is :

NTG4 - DBX 286s - DBX 131 - Yamahaa MG12xu

The sound can at times be somewhat flat. Plus its a bit echo-y.
So my question if its worth to upgrade to the NTG3. I like the sounds on youtube reviews, no doubt.

I can return my ntg4 till the end of the month. Keeping 2 Mics is just entirely out of the question.

Thanks a lot for any feedback.

[zenguitar]

Welcome to the SOS forums.

Others may comment on the mic choices, but I thought I would start with this...

The sound can at times be somewhat flat. Plus its a bit echo-y.

You need to define what you mean by 'flat'. It could well be that this could easily be fixed by some simple EQ tweaks.

And microphones have many qualities, but being echo-y isn't one of them. The human ear has thousands of years of experience listening to human voices which means that the brain is very good at filtering out room acoustics when we are talking. Microphones and recording systems don't have the benefit of the brain filtering out the room acoustics so they accurately record the sound of the room acoustics.

So when you hear that echo-y sound in your recordings you are hearing the actual sound of your voice in that room. You can't fix this by changing microphones, you have to do some work to control the room acoustics when you are recording.

This needn't be expensive, it could be as simple as using one or two cheap duvets draped over microphone stands or cheap clothing rails to control the room acoustics.

Andy

[Tim Gillett]

The sound can at times be somewhat flat. Plus its a bit echo-y.

It's so much easier to let the sound speak for itself. Any chance of an audio example?

Tim.

[Mike Stranks]

Both these mics are 'shotgun' mics.

Excellent though they are, they're not really designed for use indoors. Because of their design you can get all sorts of sound artefacts - especially if the room is not acoustically treated or you're working relatively close to walls, ceilings etc.

In your situation I'd be looking for a good-quality hypercardioid such as the AT4053B... but there are plenty of other good hypercardioids about...

[Mike Stranks]

You might find this article helpful:

https://www.cined.com/put-away-the-shotgun-microphone-and-what-to-use-instead/

... and this video offers some practical suggestions...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-b_1gOYOEQ

[teclis22]

hi guys,
thanks for the replies and explanations.
I am on euro time zone (1pm here right now) and will upload 2 examples when i am back home at my place.

[Hugh Robjohns]

In regard to the question asked, the ntg5 is a better choice than the ntg3. Similar technology (still RF biased) but more advanced interference tube design and upgraded electronics result in better technical performance and sound quality. It costs slightly less than the ntg3 and comes with a good set of accessories too.

However, to answer the real problem you've outlined, as others have said a short shotgun mic (like any of the ntg models) really isn't the ideal choice for your situation. Your room acoustics are the real source of your problems. Swapping the mic won't fix that.

[teclis22]

Hi guys,

thank you very much for the replys.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ti3gnn2vc9i2n ... t.mp3?dl=0

here a short recording i just made.

Hmm okay so a shotgun isnt the right microphone. That does answer the original question with "no - not worth it".

That leads to question number 2:
What would be a better solution?

Impulsively i would say super cardioid or hyper cardiod (though i am not entirelysure of the differences there).

anyone has a mic recommendation up to 600€ (approx. 650USD). wich is really the total max i am willing to spend.

i will look up the suggested: AT4053B

[teclis22]

I have been reading on the provided links.
The ars technica is a super-cardioid microphone right?

https://hookeaudio.com/wp-content/uploa ... .59-PM.png

so there is less sound comming in from the rear as opposed to the hyper-cardiod if i read that diagramm correctly.
how do the sides compare ? i dont see much difference in the diagramms but admit i am not 100% sure how to read them.

sofar the AT seems to be a really good alternative to the ntg3 in my particular use case.

the other 2 suggested ones in the article are just out of my price range though

[Hugh Robjohns]

...super cardioid or hyper cardioid (though i am not entirely sure of the differences there).

There are very specific definitions (and maths) to describe a hyper-cardioid and a super-cardioid... but in brief, a hyper-cardioid is closer to a fig-8 and a super-cardioid is closer to a cardioid. So the hyper-cardioid has a slightly narrower frontal pick up angle, and a slightly larger rear lobe than the super-cardioid.

If you want the specifics:

1. Polar equations:
Hyper-cardioid = 0.25+0.75Cosθ -- Super-cardioid = 0.37+0.63Cosθ

2. Pickup Angles:
-3dB arc angle: Hyper-cardioid = 105° -- Super-cardioid = 115°
-6dB arc angle: Hyper-cardioid = 141° -- Super-cardioid = 156°

3. Relative Output Levels:
@90°: Hyper-cardioid = -12dB -- Super-cardioid = -8.6dB
@180°: Hyper-cardioid = -6dB -- Super-cardioid = -11.7dB

4. Null Angle:
Hyper-cardioid = 110° -- Super-cardioid = 126°

5. Directivity Index:
Hyper-cardioid = 6dB -- Super-cardioid = 5.7dB

6. Distance Factor:
Hyper-cardioid = 2 -- Super-cardioid = 1.9

So, point 1 documents the small but specific technical differences between their polar patterns. Point 2 illustrates the width of the frontal pickup arc in terms of the points where the sensitivity falls by either 3 or 6dB. The Hyper-cardioid is narrower than the Super-cardioid. Point 3 defines the sensitivity at the side and rear, with the hyper-cardioid being less sensitive at the side (ie narrower frontal lobe) but more sensitive at the rear (ie bigger rear lobe). Point 4 identifies the null angles (relative to the front axis) between the front and rear lobes, with the hyper-cardioid being a little further forward than the super-cardioid. Point 5 and Point 6 are really just alternative ways of identifying the same thing: the ratio of on-axis to ambient sound pickup, with the hyper-cardioid being very slightly more directional than a super-cardioid.

HTH

[Drew Stephenson]

Presumably there are also the attendant differences in proximity effect and handling noise?

[Hugh Robjohns]

Yes, but the difference between them is relatively small -- the hyper-cardioid having a greater proportion of pressure-gradient operation, so having a slightly stronger proximity effect and susceptibility to wind/handling noise the the super-cardioid. But I doubt most users would notice much difference.

It's the cosθ component of the polar equation that represents the pressure-gradient element. As a reference, the cardioid polar equation is 0.5+0.5cosθ, whereas the super- and hyper-cardioid are 0.63 and 0.75cosθ, respectively. (A full fig-8 is just cosθ, of course.)

[forumuser840717]

I've only skimmed through the thread so apologies if I missed something but given that the OP works moving across multiple screens, is inclined to lean back and forth, and is working in a live acoustic, how about trying any half decent head worn mic. It'd improve the room to direct sound ratio, and should reduce variation in position relative to the mic. Perhaps not ideal for the book reads but could be manageable with a bit of practice.

[Drew Stephenson]

Yes, but the difference between them is relatively small -- the hyper-cardioid having a greater proportion of pressure-gradient operation, so having a slightly stronger proximity effect and susceptibility to wind/handling noise the the super-cardioid. But I doubt most users would notice much difference.

It's the cosθ component of the polar equation that represents the pressure-gradient element. As a reference, the cardioid polar equation is 0.5+0.5cosθ, whereas the super- and hyper-cardioid are 0.63 and 0.75cosθ, respectively. (A full fig-8 is just cosθ, of course.)

Thanks Hugh!

[Tim Gillett]

I've only skimmed through the thread so apologies if I missed something but given that the OP works moving across multiple screens, is inclined to lean back and forth, and is working in a live acoustic, how about trying any half decent head worn mic. It'd improve the room to direct sound ratio, and should reduce variation in position relative to the mic. Perhaps not ideal for the book reads but could be manageable with a bit of practice.

I was thinking the same. Maybe add Bluetooth.