I am the sound section of a small DV project group. We just finised
shooting a film and are ready to go into post. Right now I have a
C1000s as the indoor boom mic (I know, not exactly something to boast
about), and oddly, it wasn't until this film that I realized the
harshness of this mic enough to want to replace it. So I'm looking for
a budget (close to or under $300 new or used) hypercardioid to use not
only for booming on set but also for foley, ADR, and some field
gathering.

I read about, listened to, and heard rave reviews of the Rode NT-3 from
www.dvestore.com, they recommend it strongly as a low-budget
hypercardioid for overhead booming for DV. It seems to be a good buy,
although there are complaints about its weight.

Has anyone used one for booming? Do you think I would hear enough
difference in the sound to justify the purchase? I also double as the
music composer and recordist for the group, so how does this mic
perform in the studio (for instance, compared to the NT1-A, I have one
of those already)? I would be recording either direct to a digidesign
mbox or through a Yamaha mg16/4, out the inserts, and into the mbox.

Thanks a lot. -- Matt G.

"Matt" wrote ...
I am the sound section of a small DV project group. ...

I read about, listened to, and heard rave reviews of
the Rode NT-3 ...

Has anyone used one for booming? ...

Note that the people who do most of the booming are found
in another newsgroup: news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Matt" wrote ...
I am the sound section of a small DV project group. ...

I read about, listened to, and heard rave reviews of
the Rode NT-3 ...

Has anyone used one for booming? ...

Note that the people who do most of the booming are found
in another newsgroup: news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound

Also note that those boomers in that other group are generally slow to
respond 'cause their arms usually hurt so much they can't type.

I've found the NT3 to be extremely sensitive to air movement. You'd
probably need a good wind jammer...


Daniel

I've heard a few clips of it and it sounds pretty nice. I'm
thinking of getting one.
And it's nice that you can put a butt plug transmitter
on the end of it, for when it's on a pole/stand.

On 27 May 2006 14:32:30 -0700, "Matt"
wrote:

I read about, listened to, and heard rave reviews of the Rode NT-3 from
www.dvestore.com, they recommend it strongly as a low-budget
hypercardioid for overhead booming for DV. It seems to be a good buy,
although there are complaints about its weight.

Watch the video demonstration on that site. Though recommending the
NT-3 as an indoor boom mic they don't demonstrate that use. They show
an on-camera mic, sounding predictably terrible. Then a NT-3 on a
stand near the performer. But not on a boom. Odd.

"On a stand near the performer but not on a boom"? Same thing, isn't
it?

What impressed me is how far off the NT3 was [on the stand] but it
still sounded "on mic", like the NT3 must have quite good
reach.

On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:16:34 -0400, wrote
(in article .com):

"On a stand near the performer but not on a boom"? Same thing, isn't
it?

What impressed me is how far off the NT3 was [on the stand] but it
still sounded "on mic", like the NT3 must have quite good
reach.


Not really. Positioning is very "inchy" or "millimetery."

Above, on the side, below; each give you different sound.

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Based on very limited experience hearing the mic it's seems to be
pretty
well-rounded in the frequency responce. I'm thinking about getting
one.
I just wish someone made a furry for it.

wrote:
"On a stand near the performer but not on a boom"? Same thing, isn't
it?

What impressed me is how far off the NT3 was [on the stand] but it
still sounded "on mic", like the NT3 must have quite good
reach.

Was it outside?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Matt wrote:
I am the sound section of a small DV project group. We just finised
shooting a film and are ready to go into post. Right now I have a
C1000s as the indoor boom mic (I know, not exactly something to boast
about), and oddly, it wasn't until this film that I realized the
harshness of this mic enough to want to replace it. So I'm looking for
a budget (close to or under $300 new or used) hypercardioid to use not
only for booming on set but also for foley, ADR, and some field
gathering.

I'd look at the Audio-Technica AT4053. It's got a solid and tight
pattern, and it works.

I read about, listened to, and heard rave reviews of the Rode NT-3 from
www.dvestore.com, they recommend it strongly as a low-budget
hypercardioid for overhead booming for DV. It seems to be a good buy,
although there are complaints about its weight.

I have never used one, but it would be interesting to try. Check one
out for the weekend and see how deep the nulls are first of all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"What impressed me is how far off the NT3 was [on the stand] but it
still sounded "on mic", like the NT3 must have quite good
reach.



Was it outside?"

No, inside.

wrote:
"What impressed me is how far off the NT3 was [on the stand] but it
still sounded "on mic", like the NT3 must have quite good
reach.

Was it outside?"

No, inside.

What kind of room? The issue here is that in a dry room you can pull
any mike way back and it sounds fine. In a room with lots of midrange
slapback, even the tightest Schoeps needs to be in pretty close.

I really wish there was a single IEC standard for measuring directionality
and presenting it on the data sheet, so you could actually make some
comparisons without having to test them yourself. But there is not.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 29 May 2006 07:16:34 -0700, wrote:

"On a stand near the performer but not on a boom"? Same thing, isn't
it?

What impressed me is how far off the NT3 was [on the stand] but it
still sounded "on mic", like the NT3 must have quite good
reach.

Far off? The mic was above the female artiste's neckline. And she
wasn't showing much cleavage :-)

Was it outside?"

"No, inside.

What kind of room? The issue here is that in a dry room you can pull
any mike way back and it sounds fine. In a room with lots of midrange
slapback, even the tightest Schoeps needs to be in pretty close."


I'd guess the room was dry.

On 30 May 2006 17:42:29 -0700, wrote:

What kind of room? The issue here is that in a dry room you can pull
any mike way back and it sounds fine. In a room with lots of midrange
slapback, even the tightest Schoeps needs to be in pretty close."

Why not view the video? It's quite short.

I couldn't quite make out the point. They puffed the Rode for indoor
boom use, then demonstrated a mid-shot in a very live room where even
this would probably sound bad. If a close in-shot mic is acceptable
it's a different game anyway.

What impressed me is how far off the NT3 was [on the stand] but it
still sounded "on mic", like the NT3 must have quite good
reach.

Far off? The mic was above the female artiste's neckline. And she
wasn't showing much cleavage :-)


She must have a 2'-3' long neck then, huh?

What impressed me is how far off the NT3 was [on the stand] but it
still sounded "on mic", like the NT3 must have quite good
reach.

Far off? The mic was above the female artiste's neckline. And she
wasn't showing much cleavage :-)



I was referring to a video of a *male* speaking, where the mic was
about 3' off.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Because today I am on a Televideo 910 terminal made in the late 1970s.

Why?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote ...
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Because today I am on a Televideo 910 terminal made in the late
1970s.

Why?

Why not? Someone who uses the name "arcane" should
have no difficulty understanding the use of computing/
communication equipment which is older than some
people reading this message! :-)

This is Usenet, not "the internet" and certainly not the
"WorldWide Web". Of course, you know the difference
between the three.

Bob Cain wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Because today I am on a Televideo 910 terminal made in the late 1970s.

Why?

Because I _like_ it.
--scott
(On a Hewlett-Packard HP262A right now)

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Because today I am on a Televideo 910 terminal made in the late 1970s.
Why?

Because I _like_ it.

No accounting for taste. :-)

What do you drive, BTW?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Because today I am on a Televideo 910 terminal made in the late 1970s.
Why?

Because I _like_ it.

No accounting for taste. :-)

What do you drive, BTW?

An '83 BMW. It's only got 230,000 miles on it. I finally got rid of the
Chrysler at 480,000 miles because I got tired of welding transmission
cases all the time.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 31 May 2006 07:37:31 -0700, wrote:


I was referring to a video of a *male* speaking, where the mic was
about 3' off.

You just watched the first bit then? There were various microphones
decorating that set. Who knows WHAT was being used?

On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:08:05 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Because today I am on a Televideo 910 terminal made in the late 1970s.

Why?

Just to be ornery. And it probably feels analogue :-)

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in news:e5k5o3$o6c$1
@panix2.panix.com:

Because today I am on a Televideo 910 terminal made in the late 1970s.

If you ever need a replacement or parts, I think I have one in the closet
next to my Heathkit H89 terminal and shoebox CP/M computer (8" disks).

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:08:05 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Because today I am on a Televideo 910 terminal made in the late
1970s.

Why?

Just to be ornery. And it probably feels analogue :-)

No, distinctly digital, with highly quantised character set !

geoff

DJS wrote:
The Sennheiser e614 is worth a look, too. Pretty flat on the top end,
well-built, good nulls, about $200. I haven't used the Rode.

DJS


Guitar Center (the only store near me that's likely to have a variety
of microphones) doesn't stock either of these, and if I order one in I
HAVE to buy it, so I really can't try them out, which is why I'm asking
you guys about this. Thanks a lot for the info on the Rode. Has anyone
else tried the Sennheiser e614 (not that I don't trust you DJS ;-D)? It
is super- rather than hyper-cardioid. It also seems like I'd get more
hiss from it because it has a smaller diaphragm; on the other hand it's
undoubtedly much lighter than the Rode. Opinions?

Thanks as usual. -- Matt G.

I ordered an NT3 that's supposed to be in tomorrow. Haven't
actually been able to hear one before buying.
If I have any impressions I'll post it.

I ordered an NT3 that's supposed to be in tomorrow. Haven't
actually been able to hear one before buying.
If I have any impressions I'll post it.

Thanks a lot. If you could even email me with what you find that would
be great.
Thanks. -- Matt G.

wrote:
I ordered an NT3 that's supposed to be in tomorrow. Haven't
actually been able to hear one before buying.
If I have any impressions I'll post it.

Matt wrote:
Thanks a lot. If you could even email me with what you find that would
be great.
Thanks. -- Matt G.

wrote:
I ordered an NT3 that's supposed to be in tomorrow. Haven't
actually been able to hear one before buying.
If I have any impressions I'll post it.


I'll probably just post it here if I have any impressons that stand
out.
Now, you were mostly thinking of indoor booming for
dialog ... is this correct?

Got it in and took a brief look at it today. Can't really say anything
about how it sounds yet. I did notice that it seems quite easily
affected by any breeze, such as a fan indoors. Seems very sensitive
to a window fan at about 8 feet, from the front, the sides, and even
with the rear of the mic toward the fan. I have a slow moving
kitchen ceiling fan and when standing a few feet under it, holding
the mic, the moving air was rumbling it. It comes with a thin
foam "wind cover". I tried it with the cover on and off and it made
almost no difference at all -- maybe just very slightly, is all.
Moving it about with my arm in a dead-air room it rumbled it.
You'd need fur for sure outside. My big concern would be
that even fur wouldn't keep it in check in a modest breeze,
but can't say for sure. I don't believe they make a zepplin
for this, such as they do for many of the thinner mic's.
I compared it to an ME64 against a breeze and they were
about the same -- but with an ME64 you could get a
Baby Ball Gag zepplin for it because it's not so fat as the
NT3.

Seems to be very directional. I talked toward the mic while
slowly turning it and the volume of my voice dropped off
real fast. At 45 degrees off axis it was down 6dB.
At 90 degrees off it was down 12dB. At 180 degrees
it was down 15dB.

Thanks a lot pandora, this is very helpful. I think I'm gonna need to
try one out.

Thanks to everyone who responded! -- Matt G.

wrote:
Got it in and took a brief look at it today. Can't really say anything
about how it sounds yet. I did notice that it seems quite easily
affected by any breeze, such as a fan indoors. Seems very sensitive
to a window fan at about 8 feet, from the front, the sides, and even
with the rear of the mic toward the fan. I have a slow moving
kitchen ceiling fan and when standing a few feet under it, holding
the mic, the moving air was rumbling it. It comes with a thin
foam "wind cover". I tried it with the cover on and off and it made
almost no difference at all -- maybe just very slightly, is all.
Moving it about with my arm in a dead-air room it rumbled it.
You'd need fur for sure outside. My big concern would be
that even fur wouldn't keep it in check in a modest breeze,
but can't say for sure. I don't believe they make a zepplin
for this, such as they do for many of the thinner mic's.
I compared it to an ME64 against a breeze and they were
about the same -- but with an ME64 you could get a
Baby Ball Gag zepplin for it because it's not so fat as the
NT3.

Seems to be very directional. I talked toward the mic while
slowly turning it and the volume of my voice dropped off
real fast. At 45 degrees off axis it was down 6dB.
At 90 degrees off it was down 12dB. At 180 degrees
it was down 15dB.

just beware that directional mics like hypers, supers, are EXTREMELY
susceptible to wind noise, and no zeppelin / wind sock will fix the
problem entirely, and probably not even satisfactorily.

you brace for the shaft, and you squint.

pucker up, buttercup.

djs



wrote:
Got it in and took a brief look at it today. Can't really say anything
about how it sounds yet. I did notice that it seems quite easily
affected by any breeze, such as a fan indoors. Seems very sensitive
to a window fan at about 8 feet, from the front, the sides, and even
with the rear of the mic toward the fan. I have a slow moving
kitchen ceiling fan and when standing a few feet under it, holding
the mic, the moving air was rumbling it. It comes with a thin
foam "wind cover". I tried it with the cover on and off and it made
almost no difference at all -- maybe just very slightly, is all.
Moving it about with my arm in a dead-air room it rumbled it.
You'd need fur for sure outside. My big concern would be
that even fur wouldn't keep it in check in a modest breeze,
but can't say for sure. I don't believe they make a zepplin
for this, such as they do for many of the thinner mic's.
I compared it to an ME64 against a breeze and they were
about the same -- but with an ME64 you could get a
Baby Ball Gag zepplin for it because it's not so fat as the
NT3.

Seems to be very directional. I talked toward the mic while
slowly turning it and the volume of my voice dropped off
real fast. At 45 degrees off axis it was down 6dB.
At 90 degrees off it was down 12dB. At 180 degrees
it was down 15dB.

DJS wrote:
just beware that directional mics like hypers, supers, are EXTREMELY
susceptible to wind noise, and no zeppelin / wind sock will fix the
problem entirely, and probably not even satisfactorily.

you brace for the shaft, and you squint.

pucker up, buttercup.

djs


Yes, my NT3 seems extremely susceptible to wind. And I don't know of
anyone making a zepplin or furry specifically for it.
I bet I could find a furry that would fit if I looked around.
For use outdoors I think I'd look for a mic where
there are good wind protections made for it.

On a related note, is it the more directional a mic is the
more sensitive it is to wind?
Are the omnis the least sensitive to wind?

I wouldn't be using the mic outdoors, we have just started doing an
"independent study" with a local media group (basically they just give
us a lighting kit, a mic/boom, cables, and a little guidance and say
have fun) and the mic provided is an me66/k6/windsock combo, so that
works just fine outdoors. The NT3 will mainly be for indoor booming,
voiceovers for indoor scenes, and foley since my C1000s is crap (but
you all already know that).

I hope, however, that the mic won't be so sensitive that even indoor
air patterns/slow boom movement will affect it. It would be kind of
ridiculous to need a thick windscreen inside.

-- Matt G.

wrote:
DJS wrote:
just beware that directional mics like hypers, supers, are EXTREMELY
susceptible to wind noise, and no zeppelin / wind sock will fix the
problem entirely, and probably not even satisfactorily.

you brace for the shaft, and you squint.

pucker up, buttercup.

djs


Yes, my NT3 seems extremely susceptible to wind. And I don't know of
anyone making a zepplin or furry specifically for it.
I bet I could find a furry that would fit if I looked around.
For use outdoors I think I'd look for a mic where
there are good wind protections made for it.

On a related note, is it the more directional a mic is the
more sensitive it is to wind?
Are the omnis the least sensitive to wind?

I hope, however, that the mic won't be so sensitive that even indoor
air patterns/slow boom movement will affect it. It would be kind of
ridiculous to need a thick windscreen inside.

-- Matt G.


I'll check the "slow booming" and get back.

If things go as planned I'll be making a recording
with it this weekend, though just on a stand, not
a boom.

I hope, however, that the mic won't be so sensitive that even indoor
air patterns/slow boom movement will affect it. It would be kind of
ridiculous to need a thick windscreen inside.

-- Matt G.



Okay. I moved the mic about as if slow booming and my opinion
is that you would need probably a furry covering on it for
indoors. I tried the foam cover that comes with it but that
really doesn't help much -- maybe just a very little
bit. Maybe a thicker foam cover.
How about a Mic-Muff?

http://www.olsenaudio.com/

You could measure the size needed and get one of
their cylindrical Muffs. You put the Muff over the
NT3's foam cover.