NEW RODE NTG-3 shotgun.
 

There's a new generation RODE NTG-3 shotgun coming. 48V, no battery, no low cut or on/off switch to get in the signal path. With very low self noise figures my guess is it it'll be really nice and transparent.

2cm shorter than an NTG-2 with an aluminum tube/case for protection, nice move that.

Cheers.

You sound like a salesman Al !

A Rode fan
 

Rode gives good "bang for the buck" and I will be anxious to see what they come up with next. Thanks for the heads up.

That's interesting- 2cm shorter but without battery? So the pre-capsule part of the tube is a little longer than the NTG-2, yes? Also, I'd be surprised if, when not in use, the low-cut filter existed in the circuit, but I might be wrong, of course.

Jeez that bad huh :)

Well, if I Google "rode ntg-3" all the hits seem to be from you :-)

But thanks for the info, I like the Rodes. They are a good level of quality and price for most of us.

Hi Col, it's not that often anyone gets the chance to be so proud of the home team, but we all are here.

The NTG-3 is a step up again, how big a step, we're about to find out :)
Cheers.

I love my NTG2 so much, I tought it could never be surpassed!

Robert,

A Schoeps CMIT will easily surpass an NTG-1 or NTG-2.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I'm pretty happy with my NTG-2, but then it is just slightly cheaper than the Schoeps. One would imagine the extra $2000 would mean a slight step up in quality!

The CMIT lists for $1999.00 in USD so it's not really $2000 more.

Regards,

Ty Ford

To evaluate quality, I recommend this equation:

QUALITY_TO_YOU = PRODUCT_QUALITY * (YOUR_OVERALL_AUDIO_BUDGET - PRODUCT_COST)

In other words, if a product is costs more than your overall audio budget, it has negative value - to you. And the better that unaffordable product is, the more it hurts not to have it, so it harms the quality of your life even more than an expensive crappy product. ;)

On the other hand, if you can afford a top-quality product and still have money left for other goodies, well, life is good!

I'd also say that product quality has an S-shaped curve. An excellent product is usually only marginally better than a great product, and a moderately crappy product is still crap. The steep part of the curve is between "not bad" and "great."

All this boils down to just two rules:
1) Get the greatest products that you can comfortably afford and
2) Never buy crap!

But I think there is, with everything, a point of diminishing return.

Is a $20 bottle of wine better than a $4 bottle? To my tastes, yes. Is a $400 bottle better than a $20? Probably not for my level of decernment.

I used to do competitive target shooting. I had a very nice rifle that cost about $900. Most of the top shooters were shooting guns that were in the $5000 range. I could borrow their guns, but my score would stay the same --I was the limiting factor, not my gun.

Summary - At the bottom of any price range is something that is probably unacceptable for anyones use. As you keep going up the scale, you will find a perfectly adequate piece of equipment for what you are doing and at that point your skill is more important than the equipment. A top of the line mic does nothing to save a production that is poorly boomed, poorly mixed, poorly captured, poorly lit, poorly exposed etc. As your skill increases, and all other production values increase with it, top end gear may make a difference.

I have had this discussion a hundred times. Here's the deal. If you can hear the difference but decide not to give yourself the chance, you have just shot yourself in the foot. End of story.

Yes, you can render the experiment quite bogus by misusing the CMIT. For example, expecting it to perform well in an overly reverberant space. Similarly, don't expect it to sound good if you stick it on a camera. This is a boom mic, not a magic wand. It wants to be used properly.

Seasoned pros can hear the difference, so it is obviously there. We're not talking subjective "taste" here. We're talking what a piece of gear can do. If you decide not to pursue a piece of gear that you'll buy once and use for the next 20 years, fine. Just make sure you own that decision.

One obvious alternative would be to rent one for a few days. If you can't hear that it make a very big difference, then you really DO need to hire a sound person. If you DO hear the difference, you know what to do.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Here is a simple, straight forward review of the virtues of the SCHOEPS CMIT 5U:
http://www.dv.com/reviews/reviews_it...leId=189400355

I respectfully disagree here. You (or "seasoned pros") may very well be able to discern a difference, but it may still be subjective, and a matter of "taste"... at least for any given application.

The limiting device is sometimes the rendering device to your ear. I doubt many could hear the difference between a Rode and a Schoeps on a 3" mono TV speaker, or through laptop speakers for example. Playback on a THX certified cinema screen however (or even just a decent pair of headphones) and I would hope anyone could tell the difference.

Home cinema is getting better and better. 3" mono TV speakers are disappearing.

Having said that, I don't own a Schoeps and the indie productions I work on are happy with the sound of a 20 year old 415T and Oktava MK012 which I do own.

The only thing I find strange is that whenever someone talks about how great a $200-400 mic is performing for them, there ALWAYS seems to be someone to come along and say that it's nothing compared to a Schoeps, or a Neumann or something else that sells for 3x as much.

I don't think anyone is doubting that, but it's for a different market and someone with a higher budget. Obviously people shopping for Rode mics are interested in a great mic for a great value, they're not claiming it's the cream of the crop.

I for one am quite interested in what Rode has to offer with their NTG-3 as I don't use shotgun mics very often this may be a good secondary mic for those rare occasions.

I understand what each person's points are, what I don't understand is why the Schoep's would be brought up.

Obviously these two pieces of equipment are for completely different audiences otherwise they would be more similarly priced. The fact that they are both shotgun mics is the extent to their similarities. They most likely will be used for different purposes with different end media outputs in mind.

No one can argue that a $2000 mic will outperform a $300 one. But how can they be compared together? Only a $2000 mic can be compared to others in its price range, and the same for a $300 one.

When I was looking for audio equipment, the Schoeps mic alone was $1500 out of my price range so it wasn't even a consideration. Why would one's decision that it sounds better suddenly have a factor? This is such a pointless comparison.

The Rode mics perform superbly for the amount you put into them. And about three months ago I noticed on their website that it said that the shockmounts could fit the "NTG-1, NTG-2, and NTG-3" so its about time this one is coming out!

...and "seasoned pros" may well be able to afford $2000 for one microphone. Us enthusiastic amateurs have to make do with what we can get, unless you have more disposable income than me!

I'm sure if this was more than a hobby I'd have a whole cupboard full of $2000+ microphones just waiting to be used. As it is, I (and others) can only dream, and meantime we have to make do with more affordable offerings.

But yes, I understand Ty's orginal response to "nothing outperforms the Rode". The original statement should maybe have been "nothing in the $250 price bracket can outperform the Rode"

Shotgun mic and stand recommendation
 

I've been following the threads on mic conversations for a while and think you all are my best source for deciding upon which shotgun mic to buy and the appropriate stand to go with it. I need the mic for video documentary productions, primarily for interviews where I want ambient wilderness sound and in some instances two folks talking together at the same time about an issue, like in real dialogue. I use a lavalier mic for indoor interviews.

My camera is the Panasonic AGDVX100b.

I've been impressed with everything I've been hearing and researching about the AT 897, but before buying wanted to pop in and get some good advice. Is this still one of the best values?

Here are my questions about the mic:
My docs deal with issues of conservation in Costa Rica, so I'm in the hot, humid tropical rainforest shooting, and it's now rainy season. I have protective rain gear for my camera, but what about the mic -- is the AT 897 a good mic for these weather conditions? I've been using the Panasonic shotgun mic designed for the 100b, but I want to step up another notch with my audio.

If I go with the AT 897, what do I need to buy to protect it while shooting in the rain? I'm thinking an umbrella would probably suffice, but am not sure.

Will the AT 897 withstand high heat, high humidity?

Is there a better choice for these conditions than the AT 897?

If I get the AT897, is there a particular stand you recommend for outdoor field shoots? I've been looking at tripod, telescoping stands. The jungle is anything but level ground, so I need something sturdy, but I also need something lightweight, as I haul my equipment through the rainforest on my back and shoulders for hours at a stretch.

Wow! This is a lot I know, but I'm looking for some sound advice.

'persactly!

Regards,

Ty Ford

Hi Jeanette and welcome. You're better off starting a new thread for your questions as you've posted them here. It's called 'off topic' or worse 'hi-jacking the thread' not a good idea as others will want to find the same answers you'll get...by your thread title :)

Cheers.

Mike C.,
You're right about the law of diminishing returns generally. The CMIT 5U really is on a another level though. I'm not kidding. That mic is remarkable.

I have no doubt about that, Marco. My point was that for any given application, there is a "good enough" product and ANY given product has other characteristics, beyond the technical, that make it good or bad for any specific application. For mic's, things like size, reliability and ability to withstand abuse apply to the equation in certain situation.

I have done lot of work in, over and around water, hazardous waste sites, disaster scenes etc. A nice sounding, but rugged "chevy" mic at a price that won't kiil me if it gets dropped overboard or the muff gets caught on a hunk of scrap metal, works far better for that purpose than a $2,000 "ferrari" mic.

That's where something like an AKG Blueline or Rode can come in handy even if the mainstay of your kit is something like the Schoeps

By all means, buy a Schoeps if/when you can afford a Schoeps. In the meantime, buy and use what you can afford. It's better to have a serviceable-but-less-than-perfect mic and use it for a while than it is to have no mic whatsoever. Silence is rarely an option these days. :)

Mics tend to hold their value pretty well, so you can always sell the cheaper mic for almost what you paid for it when the time to buy the Schoeps arrives--or hold onto it for use in dangerous situations, as Steve suggests.

I'd like some info on the new NTG-3.

To be confirmed, the RRP will be $US599.
Cheers.

At that price point, you could make a pretty good argument to bite the bullet and go for the US$1,000-$2,000 level mics.

Wait and see how good the NTG-3 is. If it follows RODEs pattern and it's about twice the price of the NTG-2, then they've got something out of the er...tube.

Cheers.