| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Vocalvoodoo
Contributor IV
Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 106
Location: St. Louis
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:50 am Post subject: MKH416 vs Rode NTG-3 shootout (sound files included) |
 |
|
Both mics are brand new. Each are running into a Metric Halo ULN-2 mic pre recorded at the same time. The files have been level matched because the NTG-3 is a couple dB hotter than the 416.
Links to both mp3's and 48k/24bit wav files
www.vocalvoodoo.com/mkh416.mp3
www.vocalvoodoo.com/ntg-3.mp3
www.vocalvoodoo.com/mkh416.wav
www.vocalvoodoo.com/ntg-3.wav
I've also included visual representation of each mic in relation to each other though Logic's Match EQ. Niether represents the actual frequency plot of either mic.
In the pic below the MKH was used as the reference/template mic and the graph shows what frequencies would need to be boosted or cut for the NTG to match the sound of the MKH, in my studio on that particular read.
The following pic is the exact opposite. NTG used as the reference/template
_________________
Josh Mahler
http://www.vocalvoodoo.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
captain54
Lucky 700
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 744
Location: chicago
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From your Match EQ comparisons, I conclude, that:
1) the NTG -3 is almost +10db at around 65hz and below, compared the the 416
2) the 416 is bit more present and "sparkly" compared to the NTG-3
3) the NTG - 3 is almost 5db hotter @ 17khz and above (which I'm not sure we can even hear, anyway)
4) assuming sibilance is in the 4khz range, both mics are equally sibilant
Throw a hi-pass filter on the NTG-3 @75hz and these mics would be very nearly identical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Sommer
A Hundred Dozen
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 1222
Location: Boss Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I concur with the Captain. I would also suggest about 3dB reduction @ 100Hz on the NTG-3.
And yes we can hear 17kHz. Unless you've been blasting the iPod earbuds.
Edit:
Just did an A - B and tried to make some adjustment on the low end. They are both almost identical at the low end 100Hz reduction helps but I'm getting some resonance in the files and it could be reflection from your desk and it's coloring the lows. Where I could hear a little difference was in the highs, just a tad (a technical term) more shimmer in the highs of the 416.
These are so close it I would say they are both the same mic. I was blindly going back and forth between the files and at one point I could not tell one from the other.
Good enough for me.
_________________
The Blog:
http://voiceoveraudio.blogspot.com/
Acoustics are counter-intuitive. If one thing is certain about acoustics, it is that if anything seems obvious it is probably wrong.
Last edited by Mike Sommer on Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:33 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
captain54
Lucky 700
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 744
Location: chicago
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yes yes yes....that bump @ 100hz on the NTG-3 is plain as day... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vocalvoodoo
Contributor IV
Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 106
Location: St. Louis
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was really surprised how close they sounded too. I didn't think the NTG was even close until I put them side by side.
Hey Mike, where would you say the resonance centers? If I sweep the lows I am hearing some nastiness aright around 150hz. Is this around the same area you're hearing it at?
_________________
Josh Mahler
http://www.vocalvoodoo.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob Ellis
M&M
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2385
Location: Detroit
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
To my ear, listening to the unprocessed files, the Rode seemed to be---in the beginning at least----picking up a little more room echo.
Last edited by Rob Ellis on Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SkinnyJohnny
Backstage Pass
Joined: 12 Aug 2007
Posts: 462
Location: Asheville, NC
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm hearing the same as you guys. Those two really sound close with the exception on that low end boost on the NTG-3.
_________________
John Weeks Voice Overs
www.johnweeksvoiceovers.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Sommer
A Hundred Dozen
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 1222
Location: Boss Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vocalvoodoo wrote: |
If I sweep the lows I am hearing some nastiness aright around 150hz. Is this around the same area you're hearing it at? |
Yeah that seemed to be it. I heard it the moment I hit play.
This is why you should never work at a desk, you will get slap back from the reflective top or resonance or base build up from the corner you make by pushing the desk against the wall.
_________________
The Blog:
http://voiceoveraudio.blogspot.com/
Acoustics are counter-intuitive. If one thing is certain about acoustics, it is that if anything seems obvious it is probably wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dayo
Cinquecento
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 544
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike Sommer wrote: | | Vocalvoodoo wrote: |
If I sweep the lows I am hearing some nastiness aright around 150hz. Is this around the same area you're hearing it at? |
Yeah that seemed to be it. I heard it the moment I hit play.
This is why you should never work at a desk, you will get slap back from the reflective top or resonance or base build up from the corner you make by pushing the desk against the wall. |
Hi Mike
Sometimes those early reflections can be helpful - agree? I must add that I haven't heard the soundfiles in this case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Sommer
A Hundred Dozen
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 1222
Location: Boss Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Dayo"] | Mike Sommer wrote: |
Sometimes those early reflections can be helpful - agree? |
No, that's why being in a small booth is a bad idea, and why they need so much treatment. It is also why working at a desk is not a good idea either.
You want to be a signal sound source in this case- no reflection, no echo.
This kind of slap back or reflection can color the way we sound by enhancing frequencies, or by canceling or eliminating frequencies because they are reflecting and entering the mic at exactly the same time 180° out of phase.
_________________
The Blog:
http://voiceoveraudio.blogspot.com/
Acoustics are counter-intuitive. If one thing is certain about acoustics, it is that if anything seems obvious it is probably wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dayo
Cinquecento
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 544
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Mike Sommer"] | Dayo wrote: | | Mike Sommer wrote: |
Sometimes those early reflections can be helpful - agree? |
No, that's why being in a small booth is a bad idea, and why they need so much treatment. It is also why working at a desk is not a good idea either.
You want to be a signal sound source in this case- no reflection, no echo.
This kind of slap back or reflection can color the way we sound by enhancing frequencies, or by canceling or eliminating frequencies because they are reflecting and entering the mic at exactly the same time 180° out of phase. |
Agree; small booths very very bad idea. I was trying to say that in an otherwise well controlled room an early reflection from a hard surface like a desk or copy stand can add a helpful, encouraging resonance. I know at least one studio designer who eschews all foam treatment on desktops and copy stands for that reason. A very dead room (and I'm talking borderline anechoic) is actually uncomfortable to listen to and perform in.
Sent you a PM by the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Sommer
A Hundred Dozen
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 1222
Location: Boss Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dayo wrote: | | Agree; small booths very very bad idea. I was trying to say that in an otherwise well controlled room an early reflection from a hard surface like a desk or copy stand can add a helpful, encouraging resonance. |
In a controlled and tuned room this can make a big difference. This is why the larger the room the better the sound. When you start getting in a room over 1500 cubic feet, you start moving into a world where you can start incorporating all kinds of features that allows sound comes alive, and tickles the ear. The audio that comes out of these spaces sound finished and fully produced. One can say they even have their own flavor.
| Quote: | | I know at least one studio designer who eschews all foam treatment on desktops and copy stands for that reason. A very dead room (and I'm talking borderline anechoic) is actually uncomfortable to listen to and perform in. |
It's a fine line. Sometimes all you can do is put on head phones in a situation like that.
The biggest problem is sucking up the bass without sucking out all the life out of the room. There are ways to do it, but it takes time and a lot of and a willingness to get it just right-- and it cost money.
_________________
The Blog:
http://voiceoveraudio.blogspot.com/
Acoustics are counter-intuitive. If one thing is certain about acoustics, it is that if anything seems obvious it is probably wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
