New Rode NTG-3

Marty Wein · July 9th, 2008, 11:42 AM

You lost me now. You have 88.89mm from the end of the mic to the vents/grill which is more than adequate considering that the INV-7 is only 70mm.

Ty Ford · July 9th, 2008, 11:43 AM

Marty's right about the length.

Mine showed up today via DHL from Sydney, AUS.

Far as I know, B&H is the only retailer in the US that has the mic today. I'm sure they won't have the exclusive for long.

If you want to hear the comparison I recorded an hour ago, go here:

http://idisk.mac.com/tyreeford-Public?view=web

Use the arrow on the right to download the file: TyFordNTG-3MKH416.mp3

Regards,

Ty Ford

Craig Irving · July 9th, 2008, 11:58 AM

Ty, thanks for putting that comparison together. I just listened to it, they both sound very similar to my ears.

What's your gut reaction. Is it a good mic? A fair substitute for a 416? Better or worse than you expected?

Jon Fairhurst · July 9th, 2008, 03:27 PM

Nice test, Ty.

To summarize...

* The 416 has some prominence in the low-mids that accentuates chest tones. The NTG-3 seemed a bit more neutral to my ears, but not necessarily as pleasing.

* The 416 is definitely narrower than the NTG-3. This can be good or bad, depending on the application.

* The NTG-3 has lower self noise. This was clear while watching the meters in Vegas 8. It's not a big difference, but I would say that the NTG-3 wins this point by a small margin.

* Regarding THD, both mics sounded very similar. Some crunch on the voice is pleasing - like a tube amp on a Stratocaster. Neither mic sounds harsh or transistory. The EQ curve is more noticeable than any difference in distortion.

* The 416 had a small bump at 45 degrees. The NTG-3 was a bit smoother. This isn't surprising. A wider pattern is typically smoother. Narrow patterns tend to have off-axis ripples.

* In the intro, I felt that the 416 had more of the hollow room sound than the NTG-3. I might have been misled by the fact that the 416 came after the dryer intro mic, so I really noticed the room sound. However, the narrow pattern of the 416 would be more susceptible to a hollow room sound, so that might be real.

My personal conclusion: The 416 would be superior for a single speaker with a good boom operator when outdoors. I like the bigger chest sound. When recording multiple people, or if the boom operator is sloppy, the NTG-3 might be the better choice. If I could only choose one for combined outdoor/indoor use, I would grab the NTG-3. You can always apply a bit of EQ to bump up the chest tones.

Given that the NTG-3 is ruggedized (in theory anyway; is it rugged in the real world?), and in a similar league with the 416 (not identical mind you, but the general sound quality is comparable), and the fact that the NTG-3 costs $700, vs. $1,100 for the 416 (at BH), I'd buy the NTG-3.

That said, the 416 has more street cred and is proven. In the video, world Rode is known for its low cost mics. If I were freelancing, rather than doing our own productions, I'd save my dimes and go for the well-regarded 416.

Frankly, if someone were to grab one of these mics, shoot a scene and ask me which one they used, I'd be hard pressed to tell. I'd listen for the low-mids, but with a bit of 300 Hz boost on the NTG-3 (or cut on the 416), I'd almost certainly get it wrong.

Thanks for the excellent test, Ty. You matched the levels nicely, so I'd say the playing field was 100% level and fair.

I'm curious to read your summary.

Ty Ford · July 9th, 2008, 04:58 PM

* In the intro, I felt that the 416 had more of the hollow room sound than the NTG-3. I might have been misled by the fact that the 416 came after the dryer intro mic, so I really noticed the room sound. However, the narrow pattern of the 416 would be more susceptible to a hollow room sound, so that might be real.

Jon,

Sharp ears. I cut the into after I had moved down into the studio and placed it at the beginning of the file. What you heard was the room, not the mic.

I've been "fooled" before the other way around. The first time I was down in the studio testing a mic I was thinking, "Wow, this sound really nice and tight. Excellent!"

Then it hit me, "Oh, right, I'm in the studio!"

Nice sounding room, even with the door at the top of the stairs open.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Jon Fairhurst · July 9th, 2008, 07:28 PM

The different room makes sense. I had assumed that it was a different mic in the same room. The dryness led me to believe it might be the E6, but the E6 typically doesn't have that much body. My next guess was a Schoeps 641 (since I know you favor it) with close proximity.

So, the first mic was the NTG-3 in the studio?

Someday you could do a game show called "Guess - That - Mic!"

Ty Ford · July 9th, 2008, 07:51 PM

Jon,

I think I had the NTG-3 up at the moment, but at the moment I can't be 100% certain.

The mystery will remain...but I'll probably be able to tell if I listen closely again.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Andy Wilkinson · July 14th, 2008, 02:25 PM

Another opinion (Allan's) on the new NTG-3 here.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=125837

I won't get mine until my new Sony PMW-EX3 gets delivered in a few weeks time. I admit I bought this mic "blind" (not heard). However, I have high opinions of Rode from my previous experience with their superb lower end mics (VM and SVM) ....and everything I'm beginning to hear and read suggests this one's gone to be a good one too.

July 9th, 2008, 11:43 AM	#32
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Marty's right about the length. Mine showed up today via DHL from Sydney, AUS. Far as I know, B&H is the only retailer in the US that has the mic today. I'm sure they won't have the exclusive for long. If you want to hear the comparison I recorded an hour ago, go here: http://idisk.mac.com/tyreeford-Public?view=web Use the arrow on the right to download the file: TyFordNTG-3MKH416.mp3 Regards, Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

July 9th, 2008, 11:58 AM	#33
Craig Irving Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 539	Ty, thanks for putting that comparison together. I just listened to it, they both sound very similar to my ears. What's your gut reaction. Is it a good mic? A fair substitute for a 416? Better or worse than you expected? Last edited by Craig Irving; July 9th, 2008 at 12:57 PM.

July 9th, 2008, 03:27 PM	#34
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Nice test, Ty. To summarize... * The 416 has some prominence in the low-mids that accentuates chest tones. The NTG-3 seemed a bit more neutral to my ears, but not necessarily as pleasing. * The 416 is definitely narrower than the NTG-3. This can be good or bad, depending on the application. * The NTG-3 has lower self noise. This was clear while watching the meters in Vegas 8. It's not a big difference, but I would say that the NTG-3 wins this point by a small margin. * Regarding THD, both mics sounded very similar. Some crunch on the voice is pleasing - like a tube amp on a Stratocaster. Neither mic sounds harsh or transistory. The EQ curve is more noticeable than any difference in distortion. * The 416 had a small bump at 45 degrees. The NTG-3 was a bit smoother. This isn't surprising. A wider pattern is typically smoother. Narrow patterns tend to have off-axis ripples. * In the intro, I felt that the 416 had more of the hollow room sound than the NTG-3. I might have been misled by the fact that the 416 came after the dryer intro mic, so I really noticed the room sound. However, the narrow pattern of the 416 would be more susceptible to a hollow room sound, so that might be real. My personal conclusion: The 416 would be superior for a single speaker with a good boom operator when outdoors. I like the bigger chest sound. When recording multiple people, or if the boom operator is sloppy, the NTG-3 might be the better choice. If I could only choose one for combined outdoor/indoor use, I would grab the NTG-3. You can always apply a bit of EQ to bump up the chest tones. Given that the NTG-3 is ruggedized (in theory anyway; is it rugged in the real world?), and in a similar league with the 416 (not identical mind you, but the general sound quality is comparable), and the fact that the NTG-3 costs $700, vs. $1,100 for the 416 (at BH), I'd buy the NTG-3. That said, the 416 has more street cred and is proven. In the video, world Rode is known for its low cost mics. If I were freelancing, rather than doing our own productions, I'd save my dimes and go for the well-regarded 416. Frankly, if someone were to grab one of these mics, shoot a scene and ask me which one they used, I'd be hard pressed to tell. I'd listen for the low-mids, but with a bit of 300 Hz boost on the NTG-3 (or cut on the 416), I'd almost certainly get it wrong. Thanks for the excellent test, Ty. You matched the levels nicely, so I'd say the playing field was 100% level and fair. I'm curious to read your summary. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

July 9th, 2008, 04:58 PM	#35
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	* In the intro, I felt that the 416 had more of the hollow room sound than the NTG-3. I might have been misled by the fact that the 416 came after the dryer intro mic, so I really noticed the room sound. However, the narrow pattern of the 416 would be more susceptible to a hollow room sound, so that might be real. Jon, Sharp ears. I cut the into after I had moved down into the studio and placed it at the beginning of the file. What you heard was the room, not the mic. I've been "fooled" before the other way around. The first time I was down in the studio testing a mic I was thinking, "Wow, this sound really nice and tight. Excellent!" Then it hit me, "Oh, right, I'm in the studio!" Nice sounding room, even with the door at the top of the stairs open. Regards, Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

July 9th, 2008, 07:28 PM	#36
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	The different room makes sense. I had assumed that it was a different mic in the same room. The dryness led me to believe it might be the E6, but the E6 typically doesn't have that much body. My next guess was a Schoeps 641 (since I know you favor it) with close proximity. So, the first mic was the NTG-3 in the studio? Someday you could do a game show called "Guess - That - Mic!" __________________ Jon Fairhurst

July 9th, 2008, 11:42 AM	#31
Marty Wein Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 229	You lost me now. You have 88.89mm from the end of the mic to the vents/grill which is more than adequate considering that the INV-7 is only 70mm.

July 9th, 2008, 07:51 PM	#37
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Jon, I think I had the NTG-3 up at the moment, but at the moment I can't be 100% certain. The mystery will remain...but I'll probably be able to tell if I listen closely again. Regards, Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

July 14th, 2008, 02:25 PM	#38
Andy Wilkinson Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Cambridge UK Posts: 2,853	Rode NTG-3 Another opinion (Allan's) on the new NTG-3 here. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=125837 I won't get mine until my new Sony PMW-EX3 gets delivered in a few weeks time. I admit I bought this mic "blind" (not heard). However, I have high opinions of Rode from my previous experience with their superb lower end mics (VM and SVM) ....and everything I'm beginning to hear and read suggests this one's gone to be a good one too. __________________ Andy K Wilkinson - https://www.shootingimage.co.uk Cambridge (UK) Corporate Video Production