the Sennheiser sounds like it might be better for doing folly where the rode almost to me sounds like a VO mic to my 20 years of drum beaten ears

Wow, you have good ears still lol!

This A/B could have fooled me. Noted, I'm listening to this via my Macbook pro and there isn't a noticible difference that would justifying the extra $300 for the Senn. The Senn MKH 416 may be slightly smoother but oh so slight. Do you hear a bigger difference?

haha, I couldn't tell the difference now after playing my new boogie for 1/2 hour!

To be honest with you, I was having trouble hearing the differences but then I wasn't listening on anything substantially professional than my multimedia headset on my laptop. Which of course doesn't count for anything. So I really couldn't say anything. I've used the 416 & the longer 816 and I always liked the high end sheen on the Sennheiser's. I particularly liked the Neumann MS stereo shotgun microphone I used a couple of years ago. But that cost an arm, a leg, ear lobes and your hair. But it was stunning sounding. I have 3 shotguns, an old Sony, Sennheiser MKE modular short shotgun and a long AT. None of which I like much. They're not horrible and they're not great. They only come in handy once in a great while. What's your application? Are you going to also invest in a dead rat for your shotgun? Is that a rat or bunny? You know, those furry wind socks, which are much more effective outside than just foam and then there are your other windproof blimps that aren't very furry. Don't forget the boom pole. Aluminum or carbon composite? I went with the cheap aluminum in spite of the additional weight. In fact, I don't always believe in running shotguns over the tops of people's heads facing the ground. In many instances, I'd rather go low pointing upwards as the distance from reflections, other than when outdoors, can be substantially different sounding. As long as it doesn't get into the frame of the camera.

Tally ho from down under in DC
Mx. Remy Ann David

Thanks Remy,

The difference between the two isn't a concern for me for what I'm thinking. If I want stellar, I wouldn't even consider this, but for the price of the RODE and listening to this comparison (that I do trust), the RODE is what I'm going to get.

Lol, RODE calls theirs a Dead Cat! But, the Blimp might be better as I've read it doesn't pick up movement ? And their pole looks good. So, for the price of the Senn, I get all three if I choose the NTG-3.

Not sure what I will be recording with this, could be interviews. I'm building up an arsenal of remote recording gear on top of my tracking and mastering system. Remote work for drawing in business and attracting attention around town.

Thanks for the input.

They sound very noticeably different on my very mediocre computer speakers. The Rode seems to have more bottom end. The tone is pleasing, but I hear more of the neighborhood construction with the Rode as a trade-off for the extra lows.

Bassy vs natural

I just watched the Rode NTG-3 vs 416 comparison video on a professional studio setup with a 10" powered subwoofer and the difference is obvious. To start with, both mics have very impressive mid and high frequency capability, it is the low end that completely separates the two. The low end of the NTG-3 sounds like a low shelf EQ was raised 3-6db at 60hz. For a radio VO sound, I'm sure it would be appreciated, but not completely in film and TV. My reasoning is that in film and TV your shotgun will be at a different distance from the talent in almost every shot, sometimes a little difference, sometimes a far distance. You want the shots to cut together smoothly, which won't happen if you have an excessively blatant difference between a 1 foot distance recording and a 3 foot distance recording. This make the NTG-3 less of a professional microphone in my opinion, because you cannot expect a smooth frequency response as the proximity effect is too drastic for the reality that is motion picture sound recording.

The 416 has doesn't sound like there is a shelf EQ on the low end, it sounds flat. Perfect when your mic is 1 foot away on a close up shot, then 3 feet away on a master shot. The two takes will cut smoothly in post because the low end of the talents voice wasn't drastically different. Always consider how this sound will end up in the final product and how it will effect the storytelling ability. Unnecessary changes in pitch and timbre will be realized by your audience, if not consciously, unconsciously, which may even be worse. The audience's unconscious response to sound is the most important component of storytelling.

I'm with this guy. And people from Brooklyn are never wrong...Right? Wrong? Huh? No really. A very succinct answer.

Yes it was, with a perspective coming from someone in the field that we don't hear from much. Very much appreciated.

Joe Pfeil, post: 361498 wrote: I just watched the Rode NTG-3 vs 416 comparison video on a professional studio setup with a 10" powered subwoofer and the difference is obvious. To start with, both mics have very impressive mid and high frequency capability, it is the low end that completely separates the two. The low end of the NTG-3 sounds like a low shelf EQ was raised 3-6db at 60hz. For a radio VO sound, I'm sure it would be appreciated, but not completely in film and TV. My reasoning is that in film and TV your shotgun will be at a different distance from the talent in almost every shot, sometimes a little difference, sometimes a far distance. You want the shots to cut together smoothly, which won't happen if you have an excessively blatant difference between a 1 foot distance recording and a 3 foot distance recording. This make the NTG-3 less of a professional microphone in my opinion, because you cannot expect a smooth frequency response as the proximity effect is too drastic for the reality that is motion picture sound recording.

The 416 has doesn't sound like there is a shelf EQ on the low end, it sounds flat. Perfect when your mic is 1 foot away on a close up shot, then 3 feet away on a master shot. The two takes will cut smoothly in post because the low end of the talents voice wasn't drastically different. Always consider how this sound will end up in the final product and how it will effect the storytelling ability. Unnecessary changes in pitch and timbre will be realized by your audience, if not consciously, unconsciously, which may even be worse. The audience's unconscious response to sound is the most important component of storytelling.

Definitely appreciated post.

And making me think more about bottom end monitors. Also, how our marketing is changing and able to become sloppy. More concern for the new generation of music.

Kudo's