Skip to main content

Sennheiser MKH 416 vs. RODE NTG-3

Member for

21 years
I'm going to get a shotgun mic and came across this pretty convincing comparison. I'm not looking for stellar audio here as I would be hiking around the streets with whatever I got.

The NTG-3 does it for me

What do you think?

Comments

Member for

21 years

audiokid Tue, 11/23/2010 - 14:06
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?

Member for

15 years 11 months

RemyRAD Tue, 11/23/2010 - 19:01
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

Member for

21 years

audiokid Tue, 11/23/2010 - 19:52
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.

Member for

10 years 8 months

Joe Pfeil Sun, 01/16/2011 - 12:05
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.

Member for

21 years

audiokid Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:09
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
x