Best shotgun mic setup for under $600?

John Willett said:
It's a copy rather than a clone.

It's good value for money, though; but it's not a 416.

A Post Production engineer mixing a movie that had used both the NTG3 and the MKH416 posted his findings on Gearslutz HERE if you want to read an expert opinion of use in the real world.

I have also read about the NTG3 not liking the cold HERE.
Click to expand...

the 416 is one is worse shotguns to work on film( aka cinema ) , the mic sound drastically changes when you 1 feet or 3 feet above the subject , extreme proximity effect and extremity tin sound when you 3 feet away .
Good for news and documentary where the only thing what counts, if you hear the person or not .
The ntg is a wide pattern mic , more close to sanken sc-3 and doesn't have so high fq pitch as sennheiser , works grate and could handle much grater spl .
about the guy who wrote the revue, did he really check who was recording the days with ntg , as it much important the person then the stupid tool .
under 600 , you can find used at 4073 with rode blimp - good enough for almost anything .
 
first batch of ntg -3 suffered from bad component problem , the cold weather didn't had anything with , these all where replaced ( my booman bought 2 and both where replaced about 2.5 years ago , since then zero complane )
,
there is no allot of companies which give 10 years warranty - not even Sennheiser .
 
Last edited:
C2V said:
And do you have enough personal experience with the NTG-3 to make such an assessment, and effectively insult anyone who actually likes the mic?
Click to expand...

It wasn't my intention to insult anyone. I apologize if you feel that way.

The 'pussy' comment was obviously a joke and my opinion about the mic's reliability is based on what I read about it today after I saw John's post. I admit that. The owner's manual of the NTG-3 doesn't mention the operational temperature, which should be standard info for outdoor mics and could be an indication for their awareness of the problem.

C2V said:
While we'll try to steer folks clear of known garbage (such as Audio Technica's $50 "shotgun"), there are other viable options out there, such as RODE's NTG-series shotguns, that can get some one up and running with good sound and without breaking the bank.
Click to expand...

Like I said in another post, you can get a used 416 T for less than half the price. Someone who has worries like 'breaking the bank' shouldn't even look at a new NTG-3.
 
Pharao said:
Like I said in another post, you can get a used 416 T for less than half the price.
Click to expand...

It may be a bargain, but most indie folks barely understand audio at all, much less phantom power. Besides, T-power is unavailable on the recorders 99% of them use (H4n, DR-100), so they couldn't use the mic anyway.
 
I'm no expert either when it comes to power issues, but the T version can be used with a relatively unexpensive T-power to phantom power adapter. Sometimes you'll find these adapters included in Ebay auctions without affecting the end price. Either way, a used P48 isn't a lot more expensive and would still be a bargain compared to a new NTG-3. It's the internet hype that let's the indie think that he's doing his budget a favour in buying something like an NTG-3.

And not every indie is completely clueless when it comes to audio. Even if they are, they can follow some simple 'rules' and they will get at least ok results if they're using the right equipment for the job. It's been done thousands of times. It's not that hard. 'Pros' like to make everyone who's not on their level of expertise think that it's impossible to get a good outcome without them.
 
John Willett said:
It's a copy rather than a clone.

It's good value for money, though; but it's not a 416.

A Post Production engineer mixing a movie that had used both the NTG3 and the MKH416 posted his findings on Gearslutz HERE if you want to read an expert opinion of use in the real world.

I have also read about the NTG3 not liking the cold HERE.
Click to expand...

Then you read that the Rode NTG-3 is rated at -12, where the 416 is rated at -10. So one guy's mic had a problem? Did you see how Scott Emerton from Rode got right on there and offered to fix his mic without the mic owner asking? That is service I can appreciate!

And for the record I love my NTG-3's sound. I don't care if some guy lucked out and got a big budget to do his movie, and liked the 416 better. It doesn't make his ears better than mine. Personal taste is just that - personal. Now if you throw an Azden in there, sure, that thin gutless signal will sound bad. But between the NTG-3 and 416 the differences are not great. You may pick up more ambiance with the NTG-3 due to the more forgiving pattern, but that is a bonus when you are booming a more mobile scene where a tighter pattern will miss the dialogue more often. If I were going to try to beat am NTG-3, I wouldn't do it with a mic that sounds almost the same and is a lot more expensive. I would throw something really sweet at it like a Sanken CS-3e.
 
Pharao said:
It's not that hard. 'Pros' like to make everyone who's not on their level of expertise think that it's impossible to get a good outcome without them.
Click to expand...
Usually its true in 90% of the time that you have shitty sound without a pro , it was proven thousand times on that board and many others in every second " look at my work " , its usually looks nice and sounds extremely not :-)
What mic to use ?
You can use AZDEN , if it all what you have , who cares , its going to youtube or to your local film festival .
People who live from that profession, usually are not make it there ;-)

:-)
 
Pharao said:
And not every indie is completely clueless when it comes to audio. Even if they are, they can follow some simple 'rules' and they will get at least ok results if they're using the right equipment for the job. It's been done thousands of times. It's not that hard.
Click to expand...

You obviously have very fixed opinions.

You're right, it's not hard; but it takes knowledge, preparation and attention to detail - and some real experience. The ones who actually care about sound and have something resembling an actual budget actually hire a real production sound mixer and/or boom-op for their expertise. Some try to do the best they can on a very thin shoestring. The rest outright don't care or don't get it; those are the ones that don't want to put in the effort and just want a cheap, quick fix or a ten cent savior.
 
olgak said:
Usually its true in 90% of the time that you have s**tty sound without a pro , it was proven thousand times on that board and many others in every second " look at my work " , its usually looks nice and sounds extremely not :-)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's usually because they're not passioned enough. They don't really care and their standards are low. Some just do it for fun and they're happy like that. That's fine. It's also quite common that the rest of the movie is piss poor, it's not just the sound. A first time director who would rather kill himself than do anything other than filmmaking, someone with passion, with an energy that can move mountains, someone with a certain biological disposition, a sense of aesthetics - in short an artist - a person like that doesn't need to know every technical bit, but he will make absolutely sure he understands enough about every field to make his movie the way he envisioned it, including sound. Of course it can still go wrong or not so well and he would have been better off hiring a 'pro', but there are many reasons why this doesn't always work out. In the end though, these are usually not the movies that we think of as very bad.

And then there's the complete opposite - almost everything out of Hollywood for instance: pretty pictures, believable acting, impressive cgi, complicated dolly and crane shots, crystal clear nice in-your-face-sound, superb sound fx, well-orchestrated score, but the movie is just blah. No real vision, no nothing. Just emptiness. Why? Because the film was made only by technicians, all proficient in their field, but the artist was missing. I think that's the bigger problem nowadays - artists are missing - not the lack of movies with good sound. There are more than enough already. That might have been a bit random, but anyway... :)

@unclebob: I think I've also replied to you too. :)
 
Rereading my post it almost sounds like I would give sound a lower priority, but I can assure you that this is not the case. Maybe I should have phrased some of it a bit differently.
 
You are right , there are o.oooo1 % on you-tube which worth it , actually if it worth it , they do make an adr for that to ;-)

About technicians , yep we are there, so the real audience who pay money for ,will be able to concentrate on story and judge the piece of crap for it artistic s only :-)
 
I prefer film festivals or DVDs to YouTube. ;)

I think I'm going to watch a Kubrick film now. He was the complete package of artist and technician, which is quite rare...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top