NTG-1 or 2...virtually the same price....

Chris Light

Chris Light

Veteran
i want to say i want the 2, but does it really matter?...i'm going to be using it on my XH-A1, primarily mounted on camera, with boompole in the near future...any opinions?
or recommend me a better mic in the same price range....tackling audio is rough...hahaha...i'm a musician too hahahaha...i should know better!

chris
 
The NTG1 is smaller and lighter, and thus preferable unless you think you'll really need battery power.
 
skinny! said:
is that the only difference?
Click to expand...

Pretty much - they're the same mic internally except for the power supply and the slightly longer body on the NTG-2 needed to make room for the battery. The maximum SPL of the -2 is slightly less than that of the -1 reflecting that the battery doesn't have the reserve ooomph to handle the current draw encountered with extra heavy loads but unless you're sticking the mic into the tailpipe of a jet engine that won't be relevant to many real-world scenarios.
 
I just picked up an NTG-2 yesterday, I won't generally need to use it on battery power, but the option is good to have.
 
Personally I would go with the mic that had the ability to do without 48v Phantom Power (the NTG-2). Like Jordan said, the option is good to have.
 
The specs are a bit lower on battery power, but I believe identical when both are phantom powered. The "good option" is a pretty weak argument depending on your circumstances. IF your on prosumer gear that doesn't have phantom then it is a good choice. If your camera has phantom or your using a mixer/ preamp (and in my personal opinion this should always be the case) then it's not "cheap insurance", as a guy I used to work for would say to kill discussion about any bad idea he had. The reason is simple, the mic weighs more and is longer (and has lower specs if your on the battery). You will pay that price EVERY time you use it. Balance that with some rare occasion where you need to power it off battery. If you normally have phantom then the only reason you would not have it is probably a reason that should make you rethink the shoot period, because it's either serious equipment failure or gross lacking of preplanning. In either case you will probably be better off fixing the real problem than trying to kludge through. An extra once on the end of a ten foot pole has the boom op lifting an extra 1/2 pound or so. That REALY adds up fast and is much more likely to be a problem than having your phantom randomly blow out.
 
Noiz2 said:
The specs are a bit lower on battery power, but I believe identical when both are phantom powered. The "good option" is a pretty weak argument depending on your circumstances. IF your on prosumer gear that doesn't have phantom then it is a good choice. If your camera has phantom or your using a mixer/ preamp (and in my personal opinion this should always be the case) then it's not "cheap insurance", as a guy I used to work for would say to kill discussion about any bad idea he had. The reason is simple, the mic weighs more and is longer (and has lower specs if your on the battery). You will pay that price EVERY time you use it. Balance that with some rare occasion where you need to power it off battery. If you normally have phantom then the only reason you would not have it is probably a reason that should make you rethink the shoot period, because it's either serious equipment failure or gross lacking of preplanning. In either case you will probably be better off fixing the real problem than trying to kludge through. An extra once on the end of a ten foot pole has the boom op lifting an extra 1/2 pound or so. That REALY adds up fast and is much more likely to be a problem than having your phantom randomly blow out.
Click to expand...

I would agree, with one exception. If we're talking about mics in the sub $300 range, then he's probably going to want that option. If he was shooting with a more expensive rig, or had the budget for an audio pre-amp and mixer, then I would probably recomend a more expensive mic in any case. But to keep it low budget and get bang-for-buck, even if the battery power side of the -2 is lower specs, it's the having-options argument, in my opinion. If i'm investing what little money I have into a mic that I will be using in different scenarios for some time, and can't pony up for a pre-amp or mixer with 48v Phantom, I'd want the one that gives me as good when phantom powered and still works without. Just my thoughts. Obviously some good points made above too :0)
 
XLR Y-adapter?

XLR Y-adapter?

Is it possible to use an XLR Y-adapter, such as the one below, to feed sound from one NTG-1 to both audio channels of an XH-A1 simultaneously? The point being to set the audio levels with one channel slightly lower than the other, so that you could have a "hot" channel and a "safety" channel?

http://www.adorama.com/HOYXM121.html?searchinfo=xlr y cable&item_no=82
http://www.guitarcenter.com/Monster-Cable-Female-XLR-to--2--Male-XLR-Y-Adapter-330069-i1172772.gc
Would this degrade the sound quality somehow?

Would phantom power be a problem?
 
No need for XLR splitter...

No need for XLR splitter...

Metrolens said:
Is it possible to use an XLR Y-adapter, such as the one below, to feed sound from one NTG-1 to both audio channels of an XH-A1 simultaneously? The point being to set the audio levels with one channel slightly lower than the other, so that you could have a "hot" channel and a "safety" channel?

http://www.adorama.com/HOYXM121.html?searchinfo=xlr y cable&item_no=82

Would this degrade the sound quality somehow?

Would phantom power be a problem?
Click to expand...


Take a look at the switches on top of the XLR input section. Bottom right switch. You can set the camera to feed both channels from one input, and you'll still have independent level control over each record channel.
 
C2V said:
Take a look at the switches on top of the XLR input section. Bottom right switch. You can set the camera to feed both channels from one input, and you'll still have independent level control over each record channel.
Click to expand...

If only this were true! I tested this yesterday and it doesn't work. When you use the CH1+CH2 gang feature on the A1, you actually do NOT have independent level control. The CH1 knob raises and lowers both channels. So no dice.
 
Then, yeah... a splitter will work. Just be sure to use phantom from only one channel.
 
So I just got a XLR Y-splitter... and it works beautifully. I am now able to independently set levels.

The question I have left is, is there any reason the splitter would change the sound quality? I think I hear a slight difference between the splitter and just going straight into the camera. I could very well be imagining it, but straight to cam sounds somehow minutely fuller.

Could it be that the signal has been somehow "thinned" because of the the splitter? Might it mean the single phantom power isn't strong enough to produce the 2 signals? (I haven't dared to turn on both phantom powers at once; I'm scared that'd blow the mic and/or cam.)

Or, am I imagining the difference?
 
Metrolens said:
So I just got a XLR Y-splitter... and it works beautifully. I am now able to independently set levels.

The question I have left is, is there any reason the splitter would change the sound quality? I think I hear a slight difference between the splitter and just going straight into the camera. I could very well be imagining it, but straight to cam sounds somehow minutely fuller.

Could it be that the signal has been somehow "thinned" because of the the splitter? Might it mean the single phantom power isn't strong enough to produce the 2 signals? (I haven't dared to turn on both phantom powers at once; I'm scared that'd blow the mic and/or cam.)

Or, am I imagining the difference?
Click to expand...

The phantom wouldn't affect that but splitting the signal does mean each channel is getting less drive than they would if you were feeding just one input.. That's why there are such things as distribution amplifiers and active output stages on mixers.
 
Steve House said:
That's why there are such things as distribution amplifiers and active output stages on mixers.
Click to expand...

Mixers or pre-amps are always recommended over straight-to-camera whenever possible... BUT, I get the feeling that this issue is over using the mic as an on-cam. Canon should have thought that one out a bit. I have been in run-n-gun situations where I've strapped my shotgun to my DVX (b-roll, where I'm the only crew) and gone straight in for speed. Panasonic designed the DVX so that it can feed both channels with one input and maintain individual levels, which is nothing less than logical. Guess Canon decided it wasn't that important.
 
Steve House said:
The phantom wouldn't affect that but splitting the signal does mean each channel is getting less drive than they would if you were feeding just one input.. That's why there are such things as distribution amplifiers and active output stages on mixers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. This is borne out in what I'm hearing - somewhat less drive. The difference is really small however - so small that it's hard to detect. Interestingly, the level meters on the camera don't change at all; so there's apparently no loss of dB. It's more that the fidelity of the sound is very, very slightly "thinner."

And C2V, thank you too. Actually this is not for on-cam use, but for a boom stand setup for seated interviews. But I don't own a pre-amp or mixer, and only own one mic (the NTG-1). So the goal was to be able to have the "hot" channel and "safety" channel driven from that one mic. I agree Canon should have given the gang feature independent level control.

Now I'm wondering, if it wouldn't just be better to simply forget the Y-adapter, and record one channel (ganged or not) at a lower level?
 
Metrolens said:
Now I'm wondering, if it wouldn't just be better to simply forget the Y-adapter, and record one channel (ganged or not) at a lower level?
Click to expand...

Depends on how much noise you're really facing with this setup, and how much you're willing to sacrifice on audio (which really should not be compromised). A safety channel is always a good idea when you have one mic and two record channels, but in this situation, you may be okay with out it.

Back to mixers/pre-amps... if you don't own and can't afford to buy, you might be able to borrow, and should be able to rent.

Sound Devices has a pretty nifty two-channel pre-amp. The only feature I don't like about it is the lack of a true pan pot. With only hard LCR switching, you have to adjust your safety channel in-camera. Other than that, it is a solid, affordable, and great-sounding piece of gear. If you're going to be shooting like this often, it would be a worthy investment.

For rentals, reputable rental houses will have Sound Devices 442 or 302 mixers, or Shure FP33, or possibly something from PSC or Wendt. I'm not a huge fan of PSC mixers, but they'll get the job done.

I'll probably get some flack for this, but keeping low-budget production in mind, and if there are no other solutions... you might see if some one you know has a small-format mixer from the likes of Mackie or Soundcraft (avoid Behringer). This requires the availability of AC, since these mixers aren't battery powered. But it gives you access to pre-amps and panning control. Don't use the on-baord EQ, though. Record flat. Adjust in post. The only exception is lo-cut for wind/handling rumble.
 
Last edited:
C2V said:
Depends on how much noise you're really facing with this setup, and how much you're willing to sacrifice on audio (which really should not be compromised). A safety channel is always a good idea when you have one mic and two record channels, but in this situation, you may be okay with out it.

Back to mixers/pre-amps... if you don't own and can't afford to buy, you might be able to borrow, and should be able to rent.

Sound Devices has a pretty nifty two-channel pre-amp. The only feature I don't like about it is the lack of a true pan pot. With only hard LCR switching, you have to adjust your safety channel in-camera. Other than that, it is a solid, affordable, and great-sounding piece of gear. If you're going to be shooting like this often, it would be a worthy investment.

For rentals, reputable rental houses will have Sound Devices 442 or 302 mixers, or Shure FP33, or possibly something from PSC or Wendt. I'm not a huge fan of PSC mixers, but they'll get the job done.

I'll probably get some flack for this, but keeping low-budget production in mind, and if there are no other solutions... you might see if some one you know has a small-format mixer from the likes of Mackie or Soundcraft (avoid Behringer). This requires the availability of AC, since these mixers aren't battery powered. But it gives you access to pre-amps and panning control. Don't use the on-baord EQ, though. Record flat. Adjust in post. The only exception is lo-cut for wind/handling rumble.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice C2V.

Actually, I already own a small (apparently maligned) Behringer mixer (Eurorack UB802) which I use for music production. It has two "Invisible Mic Preamps." Here's a link:
http://www.behringer.com/ub802/

It has two XLR inputs, though I'd have to use two 1/4 inch to XLR cable to feed the camera. Which in theory isn't a big deal. Do you think I might consider dragging it along to the next shoot? My main concern is that it would add complexity to my one man band operation, but if you're saying it'd give me markedly better sound...

If I'm going to invest more money in gear right now, I'm thinking about picking up a Senn G2 lav setup. This would greatly expand my audio capabilities, and would solve the whole "only one mic" problem. What do you think of that idea?
 
Metrolens said:
Thanks for the advice C2V.

Actually, I already own a small (apparently maligned) Behringer mixer (Eurorack UB802) which I use for music production. It has two "Invisible Mic Preamps." Here's a link:
http://www.behringer.com/ub802/

It has two XLR inputs, though I'd have to use two 1/4 inch to XLR cable to feed the camera. Which in theory isn't a big deal. Do you think I might consider dragging it along to the next shoot? My main concern is that it would add complexity to my one man band operation, but if you're saying it'd give me markedly better sound...

If I'm going to invest more money in gear right now, I'm thinking about picking up a Senn G2 lav setup. This would greatly expand my audio capabilities, and would solve the whole "only one mic" problem. What do you think of that idea?
Click to expand...

I've never been a big fan of Behringer, and many of my colleagues share a saying about that company: the only way to fix a Behringer console is an Edison-to-XLR adapter. I've never found them to make quality sound consoles. They've had a couple good processors over the years (8024 EQ), but have discontinued most of that.

If you keep it signal in to signal out, and avoid the on-board EQ, you should be able to get by for now. You will be lacking a tone generator, so calibration may be a bit tricky. That's another advantage to a true field mixer, as tone allows you to align the mixer's meters on output to the camera's meters on input. Just make sure that audio is peaking at 0dB on the mixer and -10 on your camera. That mixer does have the low EQ pot set to roll off at 80Hz, so that can help tame rumble/wind/etc. But I don't know how accurate that EQ is (one of the issues with Behringer... inaccurate EQ circuitry).

Indeed, if it's what you have, it might be worth using. Yeah, it adds some complexity, but for seated interviews it won't create too many distractions. And you're really only using the preamps and the signal routing, leading to a better signal sent to both record channels. As long as you're close to AC, to power your mixer.

1/4">XLR is no big deal for sending line level to the camera. You'll be fine there.

And get the Sennheiser. It'll serve you well.

Back to the mixer, be sure to listen off the mixer for gain staging your signal, but off the camera during recording. Always wear headphones while recording. Listening off the camera lets you hear what's actually going to tape. If you listen off the mixer the whole time, but there's a problem between the mixer and the camera, you'll never hear it. Detect it in-camera, and you can trace it back up the signal chain. But hearing it during recording means you can fix it on-location. It's not fun finding unpleasant surprises in post.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top