Sennheiser 416 vs. Rode NTG-3.

MattinSTL

MattinSTL

Sound Modulator
Here's a quick comparison clip of the Sennheiser mkh-416 and Rode NTG-3. I just uploaded this video to youtube and it says that the audio should improve once it finishes processing. If it doesn't then I will upload a wav file to my own site. I think it should be pretty easy to tell that the NTG-3 sounds amazingly like the 416.

One extra thing to note is that while both mics were recorded at the same settings, I had to boost the 416 by 2db to make the levels match.

This is a pretty quick outdoor comparison, but I think it probably says enough to show why I've been enthusiastic about this mic. The NTG-3 seems to be a less harsh, and more forgiving incarnation of the 416. :beer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbzNgmrCBQs
 
That's fantastic Matt. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

I'm very impressed with how the NTG-3 sounds. Even with the 416 boosted by 2db (as you outline above), the Rode still seems a little hotter and--to my ear at least--appears to have a more pleasing frequency response throughout the vocal spectrum.

At this point, I'm sold. As soon as the NY weather gets warm enough to shoot outdoors, I'll be spending some money.

Thanks again Matt.
 
Thanks DP.

This is speculation on my part, but I suspect that there are a lot of long time industry pros who have a special place in their heart for the 416, and therefore will look for reasons to dismiss comparisons between the NTG-3 and 416 (let's face it, the 416 IS a great mic with a well-deserved reputation)... OR... there are people who feel some moral issue with the fact that Rode came along and basically built a "416 mark II". I am not one of those people! I'm thrilled with any product that comes along and changes the game.

So... all bullsh*t aside folks... think what you want... but Rode is offering a mic that is a genuine competitor to the 416... and is therefore a genuine competitor to all the other mics in the $1K+ range... for HALF the $.
 
Last edited:
Matt,
couple questions.
-hows the noise floor on this mic?
-what camera did you record that stuff too?
-how good/bad does it hold up on interiors?

Im sure its fine, but with a company putting out lower end products..
at this point i would personally be concerned about how reliable it is.
Is the QC up to snuff that these things arent gonna take a dump at the wrong time.

I might pick one of these up and use it as a stunt double for times when
I dont feel like distroying my other mics. (rain, dust..etc)
Then again, id be a little worried about it holding up in situations like that.
Any takes on that?

Im not dissing the product, and more options the better. As we both know, a mic is just a tool.
I'd rather put a 200 dollar mic in the hands of a skilled experienced pro than a 2000 dollar one in the hands of someone
who doesnt know what they are doing.
 
Rippie,

-The noise floor on this mic is identical to a 416 (13db)
-I used an original model DVX100 directly.
-For interiors it's about as good as a 416, which is to say pretty good, but not CS3e good. I'll put up an interior clip in a very poor interior (my house) which has echo problems.
-Agreed that Rode will have some "value" stigma to overcome when entering the high-end marketplace HOWEVER... look at the price... I feel the risk : reward ratio is zero risk.
-The NTG-3 is RF-biased, transformerless condenser, EXACTLY like a 416... which is again, part of the reason current 416 owners, and long-term industry pros, are raising a moral eyebrow at this newcomer... that is ALSO why a 416 is bomb-proof and reliable in high-humidity, etc... and, as long as you register your NTG-3 with Rode (for free of course)... they will warranty your mic FOR 10 YEARS!


If you decide to try one out, be sure to talk to GUY from DVestore... he will give you a very good deal on one, and he's been a big help in making some great things happen (like the WORLD-WIDE $100 price drop on the Rode blimp... so for every dude that cluelessly buys one of those blimps from B&H, thinking "hey this is great, these were $400 and now they're only $300..." THAT DUDE OWES US... as in DVXuser and Guy... a thanks for getting the price down $100! THAT is why I say BUY FROM GUY.) Not to mention he's a big supporter of this site, with sponsorship as well as prize donations to the fests.


My thought was exactly as yours... that I was hesitant to like the mic for all the reasons you gave, but I'm always drawn to "value" products... sometimes because I just want to see what I can do with less money... and sometimes because I have no other choice, but in this case, I'm really glad I gave this mic a try. If you can let go of your preconceived notions, I think you'll be surprised. What I REALLY suggest, is that you arrange a double-blind test against a 416... then I think you'll really be surprised... and better understand where I'm coming from.

As a backup mic it's really a no-brainer, but my enthusiasm for this mic is more about the guy who bought an HVX and has "no money left" for sound... that guy can scrape together the cash to get this thing... and if used properly, that guy is going to get results as good as the guy who had plenty of cash for a $1K mic.

On a virtually unrelated point... please remember our conversation in this thread, because if you get one... I want you to PM or email me your honest, straight-up impression... from the time you first open the box on. When I FIRST opened the box and saw the metal case they provide with this mic... I said under my breath, "holy sh*t"... and then I was happy to gradually realize that the included metal case seems to be a metaphor for the build of the mic as well.

Check one out... you will NOT be disappointed... and you'll have 10 years to break the thing under normal use (including HIGH humidity and all the conditions that a 416 is known to survive).
 
Last edited:
Matt, thanks a lot for taking the time doing this. The 416 really sounded more metallic on that test. I think I liked the Rode better in this test that when I used before.
The "well known industry pro" that you are referring to even published in RAMPS a picture of these two mics naked together. The point he was trying to probe was that the components on the NTg are newer and more sophisticated and they should handle Rf signals better than the superb but ancient 416. I don't have that level of knowledge of electronics but I can see his point and I respect him too.
 
"As a backup mic it's really a no-brainer, but my enthusiasm for this mic is more about the guy who bought an HVX and has "no money left" for sound... that guy can scrape together the cash to get this thing... and if used properly, that guy is going to get results as good as the guy who had plenty of cash for a $1K mic."

This worries me though, not that im in the market to do jobs for these kinda of people
but when no "respect" is giving to sound (lets spend all our money on a camera)
I personally dont want to encourage them to think .. "oh lets throw a couple hundred bux on sound and we are good to go".
When in reality they are not.

Just my own personal opinion i would rather educate them on the IMPORTANCE of getting good sound and not thinking of it as an afterthought. Once again though, i "get" the fact that most of the people who are going to be using this mic WOULDNT hire or rent a real soundguy/mic and a better mic is better than a crappy one..etc.

I'll let ya know if i end up buying one, tough thing though is..im NOT a fan of the 416 at all!

I have a virtually brand new mkh-60(factory replaced my old one 2-3 years ago) that i think ive
taken outta the case under 3-4 times and everytime i put it right back in the case.
I gotta sell the thing its collecting dust.

Im very jaded in my mic selection but i'll be sure to give you MY opinion if i get it.
I'd also be interested in hearing a test on a better recorder. Just as computer speakers hide a lot of issues,
so does recording to a less than ideal recorder. (im not ripping on it, just stating a fact)
Thanks for the info.
 
Rafaeldelauz... Ty's a good guy... it's too bad that he doesn't hang out around here more. I finally found that audio clip on his site... and I also found the jpeg image of the 416 and NTG-3 "bare"... and man, that makes me like the NTG-3 even more. The NTG-3 has fewer, larger, newer components... and anybody that knows audio knows about electronics that utilize the simplest electronic path of the fewest high-grade components. I had preamps that boasted the actual signal passing through a single Vishay resistor (or something to that effect)... back in the day I had an Adcom preamp... and I used it flat/bypass. So I appreciate the purity in circuit design.

But anyway... things like this mic and the blimp... are chipping away at the security of sound guys (myself included) because these tools are putting professional results within reach of regular guys who can't (or won't) spend $1K+ on a mic.

That's why I don't expect too many industry guys to eagerly sing the praises of this new mic. I know that it's not the tools alone, but how you use them... BUT... conversely, it's not techique alone either... good tools matter.

Yeah, seriously... I think the NTG-3 sounds better in a lot of applications. I may put up another clip (in addition to an interior clip)... where I'll walk around the boomed mics so you can hear and see a practical example of off-axis performance. The 416 does have more of a direct beam out front... but not by a huge margin, and the difference is that the NTG-3 has USABLE off-axis performance, whereas the 416 is very colored.

If I were to make only ONE request of Rode for the next batch of NTG-3... make the damn things MATTE GRAY like a Schoeps... or even matte black (but if it were me I'd do the "nextel gray"... because it's not even a Schoeps thing, I had a Beyerdynamic mic that was nextel gray as well... and it looks cool while serving a purpose)... BUT... nickel finish mics are nothing unusual either... you can get a Schoeps in nextel gray OR the same color as the NTG-3... same goes for many Sennheiser mics... but hey... I'm getting picky now. :)


Rippie... I'd take an MKH-60 over a 416 all day... and I get where you're coming from about respect for location sound. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of people (probably MOST) who have a camera from which they'll never get impressive results because they don't understand LIGHT (see my stupid clip and realize that had I taken the time to set up an overhead silk that shot would have been pretty nice... *ahem*... but I didn't do that so the highlights are blown)... and anyway... there are people that will get adequate sound gear and yet have no respect for location sound (choosing and using echo locations, improper booming, etc.)... BUT... I gotta' repeat my sentence from above... I know that it's not the tools alone, but how you use them... BUT... conversely, it's not techique alone either... good tools matter.

I'm not suggesting that a mic purchase can replace knowledge, experience, or an attentive sound guy... I'm only saying that IF somebody decides to start down this path... this is a solid step in the right direction.
 
Last edited:
I can see more market for this microphone, no just people that run out of money for sound.
What about people that work in nature documentaries and the CS-3 is too noisy for very quiet locations, but the Mkh 60 is too expensive. People that not use Shotgun that often but don't like the sound of the MKh50/40, like me, but still I need a very reliable microphone when I travel to jungle or stuff like that. That's the function or my Mkh416. Reality TV guys that need to wire everybody but they need a cheap shotgun with wide pattern anyway and the CS-1 is too fragile against all the producers I-phones
 
this is great info. Thanks for posting. I know the 416 has been a very popular mic for voice-over too (think of "the voice-over guy" who does dramatic movie trailers for the "next big action flick"--I'm being generic just for point of reference).

I wonder how the proximity effect compares, and if it would work equally well for that too?
 
rafaeldelauz said:
another request for Rode, don't write the RODe thing on the black foam windscreen, looks awful
Click to expand...

LOL! (really) yeah what's up with that?

I sincerely hope... that if somebody gets this mic... that they also take a very hard look at the blimp too. Check out the blimp thread with Guy's package deal in it... it's pretty hard to beat.

I could have used some other bits from my little shoot the other day... when a slight breeze comes through and totally rumbles the mics (both of them)... don't ever get a mic and think using a foam outdoors is a good idea... it took me 25 minutes to time that short clip between the breeze.
 
nice comparison Matt! I know I couldnt really tell the difference they sound almost identical and considering the price I would def pick up the RODE. I would be interested in hearing the NTG3 indoors as well especially in a regular house setting with normal ceiling height where a hyper would be the first choice.
 
Double boom?

Double boom?

I own a MKH416 and I am wondering if the Rode NTG-3 would be a good match up for use in a double booming situation?
 
tallrd said:
I wonder how the proximity effect compares, and if it would work equally well for that too?
Click to expand...

Do a search on the NTG-3... I posted some sound samples including close proximity... I should redo it with the 416 vs. NTG-3 (I'll add that to my list of things to do)... but I can tell you right now that the 416 has more proximity effect in very close range.
 
Sound Chaser said:
I own a MKH416 and I am wondering if the Rode NTG-3 would be a good match up for use in a double booming situation?
Click to expand...

Because of the uniquely colored sound of the 416, I guess somebody could argue "no"... but because (in my opinion) it's pretty hard to tell them apart, on axis, sonically... I'd say yes.

Of course it all depends on the level of production you're doing... but I don't think you'll find another mic that meshes with a 416 better... not even in the Sennheiser line-up. (unless of course, it's another 416)

If somebody has a link to that RAMPS write up from Ty I'd really like to see that, and I'm sure a bunch of other people here would like to read that also.

:beer:
 
Thanks... I found all that stuff... including Ty's audio comparison... (check my edited posts in this thread and reasons given)... but I don't know if Ty would want me to link his work to my thread here? I wish he was around more so I could just ask him "hey man you have some great stuff on the 416 and ntg3... can I post links for all that?"

I found the jpeg you were talking about also... and yeah... while the 416 looks way more complicated inside... almost anybody in the world of electronics will tell you that it's preferable to have fewer (higher quality) components in the signal path. That picture makes me like the NTG-3 more then I ever would have had I not seen the guts compared. If I was Rode I'd run a 1/2 to full page ad in one of the video magazines... with both those mics side by side... and the MSRP at the top of each one... put the 416 in black and white, and the NTG3 in color... and along the top of the ad have the words "elegant design"... then on the lower 1/4 of the ad have a cool scene (hot girl mandatory) being boomed with an indi crew... and at the bottom edge of that have something to the effect of "beautiful sound".

Then in an inlay put a paragraph about the desire to create a professional microphone and how many years it took to design it, etc. etc. (passion, etc.)

When you see the guts of these two mics side by side, there doesn't appear to be one component in common so it's pretty obvious that they didn't straight-up copy a 416, even though this mic sounds like one...
 
Nicely Done!

Nicely Done!

MattinSTL said:
Here's a quick comparison clip of the Sennheiser mkh-416 and Rode NTG-3. I just uploaded this video to youtube and it says that the audio should improve once it finishes processing. If it doesn't then I will upload a wav file to my own site. I think it should be pretty easy to tell that the NTG-3 sounds amazingly like the 416.

One extra thing to note is that while both mics were recorded at the same settings, I had to boost the 416 by 2db to make the levels match.

This is a pretty quick outdoor comparison, but I think it probably says enough to show why I've been enthusiastic about this mic. The NTG-3 seems to be a less harsh, and more forgiving incarnation of the 416. :beer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbzNgmrCBQs
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to do this Matt! I particularly liked how you used the video changes to denote which mic you were listening to. Very good idea also to use the two tracks to have the exact same phrase recorded by the two mics. It makes it easier to hear the nuances. I listened briefly on my crummy computer speakers and still could hear the differences and the similarities.
Truthfully I've never been a fan of the 416 for dialogue but I know its a good solid mic and a defacto standard for many. Personally I like a warmer less edgy sound and to my ear the Rode sounds more like what I would like to hear. Mics are so subjective and your test really should help anyone considering purchasing the Rode or the 416.
Best!
Bernie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top