I like the test a lot. The only thing that I think is making it biased is the fact that you're using a blue tint over one and an orange for the other. People are automatically going to feel like the one with the blue tint is colder and more sterile. Image effects your audio. I think a text overlay showing the mic difference is enough. You could just use footage for each that are treated the same. Great comparison, though.
yaaayyyyy:...Matt's outdoors.... :o) sorry Matt only joshing mate..nice to hear an outdoor test,being that is where I will be most of the time,I'm looking for a budget mic,so far it looks like the NTG2 for the money and the hard life it will have,Sennheiser's ME66 is nice but a 'tad ' rich for the system i'm putting together..although the 3 sounds quite good in this test.
Very interesting. I've been working with MKH-416's for about 15+ Years and believe they're good mics but actually, in the demo you give here, the Rode is the preferred mic. It would make the subject sound more natural in that they'd sound as though they're wearing a lavalier because of the low end response. For reference, I listened to this several times via Genelec 1030's. Aside from the lower mid response that I could detect, it requires an effort to pull them apart blind.
you should test this in a sound absorbing environment, I'm not gonna bash Rode, but I love the MKH 416. It just is a solid mic. I have yet to use the NTG3 so I can't comment on it. but I wonder what they would sound like on a sound recorder, maybe a Marantz, H4N, or even a tascom, if you could review that that would be great
Hello Matt Thank you for the comparison. I liked the Sennhieser because it sounds more directional, and has a lot less self noise; the mic didn't pic as much background construction noise; however it seemed more muffled. I also notice more people favored the Rode, because in my opinion it had more bass and it picked the envirment more. I am trying to decide which mic to buy right now for indepenent filmmaking (money is not the problem). I want a mic that is the best in all ways. TY 4 ur time.
Just one tip to help the quality on youtube, is that generally, the bit rate on the sound is more effective if you have the video in at least 480p, to render out at 720x480 or 640x480 just so that the sound quality is absolutely full potential. It doesn't get higher above 480p soundwise, but from tons of youtube experience I can tell you that.
I agree but I think we are biased because of the colors used. The 416 has a blue overlay making it seem colder and more sterile to begin with. Image effects audio. Close your eyes watch it again.
If you are a VO artist, MALE, and wish to deepen your voice, then you will probably get a better sound from the 416... only because it has a very high level of proximity effect. That means that you can turn a "tenor" into an "alto" by getting right on top of the mic and lowering the mic level. The NTG3 has less proximity effect and may sound better with naturally deep voices and/or female voices. Just my opinions of course, based on experience.
Hello! I am Voice over actor and thinking to get either rode Ntg3 or Seinheizer 416. which do you think would be best? I realize your video indicates the Rode sounds better. However in my application I will be right up to the mic vs booming the mic. Would the Rode still be the better choice for on the road travel in your experience or opinion?
Wow, I was totally expecting the 416 to sound better but I actually prefer the Rode quite a bit more. It has a much warmer, richer tone. I'm starting to understand why even crews who have a more flexible budget are choosing to shoot with this mic.
This test is a real eye opener. I wouldn't have thought the NTG-3 would come close to the 416. Was looking at NTG mics just yesterday and thinking to myself, I would like to see how it measures up against the Sennheiser. Thanks for the 'no sales pitch' comparison.
@00bikeboy I'm glad you got something positive out of it... This whole "mic testing" thing spawned from a good friend of mine (and myself) buying up mics like crazy and trying them out against one another. The original DVX100 was the first camera to record sound so cleanly that you could record music with the camera... my best mic back then, was an ME66... which continuously frustrated me on the DVX. Once I realized how much better mics got for no extra cost... I was hooked on "comparisons".
@sonicsuitcase You'll notice that I didn't remove your previous comment against Rode. That's because I think you're entitled to your opinion and I'm not here to censor you. I'd prefer that you keep your comments constructive, even if critical however, otherwise it's commonly known as "trolling". Youtube is free. You should post a video explaining why you feel the 416 is the superior choice. I've been neutral, letting viewers think and decide for themselves. Attacking the product helps no one.
so you proceed to tell him he's allowed to say what he wants but then you have a go at him for expressing an opinion. i'd much prefer to read comments that don't sit on the fence, or are you deluded enough to think everyone lives in a namby pamby world where everyone has to be nice to certain business' products regardless of their limitations?
I have nothing to gain in an argument here. Statements like "get down off your high horse"... and "are you deluded enough to think..." Those are invitations to argue. I honestly don't care which mic anybody likes better. I do, however, believe the Rode is a bargain for it's $ to Q ratio. The sense of entitlement of some people is amazing. This is just a simple little video clip that shows me talking into a couple mics... nothing more, nothing less.
The 416 has over twenty years of a good reputation in the industry. Rode was smart to know that they had to make something good and durable to compete. I'm sure that explains the 10 year warranty.
People compare the NTG3 to the 416 because of size, weight, and RF bias design, but the guts of the NTG3 don't look anything like the 416, even though they sound similar. If the NTG3 proves as durable as the 416 is, then it's an amazing bargain, which explains my enthusiasm.
You shouldn't hear ANY difference in using a blimp or not. I'm assuming you only mean with fur(?), but still, there shouldn't be a big difference.
In the real world, the NTG3 wins sometimes and the 416 wins sometimes, but the 416 off axis is unusable, while the NTG3 rolls off volume without changing the tonality of voices. That's what "forgiving pattern" means.
But I LIKE both mics, if the 416 and NTG3 were the same price, I wouldn't have cared to post this vid.
I gotta' say the ME66 is one of my least favorite mics in existence. I've owned a 416 and an ME66. The ME66 was engineered to be a HOT mic (strong mids and highs) back when camcorders NEEDED a hot mic (10+ years ago). These days that's bad.
I like the 416, it's a great mic, but the ME66 is a waste of money. As for the CS3e? That's a better mic then either the 416 or the NTG3, but it's also $1400.
To further illustrate how a blimp can muddy up a mic, a Sennheiser ME66 in a blimp sounds stellar and is very directional. Most people abhor the 66 because it is "harsh." That harshness is a spike in the upper mid frequencies, which inside a blimp cuts through without the mud. It also sounds very good with AGC, such as into a Panasonic GH2.
Well, a lot of people are really fussy. You know what people say about the Neumann TLM193 (flat frequency response)? "Boring." Too warm. Never happy.
I was extremely close to buying an NTG3 with BIN on eBay, but many reviewers say it has a "forgiving" polar pattern. That's too wide when shooting docs in uncontrolled environments, e.g. urban. Also, in noisy environments too much "warmth" can become "muddy" i.e. in a blimp. A few days after I passed on the NTG3, a 416 showed up with BIN on eBay which I bought. I think the 416 is excellent middle ground between an NTG3 (warm) and Sanken CS-1 (bright) and is more directional than both.
The single most important thing to know for good dialog is to get the mic as close as you can. The boom pole's main purpose is to get a microphone as close as it can be to the actors, while keeping the microphone out of sight... which is why they are suspended over the shot... with a pole. If the camera is so close to the actors that IT becomes the closest place to put the mic, then you can put it on-cam and get good results... and ALWAYS use a shock-mount.
In addition to what you just mentioned, booming a mic also utilizes the mic's characteristics to your advantage. For instance the MKH416 and the NTG3 are super-cardioid and hyper-cardioid mics respectively. Both do a good job in side sound-rejection as well as rear rejection.
In order to isolate the mic to the talent as much as possible, orientating them in a boom position will take advantage of these characteristics. We really need a diagram to show this more clearly.
btw i have a Sennheiser mkh 416, i placed the mic as close as possible to the subject but i still couldn't get a loud and "punchy" sound like yours. yes i do get good quality sound sometimes and i guess it could be that my mic positioning is not constant.
I agree that the 416 does have a more precise "beam". I think some viewers misinterpret my intentions. There are times when I prefer the 416, and times when I prefer the NTG3... it's the fact that the NTG3 effectively parallels the 416 in sound and performance, in many situations, at HALF the cost... that's the compelling part of the story, but yes, I also hear what you hear in this clip. Thank you for a thoughtful comment on what I intended to be an unbiased test!
As an owner of the 416, 60,70,50,40,8050 I can say with confidence that the 416 in this experiment has better rejection. A little less beef in the bottom, but that can only enhance boom pole rumble and wind noise.
You would be surprised. If you have an MD46 hold it over your head and record something. You'll sound like you're 10' away from it. A dynamic mic like that one must be held right in front of the mouth. Notice that commentators or singers will hold the mic so that they can gauge the distance to the diaphragm with their finger... touching under their bottom lip or on their chin. Dynamic mics must LITERALLY be within a few inches of the mouth to get clean sound.
I think with the mics that close to the subject, you might have gotten an even better result with a dynamic mic like the Sennheiser MD 46. It sure cancels out ambient noise a lot better than any directional condenser or electret mic.
I think it would be more interesting to see a comparison of the two mics in a wider shot, where they both have to be 3-4 feet farther away from the subject
Thank you, that was a nice comparison and I must say I am impressed with the NTG3. Have you tried a comparison to see how the NTG3 matches with a Sennheiser MKE-2 Lapel mic?
I am in the market for a new shotgun mic and have been looking at the NTG3 for a while now. I may just go for it soon!
Sennheiser 416 wins hands down. I tested both. While you can get away with a NTG 3 with good sound, the Sennheiser 416 will beat it when the subject is screaming or if there's any tendency to distort. In loud situations, the NTG-3 will sound harsh and unpleasant. This said, if you're on a budget, the NTG-3 will let you get away with it. However for some real professional audio, the 416 remains the industry standard.
Great test Matt .... is it possible for you to do a mic shootout with the NTG3 and other mics at a 10' distance or even further . thanks for this vid .
good comparison. I like both mics. I used MKH416 many times, but it's a quite expensive. Even though NTG-3 isn't cheap, say compare to NTG-2, which is now about 300. But I like the idea that they are both very similar sounding mics, 416 got a bit more rejection on the side, but all the BG noises that you've picked up with both are actually easily cleaned in post production. I had such a bad situations with locations that it's not even funny. But shotgun coupled with lavalier is a must. Big up.
The NTG-3 is a good microphone if you do not have much budget, but the Sennheiser MKH 416 is better, offers a better response at low frequencies, more flat. It would also have to prove that such a response of NTG-3 not so short distances, because that is where most noticeable in the quality of a shotgun microphone. And finally, if you can afford it buy a CMIT Shoeps 5 U...
The NTG-3 is a good microphone if you do not have much budget, but the Sennheiser MKH 416 is better, offers a better response at low frequencies, more flat. It would also have to prove that such a response of NTG-3 not so short distances, because that is where most noticeable in the quality of a shotgun microphone. And finally, if you can afford it buy a CMIT Shoeps 5 U...
Rode is known to have a warmer sound on its shotgun mics. In this video, there is actually very little ambient sound. If you take either of these mics to a very noisy environment, let's say a massive anti-war rally in Washington DC and you are shooting ENG for a news outlet and doing an on-the-spot run-n-gun interview, the Sennheiser's slight treble increase and narrower pattern will get the talker's voice above the crowd. Senn will cut through, Rode will get lost in the mix.
I agree that the 416 is a very nice microphone... although, if I were going to spend that much I'd have to look very carefully at a Sanken CS3e instead. My intention was not to specifically say that I think the NTG-3 is BETTER then the 416, but rather, to do my best to present them neutrally, and allow the youtube viewers to make their own evaluation based on this particular test. I will try to get an NTG-3 clip up at longer distance in a more challenging place. Thank you!
@Matt63368 Hi, is the NTG-3 much better for recording movie location dialogue than a Sennheiser ME66 in your opinion? The ME66 seems to be cheaper second hand than the NTG-3 and I was wondering if it was worth shelling out the extra money. Cheers!
Thanks for this excellent demo. I'm looking at picking up a NTG-3 based on the price and positive reviews. This demo has me sold. It's a little warmer than the 416, and the slightly wider pattern is a bonus. Thank you very much!
If you're listening to it on entry level laptop speakers it might be hard to hear the difference. Play it over and over again, I find the MKH 416 sounds thinner, the voice doesn't seem as round as with the NTG-3.
I used to have Studio Projects C4, when they said it sounds like Schoeps. I had Studio Electronics stereo pair, when they said it sounds like DPA.
In the end I live with my Schoeps and DPA and Sennheiser MKH series and all these Chinese, Australians and other "better solution" claimers were sold or were given as presents to others.
Buy expensive mics! It's not only the quality you don't get anywhere any cheaper, it's also an investment which you can reverse any day you want.
If someone is in the position to afford those choices and still afford the other components of a decent sound kit then I don't know that this comparison will convince them to look at a "value" option. The mics you mention are very good microphones. With location sound for video many people spend their whole budget on a mic and then can't afford boom, blimp, etc. etc. I think the value here, is getting into the pro-sound game at pro-sumer cost.
"Better solution" is a straw man you made up. We A/B compare. Period. You were mistaken to listen to opinions rather than compare audio, and now you recommend the same error. No reasonable person can take this advice. If you decide whether or not you can intercut two mics (or whatever questions have led you to A/B compare) based on retail price and brand, what you're doing has no relation to audio. If a standard A/B strikes you as a loaded question, I am baffled.
something that should be added in favor of the 416 is that when there are undesired sound sources off axis (e.g. street noise), the coloring of this mic makes them disturb less (because they sound duller). That's why a mic this colored (=theoretically flawed) could become that successful at all in my opinion. So if the NTG-3 doesn't color like the 416, then to me it's not an alternative.
This test is a good idea. I think it might be a more vigorous test with one simple acoustic instrument, as distortions will more obviously disrupt the musical flow.
Thank you for the suggestion. I've got an acoustic guitar that I can pluck on, although I have no skill as of yet... but you can hear a mic's ability to handle the strings and make another judgement.
Both do a fine job with directionality. It's obvious the Sennheiser cuts through far better than the Rode. That's extremely important in the mix of it all. Another great application for the Senny is voiceovers. VO greats like Harlan Hogan, Beau Weaver, and Don Capone all use this reason. I use it too.
The Rode is actually more forgiving then the Sennheiser in this regard. The NTG-3 has a more gentle off-axis response, which is very desirable in most cases. If you look at the Schoeps MK41 (the defacto standard for dialog mics, and $1500+) you will see it has a perfectly smooth off axis response... that is what people are paying $1500 for with that mic... and it just happens that the NTG-3 also has this smooth off axis response. The 416 is colored off axis, but it is also more direct beam.
The two characteristics go together, not totally... but they are related. A Schoeps MK41 is a hyper (rounder bubble of pickup, less reach)... it's almost impossible to have uncolored off-axis sound, and still have good reach, but the NTG-3 has accomplished this.
The 416 has a more direct beam (not by a large margin, but a little more isolation of beam vs. off-axis)... however, if you try one for yourself, or ask any 416 owner... voices off axis sound like people are talking through a sock.
The NTG-3 off-axis simply sounds like the voices are at a far lower level then when in the beam. This way, when you're booming... if the mic is off slightly, you can still adjust volume in post edit and have usable soundtrack. If you have an inexperienced boom op with a 416 and he/she misses aim a couple times... you will have huge headaches in post.
With a 416 you had either better BE a good boom op... or become one very soon :-)
I don't expect the NTG-3 to "replace" the 416, but I do think the NTG-3 is an excellent alternate choice (and of course, at half the price... that's a serious consideration).
I'm used to dealing with people at both ends of the spectrum... on some gigs we have a $20K sound bag with Lectro 4xx, Cooper mixer, etc... and then when I talk to most indi-filmmakers, they think an me66 is the best thing there is.
This is to show that for a little more then me66 range, you enter pro-level sound.
The Rode was definitely bassier and warmer. I might buy one in the near future.
If I felt a recording was too bassy, I'm sure it could be fixed with a simple low-pass filter (or equalizer). Adding bass to the 416 with an EQ is possible too, I suppose, but it could be problematic.
I'm using an American Grip C-Stand... that is the "arm" sticking out... then I used bogen 3102 (or 3105)... adapter to mount a stereo bar... and then K-Tek SSM (x2) on that.
I like C-stands for all the great uses... a C-stand does it all. If you want a cheaper, lighter, and still good stand for booming stationary situations (interviews mostly) then the Manfrotto 420NSB is a great choice. I have 2 of those under the previous model number.
i'm thinking the off axis stuff was a bit better on the 416, overall very similar sounding, just seems the 416 has had the time to gain a good reputation, still though if you can afford one the mkh 60 is a winner.
I'm a big fan of the MKH60... but it is almost 3x the price (street). As I was saying in response to another comment... I do a lot of talking about sound to guys that need to muster up the courage to buy their first $300 mic.
The main reason I wanted to put this up wasn't so much to convince somebody that they should buy this mic over anything else (for short shotgun)... but rather, my intention was to assure people that it's a no-brainer at the cost. It's a bargain for certain.
I think this test shows pretty little. This is very close micing and almost ideal situation. Also the quality of the youtube audio is under all ctitisism,
But even in this situation MKH416 wins to my ears. There is an intelegebility and presence as well as tighter low -mid.
But the most important thing is that the higher price is ...for reason.
This has been flagged as spam show
I like the test a lot. The only thing that I think is making it biased is the fact that you're using a blue tint over one and an orange for the other. People are automatically going to feel like the one with the blue tint is colder and more sterile. Image effects your audio. I think a text overlay showing the mic difference is enough. You could just use footage for each that are treated the same. Great comparison, though.
RyanTaylor3D 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
RyanTaylor3D 3 weeks ago
yaaayyyyy:...Matt's outdoors.... :o) sorry Matt only joshing mate..nice to hear an outdoor test,being that is where I will be most of the time,I'm looking for a budget mic,so far it looks like the NTG2 for the money and the hard life it will have,Sennheiser's ME66 is nice but a 'tad ' rich for the system i'm putting together..although the 3 sounds quite good in this test.
redeyesinthedark 1 month ago
Very interesting. I've been working with MKH-416's for about 15+ Years and believe they're good mics but actually, in the demo you give here, the Rode is the preferred mic. It would make the subject sound more natural in that they'd sound as though they're wearing a lavalier because of the low end response. For reference, I listened to this several times via Genelec 1030's. Aside from the lower mid response that I could detect, it requires an effort to pull them apart blind.
FamousTVvoice 1 month ago
After all cameras are not made to process sound. It's made to process picture.
vrobert1979 2 months ago
you should test this in a sound absorbing environment, I'm not gonna bash Rode, but I love the MKH 416. It just is a solid mic. I have yet to use the NTG3 so I can't comment on it. but I wonder what they would sound like on a sound recorder, maybe a Marantz, H4N, or even a tascom, if you could review that that would be great
vrobert1979 2 months ago
Great comparison, very helpful. Thanks for posting.
EdgeworthJohnstone 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you experienced bad noise when using a t-power mic with phantom power adapter on a recorder, mixer, etc.?
grispic 2 months ago
Hello Matt Thank you for the comparison. I liked the Sennhieser because it sounds more directional, and has a lot less self noise; the mic didn't pic as much background construction noise; however it seemed more muffled. I also notice more people favored the Rode, because in my opinion it had more bass and it picked the envirment more. I am trying to decide which mic to buy right now for indepenent filmmaking (money is not the problem). I want a mic that is the best in all ways. TY 4 ur time.
Cameradep07 3 months ago
Just one tip to help the quality on youtube, is that generally, the bit rate on the sound is more effective if you have the video in at least 480p, to render out at 720x480 or 640x480 just so that the sound quality is absolutely full potential. It doesn't get higher above 480p soundwise, but from tons of youtube experience I can tell you that.
InsanityOnABunFilms 4 months ago
cool
InsanityOnABunFilms 4 months ago
I don't know about anyone else but my ears detected that "crunchy", digi sound you get from compression and removing background noise from the 416.
The Rode sounded deeper and more resonant, a bit richer.
Just FYI, I'm only here to look for a microphone and I'm not bias toward any brand. I only want to find the best mic for my job.
Anyone else hear that? Is this just from Youtube compressions?
r44skiff 4 months ago
@sonicsuitcase Seems like you have a point to make. Maybe get down off the high horse and give us some useable information.
00bikeboy 5 months ago
The Rode is definitely warmer and fuller. The 416 seemed just a touch more sterile to me.
johnnyh64 5 months ago 2
@johnnyh64
I agree but I think we are biased because of the colors used. The 416 has a blue overlay making it seem colder and more sterile to begin with. Image effects audio. Close your eyes watch it again.
RyanTaylor3D 2 months ago
If you are a VO artist, MALE, and wish to deepen your voice, then you will probably get a better sound from the 416... only because it has a very high level of proximity effect. That means that you can turn a "tenor" into an "alto" by getting right on top of the mic and lowering the mic level. The NTG3 has less proximity effect and may sound better with naturally deep voices and/or female voices. Just my opinions of course, based on experience.
Matt63368 5 months ago
@Matt63368
I guess you meant tenor into an bass, since alto is for women.
Einheerjar 4 months ago
Hello! I am Voice over actor and thinking to get either rode Ntg3 or Seinheizer 416. which do you think would be best? I realize your video indicates the Rode sounds better. However in my application I will be right up to the mic vs booming the mic. Would the Rode still be the better choice for on the road travel in your experience or opinion?
HoraceBlack 5 months ago
I like the sound of the Rode.
TucoRamirez2 6 months ago in playlist Microphones
Wow, I was totally expecting the 416 to sound better but I actually prefer the Rode quite a bit more. It has a much warmer, richer tone. I'm starting to understand why even crews who have a more flexible budget are choosing to shoot with this mic.
aaprine 6 months ago
outstanding test
Twingalan 6 months ago
rode has a clearer sound but more self-noise...
KingOfShadows1500 6 months ago
This test is a real eye opener. I wouldn't have thought the NTG-3 would come close to the 416. Was looking at NTG mics just yesterday and thinking to myself, I would like to see how it measures up against the Sennheiser. Thanks for the 'no sales pitch' comparison.
pmaddison 7 months ago 2
Thanks for doing this. It's guys like you that make the internet great for consumers. My gratitude sir.
00bikeboy 7 months ago 8
@00bikeboy I'm glad you got something positive out of it... This whole "mic testing" thing spawned from a good friend of mine (and myself) buying up mics like crazy and trying them out against one another. The original DVX100 was the first camera to record sound so cleanly that you could record music with the camera... my best mic back then, was an ME66... which continuously frustrated me on the DVX. Once I realized how much better mics got for no extra cost... I was hooked on "comparisons".
Matt63368 7 months ago
@sonicsuitcase You'll notice that I didn't remove your previous comment against Rode. That's because I think you're entitled to your opinion and I'm not here to censor you. I'd prefer that you keep your comments constructive, even if critical however, otherwise it's commonly known as "trolling". Youtube is free. You should post a video explaining why you feel the 416 is the superior choice. I've been neutral, letting viewers think and decide for themselves. Attacking the product helps no one.
Matt63368 8 months ago 11
@Matt63368
so you proceed to tell him he's allowed to say what he wants but then you have a go at him for expressing an opinion. i'd much prefer to read comments that don't sit on the fence, or are you deluded enough to think everyone lives in a namby pamby world where everyone has to be nice to certain business' products regardless of their limitations?
transplants125 3 months ago
@transplants125
I have nothing to gain in an argument here. Statements like "get down off your high horse"... and "are you deluded enough to think..." Those are invitations to argue. I honestly don't care which mic anybody likes better. I do, however, believe the Rode is a bargain for it's $ to Q ratio. The sense of entitlement of some people is amazing. This is just a simple little video clip that shows me talking into a couple mics... nothing more, nothing less.
Matt63368 3 months ago 7
The 416 has over twenty years of a good reputation in the industry. Rode was smart to know that they had to make something good and durable to compete. I'm sure that explains the 10 year warranty.
People compare the NTG3 to the 416 because of size, weight, and RF bias design, but the guts of the NTG3 don't look anything like the 416, even though they sound similar. If the NTG3 proves as durable as the 416 is, then it's an amazing bargain, which explains my enthusiasm.
Matt63368 8 months ago
You shouldn't hear ANY difference in using a blimp or not. I'm assuming you only mean with fur(?), but still, there shouldn't be a big difference.
In the real world, the NTG3 wins sometimes and the 416 wins sometimes, but the 416 off axis is unusable, while the NTG3 rolls off volume without changing the tonality of voices. That's what "forgiving pattern" means.
But I LIKE both mics, if the 416 and NTG3 were the same price, I wouldn't have cared to post this vid.
Matt63368 8 months ago
I gotta' say the ME66 is one of my least favorite mics in existence. I've owned a 416 and an ME66. The ME66 was engineered to be a HOT mic (strong mids and highs) back when camcorders NEEDED a hot mic (10+ years ago). These days that's bad.
I like the 416, it's a great mic, but the ME66 is a waste of money. As for the CS3e? That's a better mic then either the 416 or the NTG3, but it's also $1400.
Matt63368 8 months ago
To further illustrate how a blimp can muddy up a mic, a Sennheiser ME66 in a blimp sounds stellar and is very directional. Most people abhor the 66 because it is "harsh." That harshness is a spike in the upper mid frequencies, which inside a blimp cuts through without the mud. It also sounds very good with AGC, such as into a Panasonic GH2.
Well, a lot of people are really fussy. You know what people say about the Neumann TLM193 (flat frequency response)? "Boring." Too warm. Never happy.
raqcoonmammal 8 months ago
I was extremely close to buying an NTG3 with BIN on eBay, but many reviewers say it has a "forgiving" polar pattern. That's too wide when shooting docs in uncontrolled environments, e.g. urban. Also, in noisy environments too much "warmth" can become "muddy" i.e. in a blimp. A few days after I passed on the NTG3, a 416 showed up with BIN on eBay which I bought. I think the 416 is excellent middle ground between an NTG3 (warm) and Sanken CS-1 (bright) and is more directional than both.
raqcoonmammal 8 months ago
Thanks. This test help convince me to buy the Rode NTG-3 off you guys.
laughingcrows 9 months ago
thanks for your sound advice Matt. are you the one featured on instructional dvd by Barry Green?
presa1200 11 months ago
Yes, the Rode wins this test.
dennisonearth 1 year ago
The single most important thing to know for good dialog is to get the mic as close as you can. The boom pole's main purpose is to get a microphone as close as it can be to the actors, while keeping the microphone out of sight... which is why they are suspended over the shot... with a pole. If the camera is so close to the actors that IT becomes the closest place to put the mic, then you can put it on-cam and get good results... and ALWAYS use a shock-mount.
Matt63368 1 year ago
@Matt63368
In addition to what you just mentioned, booming a mic also utilizes the mic's characteristics to your advantage. For instance the MKH416 and the NTG3 are super-cardioid and hyper-cardioid mics respectively. Both do a good job in side sound-rejection as well as rear rejection.
In order to isolate the mic to the talent as much as possible, orientating them in a boom position will take advantage of these characteristics. We really need a diagram to show this more clearly.
ectobuilder 9 months ago
is it advisable to put the rode on a boom or on the camera? or is it best to use a shock mount?
wonderwall135 1 year ago
btw i have a Sennheiser mkh 416, i placed the mic as close as possible to the subject but i still couldn't get a loud and "punchy" sound like yours. yes i do get good quality sound sometimes and i guess it could be that my mic positioning is not constant.
presa1200 1 year ago
I agree that the 416 does have a more precise "beam". I think some viewers misinterpret my intentions. There are times when I prefer the 416, and times when I prefer the NTG3... it's the fact that the NTG3 effectively parallels the 416 in sound and performance, in many situations, at HALF the cost... that's the compelling part of the story, but yes, I also hear what you hear in this clip. Thank you for a thoughtful comment on what I intended to be an unbiased test!
Matt63368 1 year ago
As an owner of the 416, 60,70,50,40,8050 I can say with confidence that the 416 in this experiment has better rejection. A little less beef in the bottom, but that can only enhance boom pole rumble and wind noise.
Ontariosound 1 year ago
@Ontariosound We're not talking about those other models. Just these two, and the Rode wins. Listen again. Just sounds better.
dennisonearth 1 year ago
You would be surprised. If you have an MD46 hold it over your head and record something. You'll sound like you're 10' away from it. A dynamic mic like that one must be held right in front of the mouth. Notice that commentators or singers will hold the mic so that they can gauge the distance to the diaphragm with their finger... touching under their bottom lip or on their chin. Dynamic mics must LITERALLY be within a few inches of the mouth to get clean sound.
Matt63368 1 year ago
I think with the mics that close to the subject, you might have gotten an even better result with a dynamic mic like the Sennheiser MD 46. It sure cancels out ambient noise a lot better than any directional condenser or electret mic.
I think it would be more interesting to see a comparison of the two mics in a wider shot, where they both have to be 3-4 feet farther away from the subject
highks 1 year ago
the rode sounds a small bit more crisp, but is the rode (being more expensive) really worth it?
pictureskateboards 1 year ago
What does he say at 00:30 ? AUX rejection???
alexzracer2008 1 year ago
@alexzracer2008 off axis rejection ;)
golafs 11 months ago
@alexzracer2008 He (me) says "off axis rejection"... I'm sorry if I mumbled these words.
Matt63368 8 months ago
Thank you, that was a nice comparison and I must say I am impressed with the NTG3. Have you tried a comparison to see how the NTG3 matches with a Sennheiser MKE-2 Lapel mic?
I am in the market for a new shotgun mic and have been looking at the NTG3 for a while now. I may just go for it soon!
Zefeldmaus 1 year ago
Sennheiser 416 wins hands down. I tested both. While you can get away with a NTG 3 with good sound, the Sennheiser 416 will beat it when the subject is screaming or if there's any tendency to distort. In loud situations, the NTG-3 will sound harsh and unpleasant. This said, if you're on a budget, the NTG-3 will let you get away with it. However for some real professional audio, the 416 remains the industry standard.
jujufactory 1 year ago
Thank you. I love the way compared the microphones.
rayaquino 1 year ago
Comment removed
Superfoot 1 year ago
the rode sounds full and beefy to me.
imaginarytube 1 year ago
Great test Matt .... is it possible for you to do a mic shootout with the NTG3 and other mics at a 10' distance or even further . thanks for this vid .
rodsteel101 1 year ago
Rode has more presence
HalfyardProductions7 1 year ago
Actually I don't hear any difference :D
pianodesu 1 year ago 2
good comparison. I like both mics. I used MKH416 many times, but it's a quite expensive. Even though NTG-3 isn't cheap, say compare to NTG-2, which is now about 300. But I like the idea that they are both very similar sounding mics, 416 got a bit more rejection on the side, but all the BG noises that you've picked up with both are actually easily cleaned in post production. I had such a bad situations with locations that it's not even funny. But shotgun coupled with lavalier is a must. Big up.
Greenjah81 1 year ago
Great test. Thanks.
laughingcrows 1 year ago
thanks!
Orf 1 year ago
i dunno man I like the 416.
AgentMerk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The NTG-3 is a good microphone if you do not have much budget, but the Sennheiser MKH 416 is better, offers a better response at low frequencies, more flat. It would also have to prove that such a response of NTG-3 not so short distances, because that is where most noticeable in the quality of a shotgun microphone. And finally, if you can afford it buy a CMIT Shoeps 5 U...
PLASTICONEGRO 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The NTG-3 is a good microphone if you do not have much budget, but the Sennheiser MKH 416 is better, offers a better response at low frequencies, more flat. It would also have to prove that such a response of NTG-3 not so short distances, because that is where most noticeable in the quality of a shotgun microphone. And finally, if you can afford it buy a CMIT Shoeps 5 U...
PLASTICONEGRO 1 year ago
nice demo...very smart. thx
timmytapeworm13 1 year ago
This video is one of the best video foundable on Youtube. Thanks you very much Matt63368.
th4002 1 year ago 8
many thanks!
lkabird 1 year ago
they sound all most equil
beepsbobby 1 year ago
great video sir. How much where the mics? Tnx
poondoonproductions 1 year ago
the Rode mic just seems a lot warmer, lot more bass going on. i'm definitely getting a NTG-3.
rememberstudio 1 year ago
Rode is known to have a warmer sound on its shotgun mics. In this video, there is actually very little ambient sound. If you take either of these mics to a very noisy environment, let's say a massive anti-war rally in Washington DC and you are shooting ENG for a news outlet and doing an on-the-spot run-n-gun interview, the Sennheiser's slight treble increase and narrower pattern will get the talker's voice above the crowd. Senn will cut through, Rode will get lost in the mix.
raqcoonmammal 2 years ago 4
I agree that the 416 is a very nice microphone... although, if I were going to spend that much I'd have to look very carefully at a Sanken CS3e instead. My intention was not to specifically say that I think the NTG-3 is BETTER then the 416, but rather, to do my best to present them neutrally, and allow the youtube viewers to make their own evaluation based on this particular test. I will try to get an NTG-3 clip up at longer distance in a more challenging place. Thank you!
Matt63368 2 years ago
I'd love to see (hear) this longer range noisier environment comparison. great job on this one.
Orf 1 year ago
@Matt63368 Hi, is the NTG-3 much better for recording movie location dialogue than a Sennheiser ME66 in your opinion? The ME66 seems to be cheaper second hand than the NTG-3 and I was wondering if it was worth shelling out the extra money. Cheers!
1simonmatthews 1 year ago
Well produced comparison but, the working distance is too small which plays to the advantage of the Rode.
The forte of the MKH416 is that it has great presence at further distances, making the talent seem closer than they are.
janineb6 2 years ago
I'll try to do some more NTG-3 "tests" at longer distances.
Matt63368 2 years ago
I agree with the other guy here, the Rode sounds much nicer, warm,compared to the Sennheiser, just a nicer sound all round.
Sonialovebunch 2 years ago
Thanks for this excellent demo. I'm looking at picking up a NTG-3 based on the price and positive reviews. This demo has me sold. It's a little warmer than the 416, and the slightly wider pattern is a bonus. Thank you very much!
senn416 2 years ago
Great Test and nice calm weather what recorder were the mics going in to or did you have them plugged direct to Camera if so what camera was it ?
outithewoods 2 years ago 2
This was done plugged directly into a Panasonic DVX camera.
Matt63368 2 years ago
I feel stupid, I really can't hear the difference. Can some one tell me what to look for?
sifs4 2 years ago
If you're listening to it on entry level laptop speakers it might be hard to hear the difference. Play it over and over again, I find the MKH 416 sounds thinner, the voice doesn't seem as round as with the NTG-3.
goldenedge 2 years ago
Mmm, this rode is definetely in my interest range for mics in the field. Thanks a lot!
KarameloKaramelo 2 years ago
thanks matt for the test
i was searching for another mike for field work next to our schoeps cmit-5u
looks like the rode is for us.
paulchiu 2 years ago
I used to have Studio Projects C4, when they said it sounds like Schoeps. I had Studio Electronics stereo pair, when they said it sounds like DPA.
In the end I live with my Schoeps and DPA and Sennheiser MKH series and all these Chinese, Australians and other "better solution" claimers were sold or were given as presents to others.
Buy expensive mics! It's not only the quality you don't get anywhere any cheaper, it's also an investment which you can reverse any day you want.
mgoorevich1974 2 years ago
If someone is in the position to afford those choices and still afford the other components of a decent sound kit then I don't know that this comparison will convince them to look at a "value" option. The mics you mention are very good microphones. With location sound for video many people spend their whole budget on a mic and then can't afford boom, blimp, etc. etc. I think the value here, is getting into the pro-sound game at pro-sumer cost.
Matt63368 2 years ago
@mgoorevich1974
"Better solution" is a straw man you made up. We A/B compare. Period. You were mistaken to listen to opinions rather than compare audio, and now you recommend the same error. No reasonable person can take this advice. If you decide whether or not you can intercut two mics (or whatever questions have led you to A/B compare) based on retail price and brand, what you're doing has no relation to audio. If a standard A/B strikes you as a loaded question, I am baffled.
TerresEndormies 11 months ago
wow, the NGT-3 is cheaper too.
boghosian 2 years ago
thanks ! this is great
PatrickSchabus 2 years ago
something that should be added in favor of the 416 is that when there are undesired sound sources off axis (e.g. street noise), the coloring of this mic makes them disturb less (because they sound duller). That's why a mic this colored (=theoretically flawed) could become that successful at all in my opinion. So if the NTG-3 doesn't color like the 416, then to me it's not an alternative.
christidal 2 years ago
This test is a good idea. I think it might be a more vigorous test with one simple acoustic instrument, as distortions will more obviously disrupt the musical flow.
AliDinkles 2 years ago
Thank you for the suggestion. I've got an acoustic guitar that I can pluck on, although I have no skill as of yet... but you can hear a mic's ability to handle the strings and make another judgement.
Matt63368 2 years ago
@AliDinkles I've done an NTG-3, NTG-2, NT3, & AT4053b video mic test with guitar at the end.
Chadfish 1 year ago
Both do a fine job with directionality. It's obvious the Sennheiser cuts through far better than the Rode. That's extremely important in the mix of it all. Another great application for the Senny is voiceovers. VO greats like Harlan Hogan, Beau Weaver, and Don Capone all use this reason. I use it too.
tomszafranski 2 years ago
The Rode is actually more forgiving then the Sennheiser in this regard. The NTG-3 has a more gentle off-axis response, which is very desirable in most cases. If you look at the Schoeps MK41 (the defacto standard for dialog mics, and $1500+) you will see it has a perfectly smooth off axis response... that is what people are paying $1500 for with that mic... and it just happens that the NTG-3 also has this smooth off axis response. The 416 is colored off axis, but it is also more direct beam.
Matt63368 2 years ago
The two characteristics go together, not totally... but they are related. A Schoeps MK41 is a hyper (rounder bubble of pickup, less reach)... it's almost impossible to have uncolored off-axis sound, and still have good reach, but the NTG-3 has accomplished this.
The 416 has a more direct beam (not by a large margin, but a little more isolation of beam vs. off-axis)... however, if you try one for yourself, or ask any 416 owner... voices off axis sound like people are talking through a sock.
Matt63368 2 years ago
The NTG-3 off-axis simply sounds like the voices are at a far lower level then when in the beam. This way, when you're booming... if the mic is off slightly, you can still adjust volume in post edit and have usable soundtrack. If you have an inexperienced boom op with a 416 and he/she misses aim a couple times... you will have huge headaches in post.
With a 416 you had either better BE a good boom op... or become one very soon :-)
Matt63368 2 years ago
Its going to be hard to steal the 416's thunder. The mic is a all out, tried and true favorite. Not to mention its a tank!
12khmi 2 years ago
I don't expect the NTG-3 to "replace" the 416, but I do think the NTG-3 is an excellent alternate choice (and of course, at half the price... that's a serious consideration).
I'm used to dealing with people at both ends of the spectrum... on some gigs we have a $20K sound bag with Lectro 4xx, Cooper mixer, etc... and then when I talk to most indi-filmmakers, they think an me66 is the best thing there is.
This is to show that for a little more then me66 range, you enter pro-level sound.
Matt63368 2 years ago
Thanks for the comparison. Nice work.
The Rode was definitely bassier and warmer. I might buy one in the near future.
If I felt a recording was too bassy, I'm sure it could be fixed with a simple low-pass filter (or equalizer). Adding bass to the 416 with an EQ is possible too, I suppose, but it could be problematic.
Amplifier81 2 years ago
Comment removed
Chaktastick 2 years ago
what boom stand are you using?
aprilLIKES10yearolds 2 years ago
I'm using an American Grip C-Stand... that is the "arm" sticking out... then I used bogen 3102 (or 3105)... adapter to mount a stereo bar... and then K-Tek SSM (x2) on that.
I like C-stands for all the great uses... a C-stand does it all. If you want a cheaper, lighter, and still good stand for booming stationary situations (interviews mostly) then the Manfrotto 420NSB is a great choice. I have 2 of those under the previous model number.
Matt63368 2 years ago
Great test mate,basic and to the point, very good compareson between the two mics.
tsaudiovisual 2 years ago
i'm thinking the off axis stuff was a bit better on the 416, overall very similar sounding, just seems the 416 has had the time to gain a good reputation, still though if you can afford one the mkh 60 is a winner.
seancreynolds 2 years ago
I'm a big fan of the MKH60... but it is almost 3x the price (street). As I was saying in response to another comment... I do a lot of talking about sound to guys that need to muster up the courage to buy their first $300 mic.
The main reason I wanted to put this up wasn't so much to convince somebody that they should buy this mic over anything else (for short shotgun)... but rather, my intention was to assure people that it's a no-brainer at the cost. It's a bargain for certain.
Matt63368 2 years ago
I think this test shows pretty little. This is very close micing and almost ideal situation. Also the quality of the youtube audio is under all ctitisism,
But even in this situation MKH416 wins to my ears. There is an intelegebility and presence as well as tighter low -mid.
But the most important thing is that the higher price is ...for reason.
Read on-----
mgoorevich1974 2 years ago
...and I just realized that I purchased it from you, on your ebay store!
cohbie 2 years ago
I just purchased a Røde NTG-3. I am impatiently awaiting its arrival. This video (and the price difference) greatly influenced my decision. Thanks!
cohbie 2 years ago
Comment removed
oliverio10 2 years ago
NTG-3
jera3 2 years ago 3
i think røde was best
jokimomagic 2 years ago 18
Good stuff. Simple but effective
powervid 2 years ago
an excellent way to show up the differences - and it could have gone on much longer for me. tom.
tomrhardwick 2 years ago
I'm loving the sound of the NTG-3!
grossepointemichigan 2 years ago 12