Introduction

Back in 2024, when Radius Windshields had introduced the RAD-1 and RAD-2 hoops, but hadn’t yet produced the Mini-ALTO windshield, I retrofitted the hoops to a Rycote Nano Shield: you see this in the blog post here. This was tricky since the hoops are too tall to fit easily into the Nano Shield, so they had to be mounted on the underside of a purpose-made rail: this was a bit fiddly in use. With my 3d-printed double clips this gave me a workable compact MS rig, which – while a bit clunky – was better than using back-to-back clips in a Nano Shield fitted with lyres (not enough vertical room and the Nano Shield lyres have very little side-to-side compliance, which does side-address mics no favours). Once the Mini-ALTO arrived, such need ended and, of course, Radius’s subsequent production of their own injection-moulded (and adjustable) version of my more rudimentary 3d-printed MS clips was the icing on the cake.

The arrival of the smaller Mini-RAD hoops from Radius Windshields, however, means that retrofitting to a Nano Shield becomes much easier: no longer is hoop height an issue. Now this raises the question. from two different angles, as to why bother? First off, the smaller Mini-RAD hoops are just too tiny to allow insertion of an MS pair, so what would they offer over the Nano Shield’s original lyres? And, secondly, given that the Nano Shield was seemingly insufficiently tested before going into production, thereby attracting some negative feedback from users due to unexpected handling noise issues when used for production sound (which led to the issuing of some revised parts, including the 3D-TEX sock that covers the basket), why bother with the windshield at all? Well there wouldn’t be this blog-post if there wasn’t some merit in the retrofit, although, needless to say, reasons for doing so will vary from recordist to recordist and for some there may be no value. The key reasons for me are:

• Side-address mics. The Nano Shield’s lyres in many ways were an improvement on the standard Rycote lyres, but their design, which means compliance became much more restricted to the Z-axis (axial to the mic diaphragm for a typical end-address SDC), works well for end-address mics, but is not so good for side-address mics. The standard Rycote lyres have more side-to-side (X-axis) compliance and the Radius RAD-2 and Mini-RADs more still. This is why the Radius hoops work so effectively seemingly off-axis in, say, the ORTF in a Mini-ALTO designs I have been designing. So, if wanting to use a side-address SDC (be that a cardioid like the Schoeps MK 4V, a fig 8 or a stereo shotgun – of course, with a fig 8 capsule in it – such as the Sennheiser MKH 8018) is a very good reason to retrofit.

• Vertical use. This slightly overlaps with the point above, because the Nano Shield lyres are not effective when used vertically, first of all since vertical use implies side-address mics (unless recording planes or high-flying birds!) and, second, as the Z-axis compliance means they are simply too floppy when used vertically. OK, the answer could be to use a different windshield for vertical use, but this is where the Nano Shield’s design really comes to play, even if, as I suspect, through serendipity rather than deliberate design. The basket design is extremely unusual: I’m not thinking so much of the elliptical profile, but, rather the seamless construction. Most windshields, of course, have a basket that meets in a seam or a rail along the underside: this makes for simpler construction and, also, the rail – if it has one – provides scope for a variety of support points for shock mounts for mics of different length and design. The rail of the Nano Shield, however, is internal (part of the mic mount) and each pod is seamless around the straight barrel and into the hemisphere (if you can call it that when elliptical!) although, of course, there is a significant plastic component where the two halves of the windshield mate. The lack of a forward ring – a product of a separate end-cap in many a windshield – is beneficial to almost all use of a windshield, and the Cinelas are very good in this regard too. The thick plastic ring of an end cap evidently has an impact on (i.e. colours) the sound. What is more surprising with the Nano Shield is that the seamlessness extends to what is usually the bottom of the windshield: a seam or rail on the underside of a windshield in normal use has little to no impact. However, turn the windshield vertically, and use with either a mono omni mic or some form of 360 degree array (be that DMS or ambisonic), then a chunky seam or rail at the rear of the windshield starts to have an impact. Of course, not all windshields are equal in this degree: the relatively modest thin seam of a Mini-ALTO offers much less impact than the chunky rail of a Rycote Modular. But the seamlessness of the Nano Shield combined with its lightweight and open basket structure offers something quite different if – and I accept this is a big if – you are after a compact vertical windshield for individual side-address SDCs or, like me, an end-to-end pair for double mid side (DMS) using at least one twin mic: as I showed in my blog-post for DMS with the MKH 800 Twin and MKH 8030 combination, the Nano Shield offers an alternative to the Mini-ALTO for a compact rig, with the advantage of more transparency at the rear, but with the disadvantage of overly sagging lyres (and, of course, the general lack of robustness, ease of use and fit that mark the Mini-ALTO).

Some readers may also wonder whether retrofitting the Nano Shield with the Mini-RADs resolves any remaining noise issues. I am not at all certain how much of the Nano Shield’s problem was related to its lyres, if at all, not least as I have struggled to replicate the noise/resonance once the Rycote-issued revised parts were fitted. But, that said, I am not swinging a boom day in day out, and much of my use involves static mounting of windshields for recording sound effects etc.: others may find in more intense real-world boom-pole use that the Mini-RAD retrofit is helpful in further resolving the noise issues of the Nano Shield, and it would be fascinating to hear if that is the case.

Rigging and testing

Given my reasons for doing this retrofit, there isn’t a great deal of testing to be done: I am already happy with the performance of the Mini-RADs and have posted my real-world tests on them here. For the sake of thoroughness, however, I did a specific comparison of the standard and retrofitted Nano Shields (i.e. with the baskets on, not just comparing the bare shock mounts), with both mounted on a short stereo bar at the end of an extended boom pole. There was no noticeable difference, and the spectrum analyzer results are shown here:

In terms of the vertical rigging prevention of sag, the results are very much as expected, as shown in this DMS rig:

Conclusions

The Nano Shield had a mixed reception and, as I understand it, only modest sales, doubtless in part due to the many social media comments on the noise issue. Despite the windshields not being as well tested or, indeed, as easy to use as the Mini-ALTO (in many ways the natural successor and alternative), the basket design remains quite unique and a rather clever bit of injection moulding: there isn’t, for example, even a Cinela equivalent that has all the same attributes. As such, if a Mini-RAD hoop retrofit helps anyone bring their Nano Shields back into use, then that’s a good thing: I’ve certainly found the fairly simple process worthwhile.

My simple 3d-model for the bar to support the Mini-RADs is freely available here in Onshape, but I am sure others interested in trying the retrofit will want to develop their own versions, perhaps with different lengths and spacings between hoops: fit is also a bit dependent on 3d printer and material.