All Posts By

Roland

The Mega-Blimp Project

Mega-Blimp: any availability?

February 2, 2025

Are the Mega-Blimps available to purchase?

In my introduction to the Mega-Blimps I describe a nominally ‘DIY ‘ (would ‘self-build’ be a better term?) project and, like similar posts I have written before it, the post was designed to stimulate interest, inform and, hopefully, encourage others to embark on their projects. But whilst designing and building the two Mega-Blimps, and more so within hours of making the first blog post public, I have had queries as to whether they could be made available to others with comparable field-recording needs. Obviously rolling/bending and TIG-welding stainless steel rod is quite a skill and not everyone has a friend with the requisite expertise that is happy to make such a windshield basket. Equally they may not be as happy to expend such time and energy in taking an idea like this to the finished article, including the making of prototypes. I am no manufacturer (or at least wasn’t!), but in the spirit of wishing to help those in the sound-recording community for whom something similar is not achievable, I have asked Rob Moore, who made the baskets for me, whether he would be happy to help others (for a modest price) and his answer is yes, as long as this isn’t overwhelming (we don’t want to distract him from his wonderful rolling-ball sculptures!).

So, the short answer is, yes, we may well be able help you whether that is just Rob making the TIG-welded basket with the welded-in bottom plate (leaving you to source the other parts: internal mounts, suspensions, mic clips and cables to taste; the Arca plate from any supplier; and the fur direct from Radius Windshields – they have kept the two cutting patterns, naturally), or, if this is too much hassle, then we can supply the whole caboodle. Just get in touch and we can see if we can sort something out: but please don’t expect something tomorrow. Crumbs, if I’d known this was going to happen, I might have thought of a better name than the ‘Mega-Blimp’!

The other thing that has come across from early responses to my post on the Mega-Blimps is that some recordists fancy something somewhat similar to the two Mega-Blimps, but necessarily different to accommodate particular mics/arrays: for example, a 3d-ORTF array, with eight mics, would not fit in either! Or, equally, they think the Mega-Blimp might be suited to their uses, when it isn’t. For example, I have had a query from an old friend wanting a Mega-Blimp large for his Soundfield ST250, but, being honest, I can’t pretend it will be a good fit at all: in due course, I will doubtless design something to fit his mic. And this, of course, is another beauty of TIG-welded baskets: they lend themselves to one-off or bespoke designs in a way that plastic, especially injection-moulded, does not. OK there’s some time element required for design, and the fur would have to be made specifically to fit, but these are not significant hurdles. So, yes, Rob and I may be able to help those otherwise struggling with finding something specific to their mics or unusual arrays. So, again, please do get in touch and, without any promises (!), let’s see if we might be able to help.

DIY Projects The Mega-Blimp Project

The Mega-Blimp Project

January 31, 2025

Introduction

It’s a funny thing, sound-recording equipment. The products out there are often designed with very particular types of recordists in mind and may not be optimal for all users: and yet many of us use such gear for quite unintended purposes either unthinkingly or because we have no alternatives. Nowhere, perhaps with the exception of sound bags, is this more obvious than with windshields. As Philippe Chenevez of windshield-maker Cinela put it ‘commercialized units are always compromises with hard choices’ (Chenevez 2009, 1). When buying commercial windshields sound recordists have very little control over those unavoidable compromises, other than selecting from the available models one that offers, for them, the best balance between price, size, weight, ruggedness, ease of use, flexibility, acoustic transparency, effectiveness at reducing handling noise, and wind-noise reduction.

Most of the fundamental aspects of windshield design (which lead to the compromises) have been long established, and there are a good number of research papers stretching back over 60 years that cover the physics and that demonstrate, through tests, how different aspects of design affect performance: I list the research papers I have found most useful at the bottom of this post. Of all the aspects of design, there is no doubt that the most important is that size is the key factor in basket windshield performance: bigger really is better. Many have failed to grasp this fundamental point and desire the smallest windshields as if, somehow, the laws of physics can be miniaturized!

Practicalities come into play, of course: any sound recordist is going to struggle with a massive windshield on the end of an 18ft-long boom-pole. He or she won’t be able to hold the boom-pole, will struggle to aim or cue the mic, and won’t be able to make rapid adjustments. So, of course, common sense dictates that windshields for such use tend to be elongated (if not cylindrical), of manageable size and of lightweight material – invariably plastic. Over the many years of developing such windshields, refinements have been made by manufacturers to reduce handling noise, not just via improvements to mic shock-mounts, but also in the form of independent basket suspensions, as pioneered by Cinela with the Zephyx (in 2005). While there remains scope for improvement, the compromises involved in making a windshield for production sound are well understood by the experienced designers, and today there are a range of good tools available from the likes of Cinela, Rycote, Rode, and, most recently, Radius Windshields. I’ve been lucky enough to have used, tested and compared many of these windshields: indeed, looking around the room where I am typing this at all the windshields and their furs, the uninitiated might think I am starting a wig shop!

But what has begun to interest me more lately is what about windshields for those who don’t have the specific requirements of production sound, outside broadcast or, even, those involved in some more unusual aspects of sound recording for film and TV where they too don’t have the same needs? Above all, how different could a windshield be if liberated from the considerable constraint of being designed to go on the end of a boom-pole? The point came more sharply into focus recently when I finally got around to testing my massive DIY blimp made several years ago, alongside commercially made windshields, with the same mics. The old DIY blimp is a behemoth: I designed it to house a mid-side pair of LDC mics, end-to-end, and, as it has a bespoke TIG-welded basket and was going to be cumbersome anyway, I thought I might was well give it a healthy volume to improve performance: that unavoidable physics again. I used it from time to time when LDC mics were of value to me outdoors, but increasingly it has gathered dust as my SDC mic collection has improved. Fishing it out recently – initially because it was big enough to fit a B-format Nimbus-Halliday array of SDC mics inside – I wondered how it would stack up against a top-end commercially-produced windshield. The better wind reduction from the behemoth blimp was entirely expected, given its size, but what was less expected was the audible difference in transparency. So when I came to do my pseudo-anechoic chamber transparency tests of the Rycote Cyclone, Cinela Pianissimo and Cinela Zephyx models, I included the huge blimp too. As expected this time, it performed rather better than the commercial offerings. Although having not thought about its transparency before, it doesn’t take a genius to work out why it should colour the sound less: the sparse array of 3mm-round stainless-steel rods that make up the basket offer little obstacle to sound waves compared to the larger and/or more closely-spaced plastic elements of the other windshields. Now, the difference was hardly going to be enough to get me lugging this huge blimp and its necessarily bulky stand into the field regularly, but what, I wondered, about making a shorter TIG-welded blimp, more suited to SDC mics that I could use easily for stand-mounted field recording? And what if, at the same time, it could tackle some of the other frustrating aspects of windshields I have noted over the years? Now there was an idea: nothing if not ambitious! And that is how this DIY project was born. Well, I say ‘DIY’ project: as you will see below, it has involved a couple of other very skilled people, even if the designs – for better or for worse – are very much my own!

The two sizes of Mega-Blimp on the workbench.

The design

Using and, more recently testing, all sorts of windshields, plus the experience of my old LDC TIG-welded behemoth, gave me the basis of the main design requirements. The SDC blimp for field recording needed to maintain a large diameter, but should be much shorter than the old LDC behemoth, and able to fit in a backpack, and without being crazily heavy; it needed to be easy to use in the field, especially for accessing the mics; it needed to be rugged, but with a skeletonal structure to be as transparent as possible; the internal structure to support the microphones should be minimized, again to help with transparency; it needed to be stable and able to handle wind and structure-borne vibrations; and it needed to be adaptable, to be able to accommodate a range of mic arrays and to allow easy swapping between them. What follows is a description of how I have tackled each of these design requirements.

Over-sized maybe, but the Mega-Blimp large can still fit in a normal backpack, such as my old North Face Borealis, with room for cables, headphones and a sound recorder. OK the tripod will need to be strapped on too, but that’s nothing new.

Size: While the diameter remains large – indeed it has increased slightly from the old LDC blimp from 231mm to 242mm – the new version is much shorter. At the design stage I played around with various lengths for the central section, balancing the need to keep the blimp manageable versus its ability to comfortably accommodate a range of set ups, including ORTF. In the end, I designed two sizes, which I am calling, with breathtaking originality, the Mega-Blimp ‘standard’ and the Mega-Blimp ‘large’. Both have much of their length formed by the hemispherical end caps, so seem vastly smaller than my old LDC blimp. For the ‘standard’ version the central cylindrical element was reduced from the old LDC blimp’s 421mm to 60mm, and for the ‘large’ version the central section is 140mm long: their respective overall lengths are 302mm and 382mm. Both sizes are able to fit in a backpack.

Some size comparisons of windshield baskets: the Mega-Blimp standard compared to the much longer previous DIY blimp for LDC mics from some years ago, along with the Rycote Cyclone small (MS kit), and the two Cinela MS windshields tested recently.
The same windshields for size comparison, but this time with furs added.

Ease of access: One of the constants of basket-type full windshields is the need to take them apart to fit, adjust or remove mics. This introduces functional issues (i.e. the faff often involved) and performance issues: the need to have windshields come apart often results in thick bits of plastic often where you don’t want them (e.g. where unscrewable end-caps join windshield bodies) – as we have seen very clearly with the massive ring around a Cyclone and its consequences for an MS pair. Unthinkingly, I took the need to take apart the windshield into the design of the old LDC behemoth blimp a few years ago, and the elements that relate to that are the most substantial parts of its basket. But with a sparse frame I found myself inserting and removing LDC mics and their shock-mounts without dismantling the windshield at all. With SDC mics this is even easier, so this time the two Mega-Blimps do not come apart, and, at one fell swoop, one of the biggest hassles of windshields, and the source of many of the lack of transparency issues is removed!

Tough, but skeletonal structure: As before, the Mega-Blimps are TIG-welded stainless-steel, to give maximum strength, durability and (though I suspect this won’t be needed) repairability, whilst minimizing the acoustic impact of the structure. I did consider other materials and even spent some time playing around with thin carbon-fibre rods (including testing them to destruction, which was unpleasant), but stainless steel won out easily. I wasn’t worried about weight since a) the Mega-Blimps aren’t for use on a boom-pole; b) a little bit more mass helps stability; and c) the weight is still fairly modest: for example, the basket (inc. baseplate) for the shorter ‘standard’ version weighs 510g, 710g with the fur, and around 960g with the large Arca plate, cable, mic shock-mount etc. (vs 744g for the small Cyclone Stereo Kit 5). Besides, when carrying the blimp it is nothing like the weight of a tripod or, even, my 788T field recorder. Now some of you may be thinking that steel will ring: well, of course, it resonates a bit if you ping the open basket with your fingernail (or a hammer!), but there is no use for a naked windshield basket, and the covering of fur completely dampens it. I was aware of this beforehand from the experience of the earlier LDC version. The open structure of the baskets ensures the transparency (and access), but might be seen as likely to cause flapping of the covering: again, from the previous experience, I knew that this was not an issue, and this has been further confirmed in my latest tests. This time around the stainless-steel rod is mainly 3mm diameter again except for the two main rings, which are beefed up to 4mm, and the two 6mm diameter rods to which the baseplate is welded: these slightly thicker elements have minimal acoustic effect, but strengthen the blimp hugely. And the longer central section (the ‘hamster wheel’) in the larger version also uses 4mm-diameter rod to maintain strength. Both sizes of the Mega-Blimp are, as a result, sparse but extremely tough: if they have no other attributes, they are at least far stronger than any commercially-produced windshields and will age much better than plastic!

Close-up showing the 3d-printed skirt on top of the baseplate (to reduce any reflections), through which the 15mm rod rises to the mic mount. You can also see how the XLR connector is mounted to the baseplate: it is easily swappable, of course (needless to say without soldering!).

Basket stability and shock-mounts: I have been intrigued by the independent basket suspensions pioneered by Cinela, and then followed, in quite different form, in the Rycote Cyclone. In his 2009 paper on the basket suspension, Philippe Chenevez (Cinela), describes how the ‘external skin [of the basket-type windshield] behaves as a drum excited by the vibrations of the support (boom or stand)’, but it is clear from his discussion and, indeed, from my own use of windshields (not least that of the earlier LDC DIY blimp), that the problem is predominantly one related to booming. It is one thing using a windshield on the end of a boom-pole or even a pistol-grip that is always moving (either unintentionally – through transmitted shaking of the muscles, or handling – or deliberately whilst cueing) and quite another using a windshield statically on a stand – as is the intention with the Mega-Blimp. The approach here, therefore, is to welcome mass (within reason) and anything that could hold the basket steady and reduce vibrations reaching the windshield: so goodbye to a tiny 3/8″ connector and wobbly repurposed mini light stands, and hello to a larger connector in the form of the quick-release Arca plate, popular with photographers, to be coupled to a sturdy camera tripod (itself much better for rough terrain than a lighting stand). With a fixing point at the bottom of the basket only, even if quite large, I was concerned about wobbliness, which is the main reason why the two main rings are made of 4mm instead of 3mm stainless steel: this does the job perfectly, so that if you apply increasing pressure to the top of the blimp ultimately you tip the basket and the tripod on which it is mounted as if one rigid body, rather than simply flex the windshield. This was the part of the design that most concerned me before building, and I was relieved that it worked out so well, and that there was no need to resort to clunky internal bracing or, say, seriously chunky main rings. With a stable basket and static use the windshield needs to protect the mics inside from structure-borne vibration coming from three main sources: vibration of the basket itself due to wind buffeting; vibration of the tripod due to wind; and vibration of the tripod transmitted from the ground. Aside from extreme winds or particularly shaking ground, these are much less problematic than handling noise from a boom-pole or pistol-grip, so, in this case, the Mega-Blimps rely on the mic shock-mount. I designed them to take both Rycote lyres and Radius Windshields hoops, though the latter are much more useful due to their modular design: they allow the use of integrated MS clips, doing away with back-to-back clips (apart from with my larger-diameter SDCs – the MKH 30 and MKH 50 MS pair). The support for the shock-mounts and, indeed, the form of the shock-mount bases has been minimized to keep the acoustic impact down: the amount of plastic internal structure in many a windshield is a real issue that I wanted to avoid. The laser-cut stainless-steel baseplate, at 74mm x 93mm, to which the Arca plate is bolted, obviously offers some scope for reflections, although it is some distance below the mics: nonetheless, I have mitigated any such effect by addition of a 3d-printed curvy cover or skirt.

Underside of the Mega-Blimp large showing the stainless-steel baseplate welded to two 6mm rods for strength (which in turn span between the main hoops), and with the (modified) Arca quick-release plate and XLR plug attached.

Adaptability: The size and lack of internal structure make the two Mega-Blimps highly adaptable, so there was little extra to think about in this regard, beyond a central 3/8″ mount that could take a variety of off-the-peg or 3d-printed shock-mounts, and a simple cabling solution. Here, I eschewed the (puzzlingly always unshielded) conn boxes that manufacturers use on many higher-end models, but which then get the user stuck to particular numbers of mics (typically one, two or three). Rather I have gone for an easily removable XLR cable that fits, via the unscrewable end of the plug, firmly to the base. It is the same approach I (and manufacturers such as Ambient) have taken to mounting XLRs at the top of boom-poles. Simple, swappable and effective.

For the mounting of mics, the two Mega-Blimps each have a 3/8″ threaded bolt projecting upwards from the baseplate. This can be fitted with, say, a Rycote InVision 6 or 7 shock-mount, although my preferred solution is to use a length of 15mm rod with 3/8″ threads, as shown here, in turn supporting a small Field Edition mount by Radius Windshields or my various 3d-printed mounts. There is no need for pivot mounts (as found in the InVision 6 or 7) since angling of the mics is normally preferable by angling the whole windshield (i.e. at the tripod head), and the more minimalist approach clearly is to the acoustic benefit. Here are the current configurations I am using, although other mounts could be designed easily (for example, I haven’t yet made an XY mount as I almost never use such a pair):

ORTF

ORTF (for anyone unfamiliar, an acronym for the Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision Française, where this stereo technique was developed about 65 years ago) is popular for field recording despite its requirement (if conditions go beyond what slip-on or Baby Ball Gag type wind protection offer) for larger windshields and, often, very short mics (such as Sennheiser MKH 8000 mics with MZL connectors or Schoeps CCMs). And even then, the mic diaphragms can end up nearer the basket edge than ideal (i.e. with loss of wind-reduction). So having sufficient space for ORTF in the Mega-Blimp was important and the 242mm diameter means that it is easy to set the mic capsules on the centre-line of the windshield without the rear of the mics or their XLRs getting near the basket. In fact, there is enough room for a wide range of SDC mics, so short mics like the Sennheisers and Schoeps are not essential. Obviously longer SDCs used for ORTF have the problem of the rear of the mics or their XLRs clashing, so, as with XY pairs, they are offset vertically – one above the other. Whilst I have MKH 8040 cardioids with MZL cables – i.e. short enough not to need such offsetting – my Rycote CA-08 cardioids are just long enough that their XLRs do clash when set as an ORTF pair, so I have given them a vertical offset: there are different ways to do this, and I have chosen the simple route of keeping the ORTF mount untouched but using different length clips (3d-printed) in the Radius hoops. The length of the Mega-Blimp large is particularly suited to ORTF, with the mic capsules projecting just past the two main rings of the basket. The Mega-Blimp standard works fine with ORTF, although the capsules do project further into the end cap/hemispheres (which, of course, are very roomy anyway).

ORTF pair (110° angle, 170mm spacing between diaphragm centres), here shown in the Mega-Blimp large: the greater length of the blimp works well with such a wide pair.
The ORTF pair and blimp rotated so that the pair can be seen as if from above. The 3d-printed mount is a development of the one I produced previously, for non-windshield use, so that the mic capsules sit on the centre line. In this case the MKH 8040s would benefit from MZLs to reduce length.
Single-hoop mounting of an ORTF pair means that a smaller 3d-printed ORTF bar can be used and that the mics are clearer of any shock-mount structure (and any acoustic effect that has). Here a pair of MKH 8040s are shown with MZL cables in the Mega-Blimp standard. With this shorter windshield they project further into the end hemispheres: I think in reality that the Mega-Blimp large works better for ORTF whether or not the double or single-hoop ORTF bar is used.
And just to show one solution (i.e. clips of different lengths within the Radius hoops) to vertically offset longer mics for ORTF, here even using full-sized XLR connectors. With low-profile XLR connectors the maximum length of mics used for ORTF – assuming that the capsule is still on the centre line of the windshield – is about 130mm. The Rycote CA-08 cardioids shown here are only 80mm long, and, even with low-profile XLR connectors, are just about long enough to need a vertical offset. Obviously slightly longer mics than 130mm could be used, but the diaphragms would need to advance from the centre line: not a major issue given the 242mm diameter of the basket.

MID-SIDE (MS)

Mid-side recording is, as readers of this blog will know, perhaps my favourite approach to stereo, using a range of mid mic polar patterns that include omni, wide-cardioid, cardioid, super-cardioid and fig 8. Indeed, I am probably unusual in having more fig 8 SDC mics (essential for the side mic in an MS pair, of course) than any other polar pattern. Although smaller fig 8s (especially the new Sennheiser MKH 8030 and Rycote BD-10) feature heavily in my posts, it is nice at last to have a windshield that has plenty of room for my MKH 30 and MKH 50 MS pair: they sit particularly well in the Mega-Blimp large.

The Mega-Blimp large works well with a larger mid-side pair, such as the classic Sennheiser MKH 30 and MKH 50 pair shown here. Given that the current Radius Windshield hoops don’t work with mics of such larger diameter, the mics are rigged on a Rycote InVision 7 shock-mount and with Rycote universal back-to-back clips.
By contrast, the shorter Mega-Blimp standard works well with a smaller mid-side pair, such as the MKH 8030 and MKH 8040 pair shown here. In this case they are mounted in Radius Windshields hoops on their small field edition mount: the lack of a pivot on this mount is useful as it ensures the mics are not angled up or down in relation to the basket. The MS clips are my 3d-printed design, but it won’t be long now before Radius produce their injection-moulded versions. The daisy-chained MS cable (for want of a better term) is a new idea from ETK Cables: Ed was inspired by my MS clips, which was nice to hear!

DOUBLE MID-SIDE (DMS)

I’m not a heavy user of double mid-side arrays, but occasionally use them: most recently I was required to use the technique for a surround-sound recording of the sea, to feature as the introduction to an organ music SACD (an unusual intro, I know). There are different ways to rig DMS, of which the most satisfactory is using side-address cardioid mics oriented vertically, above and below the horizontally-set fig 8 mic. The downside with this is that there are few side-address SDC cardioids, with the Schoeps Mk4V and CCM4V being the obvious examples. Cinela used to produce a DMS mount for the CCM4V and CCM8 (the X-SET-DMS-CCM), but that appears to have been discontinued (it is not on their website). Schoeps and Rycote also used to make the WRS DMS LU mount for such a DMS array, although this too has been discontinued, and if you go to the Schoeps website today you will see they show DMS rigs in Rycote and Cinela windshields with end-address mics. With end-address cardioids these can either be set above and below the fig 8, so that all are coincident on the horizontal plane, or set in a close triangle with the cardioids side by side (obviously facing different directions) and the pair above or below the fig 8. The latter arrangement is more compact, but, evidently, the three mics are not perfectly coincident on the horizontal plane. And, although I am not as concerned by mic shadowing as many (often from a largely theoretical stance), both configurations of the mics and the gubbins needed to support them do seem rather clunky and in the way of each other more than seems desirable and, indeed, much more than if using side-address cardioids. Lacking the latter (at least at present), I have simply used the DMS mount I created for Radius hoops (and, indeed, for the Mini-ALTO), using MZL connectors to minimize the bulk of the mics as much as possible. In due course (if I acquire the necessary Schoeps mics), I will develop a DMS mount for side-address cardioids along the lines of my native B-format mount below: I’m pretty confident that this would have less acoustic impact than the discontinued WRS DMS LU mount.

The close spacing of a double mid-side array suits the Mega-Blimp standard, and the 3d-printed mount is shown here using Radius Windshield hoops fitted to a Rycote InVision 7 mount.
Another view of the double mid-side array, which uses an MKH 8030 and two MKH 8040 mics with MZL cables, showing the mount in more detail.

NIMBUS-HALLIDAY NATIVE B-FORMAT

I mentioned above the (sadly less popular) version of DMS with vertically oriented cardioids, and, of course, this looks strikingly like a Nimbus-Halliday native B-format array (the difference being that the latter has two vertical fig 8s above and below a horizontal omni mic). Particularly avid readers of this blog (are there any?!) may recall that I wrote about this array when using it to record a pipe band (and those that aren’t familiar with the technique can read about it – and download WAV files for a play – here), to give me a variety of options in post. Since then, I have reduced the size of the array by using MKH 8000 mics with MZLs, and worked hard to minimize the size of the mount and, while still using shock-mounts, avoid too much in the way of gubbins close to the mic capsules, to produce a compact version that fits in the Mega-Blimp, and does so with the windshield being oriented horizontally (I didn’t want to turn it vertically, as then the baseplate would have had some impact on the rearward sound capture). I must confess of all the rigs that I have made for the Mega-Blimps, the 3d-printed Nimbus-Halliday mount has been the most satisfying so far, and the design evidently has relevance to an improved approach to DMS rigging in windshields.

Getting a bit more esoteric perhaps, but here is my design of a 3d-printed shock-mount, again using Radius hoops, for a Nimbus-Halliday native B-format array, comfortably sitting within the standard Mega-Blimp.
An angled view of the Nimbus-Halliday native B-format array. The use of single hoops helps keep the area around the convergent mic capsules unimpeded.
And an end-on view of the Nimbus-Halliday native B-format array, showing the omni mic in the middle, with the fig 8 mics above and below.

This is a pretty clean (i.e. low acoustic impact) shock-mount configuration for a native B-format array (or DMS with the mics swapped out), but, as always with such three-mic arrays, there are some elements that still lie within the polar patterns of the different mics. The tall vertical element is less than ideal: there is some inevitable impact in native B-format behind the omni middle mic, and if used for DMS behind what would be the rear-facing (side-address) cardioid top mic. The hoop and mic clip of the middle mic also get a bit in the way for both set ups. Fussy, I know! Sky-hooks would be one solution, but in the absence of mythical devices, I realized (belatedly) that the top mic could hang from the top of the Mega-Blimp basket (for once a windshield is an advantage other than for reducing wind!), doing away with the vertical element. And then, a more minor refinement, to get rid of the effect of the hoop and clip around the middle mic, perhaps the hoops could be dropped so that the mic sits on top of them…yes, not the design intention of Radius Windshields, but it works OK! Hoops and mic clips for the middle mic are then both placed neatly out of the way into the null of the bottom mic in either native b-format or DMS. And with the middle hoop out of the way, I thought I might as well revert to double hoops for each mic: this gives a little more stability and the mics stay in place more readily without such careful cable dressing as in the first Nimbus-Halliday native B-format rig. So there you have it: almost nothing in the way of the relevant polar patterns of the mics (note: for DMS the bottom mic would be the forward-facing cardioid, and the top mic the rearward-facing cardioid). If I can get some side-address cardioids (a pair of Schoeps CCM 4V mics would be ideal), then I’ll add a photo of the DMS version. Crumbs, I am enjoying the combination of a 3d-printer, Radius Windshield hoops and the Mega-Blimp!

A variation of the Nimbus-Halliday native B-format rig (equally applicable to DMS, given side-address cardioids such as the Schoeps CCM 4V). In this case the shock-mount for the top mic is fixed to the top of the windshield basket, and the middle mic sits on top of two Radius hoops, all leading to a still more transparent version of the rig.

These are but a few examples of the configurations of mics possible in the Mega-Blimps, but the scope is considerable – as intended. Funnily enough, while building the blimps I was asked whether a single LDC mic would fit. My first reaction was doubt, as, of course, the Mega-Blimp was very much designed as a much shorter version of the original LDC blimp from years ago, specifically for SDC mics, and I wasn’t quite certain how an LDC mic would sit within the basket, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. I only had the Mega-Blimp standard at that point, and this encouraged me to think more about the Mega-Blimp large (at the CAD design stage, the length of the central section – the ‘hamster wheel’ – changed on an almost daily basis), which has turned out rather better for ORTF pairs. But, anyway, here is the result of the LDC test:

Not at all the original intention, but here’s an LDC mic inside the Mega-Blimp large. The mic sits in a Rycote InVision USM-L (Rycote 044903), which bolts directly to the baseplate of the blimp via the lighting-stand stud.

Obviously the size of the basket would prevent close spacing of a pair of LDCs for, say, ORTF, but a NOS pair would work fine, or, indeed, any of the large surround or ambience arrays such as Hamasaki square.

The master of bending and TIG-welding stainless-steel rod, Rob Moore, here at work on his current rolling-ball sculpture (The Brain), which is a little more involved than a Mega-Blimp!

The construction

There’s not a great deal additional that needs to be said about the construction as, by now, it should be pretty clear to the reader. The TIG-welding was again undertaken by my good friend Rob Moore, who lives in a nearby village. His normal work is building highly elaborate rolling-ball sculptures, and he has years of experience of bending and TIG-welding stainless-steel rod in complex geometries. Most of his sculptures are done freehand, but, for the blimps, he constructed some simple jigs to help achieve a regular appearance. Of course there is no acoustic benefit from things being absolutely perfectly regular (perhaps the reverse), and the Mega-Blimps are unashamedly hand-crafted. The welding leaves the stainless steel rather discoloured, and normally Rob takes his large sculptures to a specialist firm in Birmingham for electro-polishing. In this case, however, he just cleaned the baskets with a wire brush bit in a drill – a fiddly, messy and time-consuming business. Rob let me do one, I suspect just so I could experience how little fun it is and to convince me that, if there’s a next time, we go down the electro-polishing route. Powder-coating could be another, cheaper, option, though I much prefer the stainless-steel appearance. The 3mm-thick stainless-steel baseplates were welded to the baskets and, as mentioned above, during construction of the different versions (Rob made five in the end!), we moved from laboriously hand cutting and drilling to having a small batch of 10 plates laser-cut. The Arca quick-release plates that are fixed to the bottom of the baseplates are the Manfrotto MSQ6PL: I chose these for the wider than usual top part to the plate, which extends further across the width of the baseplate above and, thus, gives more rigidity. The Arca plates were drilled to allow stainless-steel M5 bolt fixings to the baseplate, with the nylock nuts on the upper face accommodated in the 3d-printed skirt designed to remove any possible sound reflections from the baseplate. The skirts have a few different designs to fit the two models and the different heights of the 15mm aluminium rods that hold the mic shock-mounts. The 15mm rods have 3/8″ male and female threads either end, and I found a supplier that makes sets of three with lengths of 1″, 2″ and 3″ (I do love mixed imperial and metric dimensions: it’s like buying 4.8m of 4″ x 2″ timber!), which have proved ideal. The various mic mounts for different arrays, which combine elements from Radius Windshields, Rycote and my own 3d-printed designs, I have covered and illustrated above. Doubtless, I will come up with more: I use Onshape for 3d modelling and output on a Bambu Labs printer. Last, but not least, the two sizes of lined fur were specially made by Radius Windshields: Donna, Kim and Megan, at their Stroud sewing workshop, have, I suspect, unrivalled experience of making windshield furs. Radius make plenty of replacement furs for other manufacturer’s windshields and are happy to make one-offs and small runs, which is good news for DIYers. As originally conceived, the Mega-Blimp was not intended to have any fabric covering to the basket below the fur, and that is how I am happily using it at present. However, I am exploring options for a stretchy fabric – which would need to be easily and quickly removable (as well as acoustically transparent) – to be used instead of the fur in very gentle conditions (to reduce the unavoidable high-frequency attenuation from fur) or in conjunction with the fur in extreme conditions: one might as well reap the full benefit of the large diameter of the Mega-Blimp in such high wind. More on that anon perhaps.

Bespoke furs from Radius Windshields: the unfitted one on the left is for the Mega-Blimp large, and you can see the lining, single popper at the rear and the drawstring; and that fitted on the right is on the Mega-Blimp standard. Both fit easily and closely, and tighten up very snugly around the baseplate and Arca plate. It was worth having an expert on the case!

Conclusions

The two Mega-Blimps I have designed will not make my (unhealthily large) collection of commercial windshields redundant: like any sane sound recordist, I understand that these expertly designed and engineered plastic windshields are often the best tools for the job. But when that job doesn’t require booming or otherwise has weight and size as practical constraints, the Mega-Blimps will be a key tool for me: the robustness, ease of use and, above all, the transparency and adaptability for all sorts of arrays (including some hitherto not to my knowledge achieved in a windshield) they offer will be a real boon to recording sound effects, ambiences and music outdoors. Yes, they are a bit larger to carry, but as they fit in a small backpack that makes little difference for much of my usage. And they are far more resilient in transit, which rather compensates for size, even without considering the performance gains. I’m rather pleased at the end results and interested to see which of the two sizes of Mega-Blimps I find myself using more: time will tell. I also suspect that this won’t be the end of my dalliance with windshields. Not least, I have already begun to ponder the design of more specialized baskets for more complex arrays of SDC mics: there is little doubt that TIG-welded stainless-steel construction is unusually well suited to large, robust and transparent bespoke windshield designs. We will see. And in the meantime, I hope this account inspires readers to think more about windshield design, performance and the various compromises that are inevitable in any design; and, perhaps, even engage in their own elaborate projects to create something bespoke for their particular type of sound recording.

Further reading

Anyone really keen to understand windshield design and performance may find the following articles of interest: I certainly have. You may well have to join the AES to access them, as I did, but there’s not a lot I can do about that!

Bleazey, J.C., ‘Experimental Determination of the Effectiveness of Microphone Wind Screens’, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Jan 1961, vol. 9, no. 1), 48-54.

Brixen, E. B., ‘Microphones, High Wind and Rain’, Audio Engineering Society 119th convention paper 6624 (2005), 1-8.

Chenevez, P., ‘Handling noise analysis in large cavity microphone windshields. Improved solution,’ Audio Engineering Society 126th convention paper 7774 (2009), 1-7.

Wuttke, J., ‘Microphones and Wind’, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Oct 1992, vol. 40, no. 10), 809-17.

Audio Gear

Radius Mini-ALTO windshield

January 21, 2025

Introduction

Radius Windshields have only been around since February 2023, but, of course, the team embodies years of experience from former Rycote days, so the development of the first full basket windshield from the company has generated a lot of interest. This interest has been stimulated by the refreshingly open approach to development of their products, especially via social media, with plenty of behind-the-scenes photos and videos, not least showing the novel use of ultrasonic welding to fix the fabric to the basket. The long development of the first basket windshield – the Mini-ALTO – saw pre-production models being packed up on Christmas Eve, to be sent off to UK field testers, and I received mine a few days later. In his covering letter, Simon Davies asked for ‘no filters on your opinion please’ and has no qualms about these opinions being public, so here goes!

First off, it is important to stress that the Mini-ALTO is just that: mini. The pre-production model I have been sent (the baby of the range: the 115) is the smallest full basket windshield that I have used, and so, of course, there are limits to what size mics can fit in it (obviously longer mics can fit in the 180 and 210 models, and the planned 260 model). Equally there are limits as to what such a small basket can offer in terms of wind reduction, and Radius are clear about this: their planned larger models, the ALTO and the CIRRUS will offer better wind reduction. Now Radius will have their own view on the market place for such a dinky windshield, but here I will be testing it from my own perspective, comparing it to realistic alternatives: above all, this will include the small Rycote Nano Shield NS1-BA, which is what I have used previously when I need an ultra-compact windshield, and which has long left my Rycote Baby Ball Gags largely redundant. Others may wish to compare it to the Cinela COSI models, and let’s hope so: I don’t have one to hand! Anyway, enough of a preamble: let’s get stuck in…

Design, construction and operation

Above all, the Mini-ALTO has been designed with ‘speed of transition between interior and exterior set up’. To achieve this, the basket follows the pattern of the Rycote Cyclone and Nano Shield in using magnets to hold the two halves together, except here the magnets are much stronger and do not need the assistance of physical latches: a couple of silicone safety straps on the sides can be used if required, but these seem entirely superfluous to any use I can imagine and can be removed (and lost!) easily. In fact the magnets are so strong that I had to refer to the instructions when opening the basket the first time: I didn’t want to break the windshield within the first five minutes. Once you know that the magnets are all that hold the Mini-ALTO together, opening is a breeze. What is also nice is that the magnets are properly embedded, and cannot be pulled out: I have had several come out on my Nano Shields over the years.

Mini-ALTO 115 with the front pod removed, showing the magnets that hold the two halves together, the slot into which the pods slide, and the cable gland. The mic clips are the RAD 19/20mm clips, which – amongst other options (inc. DIY) – can be swapped with the universal clips supplied.

Inside the basket the Mini-ALTO utilizes the RAD-2 mount, released in 2023, which will be familiar to many. This doesn’t connect to the basket directly, but does so via an adapter, which Radius call the ‘Smiley Face’. Perhaps I need to drink more cider to see the piece of plastic in that light, but it is well made and, more to the point, its wide channel accepts the two halves of the basket really easily: the basket halves slide into place smoothly and with a positive clunk. That’s a refreshing and distinct difference from the frequent fumbling with the Nano Shield basket, and by far the easiest (dis)assembly of a windshield basket I have come across. When the adapter is not in place (i.e. when the basket isn’t in use) it can be replaced with the supplied small ‘windshield stowage holder’: this has a carabiner attached so you can dangle the basket off your body or bag until you need to pop it back on. The adapter has two other functions beyond holding the basket to the shock-mount: it provides an exit point for the cable and holds the shock-mount hoops (Radius’s equivalents to Rycote’s lyres and Cinela’s elliptical isolators). Looking at the cable exit first, the test model is provided with a rubbery gland to fit thin cables, but there is no other cable management inside the basket: the user is urged to utilize the straps on the mic clips or the short cable straps supplied to run the cable along the mic. I’m no fan of clunky and unshielded conn boxes in windshields, but I quite like the neat little clip on the rear of the rail of a Nano Shield. Of course, the cable cleats and the XLR holder on the RAD-2 mount should mean that cable-borne noise isn’t an issue. Turning to the shock-mount hoops, for me, and I suspect others, these are one of the small but most useful features of the Radius Windshields approach: their modular nature (whereby hoops and mic clips are screwed together and can be changed) is a significant departure from the Rycote lyres, where the mic clips are integrated. Above all, this means that the hoops and, by extension, the Mini-ALTO can be adapted for a mid-side (MS) pair. Radius have an MS clip in development for release shortly, with which I have had some input, but in the meantime I am using my own similar 3d-printed clips. It is such a pleasure to get away from clunky back-to-back clips and to be able to get the two mics closely spaced. I have posted previously about how the hoops lend themselves to such customization, and here’s a couple of examples of how this now translates to the diminutive Mini-ALTO:

That flexibility of the Radius hoops, which allows MS clips to fit the shock-mounts directly (no more back-to-back clips!), is now carried over to the Mini-ALTO.
This might be taking it too far, but with some MKH 8000 mics and MZL connectors, the Mini-ALTO 115 can even house a double mid-side (DMS) rig: those Radius hoops are just so adaptable!

Turning to the design of the basket, the fabric looks reassuringly transparent compared to, say, the thicker 3d tex material of the Cyclone and Nano Shield. The basket itself, though, looks less transparent on purely visual grounds: there is something of a price to pay for the slick assembly/disassembly in the resultant 21mm-wide plastic ring formed when the two half-baskets are fitted (the slight chunkiness is necessary to house the magnets securely). And each end cap joins the cylindrical part of the basket with another ring: 9.5mm wide externally, but 12.5mm wide internally. Such H-rings for end caps are a feature of most cylindrical windshields, although not, of course, in the case of the Nano Shield. I am probably a bit more focused than most on the potential impact of plastic rings around windshields given my preference for MS pairs in the field, and the potential for impact on the sideways facing lobes of the fig 8 mic in particular, but at least in this case the fig 8 mic capsule naturally sits between the central ring and that of the front end cap. The mesh of the Mini-ALTO basket is formed by plastic 3.3mm wide, with mesh cells a lot smaller than the more open Nano Shield or Cyclone, but much larger than more traditional windshields such as the Rycote Modular. We will have to see, or hear, how the design of the basket affects sound (see below), but there is no denying that it is well engineered, robust and, above all, very easy to disassemble and assemble.

Turning to the size of the Mini-ALTO 115, the numerical suffix of the model derives from the 115mm length of the cylindrical section, with the end caps giving it an overall length of 198mm. This compares to the overall length of 225mm for the Nano Shield NS1-BA. The Mini-ALTO 115 weighs almost the same as this Nano Shield model: using the same cable for both, I weighed them in at 275g and 267g respectively.

The Mini-ALTO 115 (bottom in both photos) and the Nano Shield NS1-BA (top in both photos: don’t be confused that it too is wearing a Radius fur!).

Interestingly, Radius have a choice of furs for their new windshield. The initial plan, I understand from Simon Davies, was to sell the Mini-ALTO with the black fur, likely – given it being an interior to exterior system – the most popular choice for those in production sound. But Radius now plan to sell the Mini-ALTO with the grey fur option too: the longer grey fur offers slightly better wind-noise reduction (suggested as much as 5dB) and it is certainly the fur I prefer (not just on the Mini-ALTO: I have also chosen this for the various Radius furs that I have acquired for other windshields – from Cinela and Rycote and for my DIY blimps). To give me the complete set, Radius also sent me a brown fur, which is very similar to the black fur in terms of performance and feel. I’m not entirely sure whether it would help anyone recording nature sounds blend into the background!

Three colours of fur: the grey one is more matte and, with a longer pile, has slightly better wind-reduction performance.

Handling noise

Back in September 2023 I tested the RAD-1 and RAD-2 shock-mounts and was impressed by them. The question arising for me, therefore, is how the addition of the Mini-ALTO affects things, if at all? And having found the Nano Shield lyres better performing than the older Rycote standard lyres, how does handling noise differ between the two diminutive windshields. Time to whip out the boom-pole and a short stereo bar for some simultaneous testing, this time using the new Radius 55D hoops, and a matched pair of Rycote CA-08 mics.

First up, here are the spectrum analyzer visualizations of a static hold with the boom-pole extended, so that my muscles were shaking (a long boom, two mics and windshields and puny arms!):

Static extended boom-pole hold of Mini-ALTO 115 with 55D-shore hoops.
Static extended boom-pole hold of Nano Shield NS1-BA with 55D-shore lyres.

There is little in this, with the Mini-ALTO showing a slightly higher peak, but with a smaller frequency range and both are effectively removed by even a 40Hz high-pass filter (which would be a minimum for even the most static use of a handheld boom-pole). Giving the boom-pole some thumps again produces similar results:

Thumping of the boom-pole test: Mini-ALTO with 55D-shore hoops.
Thumping of the boom-pole test: Nano Shield NS1-BA with 55D-shore lyres.

And finally, here we have some deliberate shaking of the two windshields on the end of the boom-pole:

Shaking of the boom-pole test: Mini-ALTO with 55D-shore hoops.
Shaking of the boom-pole test: Nano Shield NS1-BA with 55D-shore lyres.

In short, I haven’t found there to be any significant difference from the shock-mounts when tested previously sans windshield baskets, and handling noise in both the Mini-ALTO and Nano Shield was well controlled, with resultant noise from normal use easily removed at source by use of a high-pass filter in the 40Hz to 80Hz range. Obviously different mics and more energetic boom-pole use might produce different results, but there is little doubt that the Mini-ALTO is competent in this regard.

Wind reduction

The internal diameter of the Mini-ALTO is, at 81mm, smaller than most basket windshields (with many designs, such as the Rycote Modular, being 100mm diameter). Even the Rycote Nano Shield has a larger cross-section, measuring internally 86mm high and, with its elliptical form, 107mm wide. It is for that reason that Radius Windshields have emphasized that this is a windshield designed for limited outside use and, of course, why they have larger models in the pipeline. Taking a larger windshield outside is not normally a concern for me, but there are occasions when a very compact rig is desirable and I was keen to test the Mini-ALTO against the Nano Shield (itself no slouch with wind reduction). Here are two clips recorded simultaneously on a very breezy day with both windshields rigged with matched MS pairs (each with a Rycote BD10 and CA08). When I say breezy, the wind speed was around 25 mph, gusting near 40 mph, so pretty tough conditions. No high-pass filtering was used when recording or in post, whereas, in this sort of wind some filtering would be used with most windshields.

As you can hear, and, to be honest, against expectations, the Mini-ALTO 115 does a slightly better job of wind reduction: for the test, I was using the initially supplied black fur with the Mini-ALTO, and the longer-pile grey fur, which I received subsequently, should improve things further. Of course, with an MS recording it is not immediately clear whether that reflects better side, front or all-round performance, so it is useful to look at what is happening with the fig 8 and cardioid mics separately, using a spectrum analyzer:

Mini-ALTO 115 with cardioid (CA-08) mic.
Nano Shield NS1-BA with cardioid (CA-08) mic.
Mini-ALTO 115 with fig 8 (BD-10) mic.
Nano Shield NS1-BA with fig 8 (BD-10) mic.

The difference in performance between the two small windshields evidently applies to both mics (and, thus, both forwards and sidewards). I was particularly surprised to see that the Nano Shield, with its greater width, did not show any advantage over the Mini-ALTO with the sidewards-facing lobes of the fig 8 mic. Of course, much of the significant difference seen in these spectrum analyzer visualizations would be removed by judicious use of a high-pass filter (the scale used here going right down to 1Hz), but, nonetheless, it is evident that there are significant differences in the crucial area between, say, 50Hz and 200Hz. How much of a difference any sound recordist will find between the two small windshields in use will depend on the mics used and the high-pass filtering (if any) applied, but there is a discernible difference between the two and, certainly, the wind-reduction performance in a blustery outdoor wind is better with the Mini-ALTO.

And for anyone who wonders how a small windshield such as the Mini-ALTO copes with wind compares to a rather larger windshield, here are two test recordings – one with the Mini-ALTO (sporting its grey fur) and one with the Cyclone Stereo MS kit 5 – on another very windy day, again using matched MS pairs (each with a Rycote BD10 and CA08):

As expected, the larger Cyclone performs better with wind reduction in such brisk conditions, although, of course, a high-pass filter (not applied in this test recording) would improve matters for the Mini-ALTO. And, as mentioned, larger windshields in the pipeline from Radius will be better able to handle such use.

Composite view showing how the Sennheiser MKH 8030 sits within the basket of the Mini-ALTO 115: the capsule of the fig 8 mic is positioned forward of the double ring where the two pods join, but to the rear of the ring that marks the junction of the front end cap.

Transparency

When thinking about windshield performance many give little thought to transparency, but it is a key part of the equation and something that I have become more and more conscious of over the years, especially when using windshields with fig 8, omni and wide cardioid mics, where the polar patterns mean that baskets need to offer low colouration of sound beyond the front end of the windshield. Without an anechoic chamber it is difficult to get an exact read on the transparency of any windshield, but for a reasonable quick and dirty test I placed a bare mic on the windshield shock-mounts in front of a speaker (in my treated studio) playing pinknoise, then carefully added the basket without moving the mic for a second recording. I did this with a supercardioid mic (Sennheiser MKH 8050) head on, and then with a fig 8 mic (MKH 8030) side on to get a sense of how the two windshields compared at both angles. The results for each pair of recording were compared using a spectrum analyzer and overlaid as follows:

Pinknoise test with Nano Shield NS1-BA with MKH8050 supercardioid mic aimed at speaker: green is the bare mic on the shock-mount and the red overlay is the recording with the basket added.
Pinknoise test with Mini-ALTO 115 with MKH8050 supercardioid mic aimed at speaker: green is the bare mic on the shock-mount and the red overlay is the recording with the basket added.

With the supercardioid mic and the sound source on axis there is little colouration other, as would be expected, than some high-frequency attenuation: both windshields perform well in this test, which, of course, represents the primary intended function (i.e. a single directional mic for film, ENG, outside broadcast etc. ).

Moving onto a fig 8 mic with the windshields side on to the sound source, the results were as follows:

Pinknoise test with Nano Shield NS1-BA with MKH8030 fig 8 mic aimed at speaker: green is the bare mic on the shock-mount and the red overlay is the recording with the basket added.
Pinknoise test with Mini-ALTO 115 with MKH8030 fig 8 mic aimed at speaker: green is the bare mic on the shock-mount and the red overlay is the recording with the basket added.

Here the results differ: the Nano Shield shows similar (i.e. minimal) colouration as with its end-on test, while the Mini-ALTO shows more variation between the bare mic and the recording with its basket added: this is both above 4kHz and below around 150Hz. The latter represents some consistent bass attenuation, while the high-frequency colouration is more varied and potentially problematic. But before we get too concerned, it is perhaps worth including the results of the same test for the Rycote Cyclone (small):

Pinknoise test with Cyclone (small) with MKH8030 fig 8 mic aimed at speaker: green is the bare mic on the shock-mount and the red overlay is the recording with the basket added.

With the Cyclone, the colouration of the higher frequencies is more significant and extends much lower (to just over 2kHz, compared with over 4kHz for the Mini-ALTO). In both the Cyclone and Mini-ALTO designs there can be little doubt that the colouration of the sideward facing lobes of the fig 8 mic is a consequence of the plastic rings around the windshields (less substantial in the Mini-ALTO, although much closer to the mic), which, in both cases, are not problematic for sounds on axis to the windshield.

There is one thing demonstrating differences with this pinknoise test or, indeed, more exhaustive and expert tests in an anechoic chamber, but how does the colouration actually sound? It is hard to come up with a perfect test, especially with limited resources, but I have settled on an approach that some at least may find informative. Eschewing the variability of successive live recordings, I placed an omni mic in front of a single speaker in my studio and played back a short section of a recent recording of mine of a singer-guitarist (Luke Chapman): the mic was angled successively at 0 degrees, 45 degrees and 90 degrees, in each position with the mic in the bare shock-mount of the Mini-ALTO and then, without moving the mic, each time carefully adding the windshield. I then repeated the exercise with the Nano Shield for comparison. Obviously each set up will vary fractionally, but not for each pair of recordings (i.e. a given windshield at a given angle, with and without the windshield basket) and it is comparing each such pair where any value in the exercise comes. I left off the furs as a) the focus here is on the effect of the basket design and b) maintaining the exact position of a windshield while adding the fur is so difficult. Anyway, for better or worse, here are the resulting sound files:

If really keen, you can download the files and set them up in a DAW and flip between short repeated sections of each pair, which is what I have done. In all the recordings with the windshield you can hear the expected slight change to the high frequencies when the basket is added, and, as anticipated following the pinknoise tests, the Mini-ALTO 115 shows the most discernible difference at 90 degrees. I was pleased to note that such colouration isn’t obvious at 45 degrees.

I have heard (rather than just measured) similar colouration with the Cyclone with side-on sound sources. Although the Cyclone windshield is now sold with mid-side and double mid-side configurations, the basket was not designed for such use, and the primary purpose of the Mini-ALTO to house a single end-address microphone is even more evident. For that purpose the Mini-ALTO offers very good transparency. Whether or not colouration from the sides actually matters for those who wish to use the windshield will depend partly on whether planned use is for a miniscule mid-side rig or, perhaps, a pair of the windshields for spaced omni mics. And, of course, it will depend on the direction of the principal sound source(s), how transparent the recording needs to be, and whether the small size and convenience of a Mini-ALTO outweigh any such concerns. Many, perhaps without consciously considering transparency, make a similar compromise with the Cyclone for MS/DMS vs, say, the more transparent Cinela models (for a comparison of the Cinela Zephyx and Pianissimo models and the Rycote Cyclone for MS use see my tests and write up), or, indeed, using a pair of Baby Ball Gags for spaced omni mics. Needless to say, there are plenty of windshields with plastic rings in places that will colour the sound for certain polar patterns and arrays, and I should stress that the Mini-ALTO is not at all unusual in this regard. Aaargh: am I just getting obsessed with transparency?!

Conclusions

What then of the Mini-ALTO? There is no doubt that it is well-engineered and, as such, builds on the Rycote experience of the team: most of the design is more robust, and much more positive and quicker to put together and take apart than the Rycote counterparts, most notably the Mini-ALTO’s closest competitor – the Nano Shield. That its wind-noise reduction capability holds up to outdoor use in moderate conditions and, moreover, exceeds the Nano Shield (at least in my tests!) was unexpected, given the smaller cross-section, and for many this will be reassuring. As the saying goes, however, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and, just as I have seen when comparing the Cyclone to the less user-friendly Cinelas, the convenience and robustness come with the price of less transparency of the windshield off-axis. As with the Cyclone, this is almost certainly a consequence of the plastic rings that encircle the basket, and, of course, such rings are to be found on most cylindrical windshield baskets, including Rycote Modular models and the Rode blimp, and, equally, are found in the spherical Baby Ball Gags. So there is nothing new here and for most users – with single shotgun, supercardioid, hypercardioid and cardioid mics – this will simply not be an issue. And for many users with omni mics, wide cardioids or, indeed, mid-side or even double mid-side, a bit of colouration from the sides will either be unnoticeable or a price worth paying for size, robustness and ease of use. For some the Cinela COSI models may well be a better compact option, but until (unless?) the release of the prototyped MS COSI version that was shown with the MKH 8030 at its announcement in September 2023, the restriction of the COSI windshields to single mics makes them not quite so appealing to me personally.

It is clear that the Mini-ALTO isn’t a panacea for all problems for mics involving wind, but it was never intended to be so. What is evident is that it is an excellent compact tool for outside broadcast, ENG, some narrative recording purposes, and, some field and FX recording, above all for those who need to switch from a bare mic to moderate wind protection at the drop of a hat. It has been fascinating watching the Radius Windshield journey thus far to the point of production of their first full basket windshield, and it will be interesting to see the larger ALTO and, particularly, the CIRRUS in due course.

And a final note: do please remember that I have been field-testing a pre-production model, as have others (who will doubtless offer other insights: e.g. from experienced production sound or outside broadcast perspectives), and that there may be the odd minor tweak before the production run starts!

Pricing and availability

For many the price of different windshields will come into play when making choices, so it was interesting to hear from Simon Davies how the Mini-ALTO compares with the Nano Shield on this too. The latter is priced at £525 ex VAT for the kit (including fur and cable), while the Mini-ALTO 115, 180 & 210 kits (again with fur and cable) come in at £360 ex VAT. Without the cable, the kits are £320 ex VAT, and if you already have a RAD-2 shock-mount then the upgrade kit (without cable) is £270 ex VAT.

In terms of availability, the latest update from Simon Davies (22.1.2025) is: ‘We’ve set a formal launch date of 1st March for v1.1, however we’ll be releasing some units during February as they become available.’

Audio Gear

Musings on mic cases…

December 9, 2024
Two very different manufacturers’ mic cases from Rycote (left) and Sennheiser (right): both have their strong points, but neither seem suited to use in the field.

I appreciate it’s a little thing, but good mic cases for use in the field are not as easy to buy as you might think. Obviously, the needs of different recordists vary: if you are a classical music recordist travelling to a concert hall or church with a mass of mics and other more bulky equipment, then, perhaps, a large Peli case might be the answer. A similar solution might also suit the smaller mic collection of a sound mixer on set, where a sound cart means that equipment is bulky anyway. But for most of my use, and I suspect that of many others, I need mic cases that take up very little space in whatever I am carrying, yet keep the mics safe and easily accessible, be this for music recording on location or field recording for ambiences or sound effects. This short blog post is for those in the same boat, especially those who have yet to find a solution that works for them: others, I am sure, will have come up with better solutions than mine, or at least ones more suited to their needs.

First off, needless to say, are the cases that come with mics from the manufacturers. These vary hugely, although few are cases you would want in the field. The Schoeps ‘Desert Island Stereo Set’ is a welcome exception, with a diminutive stereo pair of mics and mic clips (perhaps of less use) in a dinky little Peli case, and is in sharp contrast to their usual wooden cases that are not so practical or space efficient in the field. My Rycote mics have compact cases, but are for individual mics or pairs, and the bulk soon adds up when taking several into the field. Their rather nice finish also doesn’t seem quite right and robust for the field. As for my Sennheiser MKH 8000 series mics, well they come in the same massive plastic cases as the older and larger MKH mics, so again are ones to leave at home.

The Rycote mic protector case (20cm model) and one of the three mic tubes inside: although I haven’t really found the overall case great (hence the label still on it all these years later!), the internal mic mic tubes have been useful!

My first foray into mic cases for the field was the Rycote mic storage case, which looked the part: a fabric-covered tough plastic cylinder containing three plastic tubes for the individual mics. It could have been good if only the three individual plastic tubes were a comfortable fit (they were far too tight, though, puzzling, not everyone found this to be so!), and again was bulky: not bag friendly enough for me. I never really used the outer case, but have used the individual plastic tubes for some years, and I know others like similar tubes (they can be bought much more cheaply outside the audio world). As the number of mics grew, however, I found a bunch of tubes knocking around the bottom of my bag less than ideal. That said, I do find them of use for shotgun mics, which are, of course, hard to combine with other shorter mics in a single case. What I wanted was a protective case that could hold a bunch of these shorter SDC mics together, and whilst looking into what others have found (including cigar travel cases!) I had the idea (doubtless not original) of using semi-rigid cases for 2.5″ external hard drives. They come with a bit of variance in size between makes and are well-suited to a bunch of smaller SDCs. The only problem was keeping the mics separate, so they didn’t bump into each other, and for that I used lens cloths, tucking up the mics for bed before zipping up the cases. The lens cloth business is not the hassle it sounds, but it does mean that when opening the case you can’t instantly see which mic is which.

More compact SDC mic storage and transport in shell cases for 2.5″ external hard drives. Here shown with relatively long AKG Blue Line mics, but shorter SDC mics can fit across the width of such cases. The right-hand image shows how I have actually used such cases, with a lens cloth protecting the mics from each other.

So after a couple of years of this, and with some of my mics not neatly fitting into such cases or not doing so efficiently, I began to wonder if there could be a better solution. I had another good look at the smaller Peli cases, thinking about 3d-printing a tray to fit, but for my SDC mics, the model sizes just didn’t seem spot on. And that is when I stumbled across rigid cases for 3.5″ hard drives, which, being a little larger than their 2.5″ cousins, seemed the perfect size for my use. Now these vary hugely and many don’t look suited for repeated opening and closing (I guess they are for storing internal HDDs in an office or store environment?), I found some (an obscure brand!) that are more robust: really tough plastic cases, a reasonable hinge and locking clip, good seals and shock resistance (dense EVA foam), yet overall size not too large: at 172mm x 125mm x 43mm, they still slip easily into my smallest field-recording bag. With a bit of a search and you will find the same or perhaps a better model. And with a 3d-printed tray (yes, more fun with the new 3d printer!), the mics sit neatly and securely (with the perfect amount of pressure from the lid’s lining in the dense EVA foam) and I can see all the mics at a glance – like a box of chocolates. So that’s my current solution for SDC mics today and easily the best I have found. I have no doubt it will change in the future as my mic collection changes or, perhaps, when I struggle to find similar replacement cases in the future, but the basic premise will remain. As I said, only a little thing, but perhaps my musings will help someone!

Slightly bigger, rigid and sealed 3.5″ hard drive cases. The EVA foam insert at the top (I removed the bottom one and replaced it with the 3d-printed insert tray to fit specific mic models) is dense and not prone to break down easily like many foams: it applies just enough pressure to hold the mics securely in place.
And the same again, but loaded with Sennheiser MKH 8000 mics (left) and Rycote mics (right). My current solution: for how long though?!
Audio Gear

Windshields for a mid-side pair? Comparing the Cinela Zephyx and Pianissimo with the Rycote Cyclone

November 25, 2024
The Cinela Zephyx (left) and Pianissimo (right) enjoying a sea breeze.

Introduction

One of the beauties of mid-side recording is its suitability for stereo recording outdoors, with the pair of mics fitting into a single windshield. This, and the fact that the fig 8 side mic can be omitted and just the mid mic used, has meant it has become a common tool for production sound recordists who occasionally need a stereo capability. But mid-side rigs are often a good solution for others recording outdoors too: those recording effects, sound libraries, ambiences, nature and, even, music. Over the years I have used a variety of windshields for mid-side recording, including the humble Rode mk 1 blimp (very flexible in terms of different mic combinations), the Rycote Nano Shield (a bit of a squeeze to get two mics inside), and, for LDC mics, my massive DIY blimp. My default windshield for mid-side recording of late, however, has been the Rycote Cyclone: more particularly the Stereo Cyclone Kit 5, which is configured for an MS pair of 19/20mm mics. And there are new compact options on the horizon: Radius Windshields is nearing production of its mini-ALTO and then ALTO windshields, which will have dedicated MS clips as options, and in Sept 2023 Cinela showed its prototype Cosi windshield for the MKH 8030 MS pair, although its production remains uncertain.

For this post I am focusing on three of the most popular options, and ones that are of a sufficient size to promise reasonable performance outdoors in more than a gentle breeze: that is Cinela’s Zephyx and Pianissimo, and Rycote’s Cyclone. I often read on field recording and similar forums how some recordists, not always beginners, consider just how good a small windshield to be, but, while there is a place for compact protection when wind is light, there is no getting away from the physics. If you need a solid introduction to that, I suggest starting with Bleazey, J.C., ‘Experimental Determination of the Effectiveness of Microphone Wind Screens’, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Jan 1961, vol. 9, no. 1), 48-54. Indeed, it is worth remembering that the windshields considered here are themselves compromised on the size front so as to be able to be used on a boom-pole or easily deployed in the field. And if you don’t believe me and the engineers, then keep on reading since, by way of an example, further down the post I do include a test of the Pianissimo vs the diminutive Rycote Nano Shield NS1-BA: not least because I have posted previously on my blog showing how you can squeeze an MS pair into the latter, and it is important to understand the limitations of such small rigs.

A few of the windshields that I have used for mid-side (MS) recording: some designed for it, and some adapted. The photo gives a useful sense of the comparative sizes of the three purpose-designed MS windshields considered here: the Cinela Zephyx, the Cinela Pianissimo and the Rycote Stereo Cyclone (which uses a Cyclone small basket).

The Cinela models tested are recently released variations set up for the Sennheiser MKH 8030 + MKH 8000 mics, and have dedicated MZL connections. As I began these tests, Rycote put into production two new MS Cyclones dedicated to the same mics (one with MZL connectors – the Stereo MS Cyclone Kit 17 – and one with XLRs – the Stereo MS Cyclone Kit 18), but I am using the older Cyclone Kit 5: it uses the same small Cyclone basket and I have set it up similarly as the new models in terms of lyre positions. With the tests relating to mid-side recording, the three windshields see a focus on aspects that might not be as relevant to, say, a shotgun mic: erratic off-axis response is typically a feature of such highly directional mics, whereas the sideways looking fig 8 mic of a mid-side pair demands much more transparency from the sides of a windshield and, therefore, this is examined closely here. That said, hopefully many aspects of the tests should be relevant to those thinking of using the Zephyx, Pianissimo and Cyclone for other mic configurations.

Design and construction

Before getting stuck into testing the three windshields, it is perhaps worth writing a few words on their design and build, not least as there isn’t a lot out there on the Cinelas in particular. Obviously, there is little purpose in repeating what is on the manufacturers’ websites, so do go and look at those: rather, I will cover the main points that have interested me from having the windshields in my hands.

Zephyx: The basket’s overall dimensions are a maximum of 175mm W; 257mm L; and 179mm H. The shape is better appreciated in the photos, and we should be grateful to Cinela for leading the way with the non-cylindrical approach. Weightwise, this version is 405g with the fabric cover only and 588g with the fur added. The grey injection-moulded vertical (longitudinal?) and horizontal ribs interlock and are glued, and there are additional small straight struts top and bottom. The basket comprises two parts, with the smaller rear part attached with lugs/clips (and this is easy to attach and remove). Removal of the rear part allows access to the interior, but this access is principally to allow the user to loosen the screw that holds the shock-mount in place: fitting and removing the mics (at least with this MS version) is not really possible unless the shock-mount is removed from the front basket part too. Even after several weeks of use, I didn’t grow to like the screw fitting of the shock-mount to the basket: it is fiddly. The mic shock-mount attaches to the four-armed suspension, which connects to the front (or main) part of the basket: the independent basket suspension was a revolutionary approach when first introduced with Zephyx in 2007. When whole, the basket has plastic rings top and bottom: the top one provides a fixing point for the vertical, or longitudinal, ribs, while the bottom one also houses the round plastic bellows that provide a flexible air seal between the basket and the shock-mount (allowing some independent movement). The ribs have T-shaped sections, 5mm wide and 8mm deep, so are quite chunky (more so than those of the Pianissimo). Although the ribs are doubled where the two parts of the basket join, this is to the rear of the mic capsules and, thus, this suggests that they are not too large an acoustic issue for MS mics: of course, in a basket designed from the outset for MS, this is perhaps to be expected. The version of the Zephyx for the MKH 8030 + MKH 8000 MS has a double-mic clip, top and bottom loaded, with elasticated ties to hold the mics in. Such ties were new to me, but, as long as access is good (i.e. out of the basket), they are easy enough to use and I like the fact that they are gentle on the mic bodies. The two elliptical E-OSIX (hardness grade 00) shock-mount isolators are canted in at the sides, supporting the mic pair at the middle of the MS clip. This is a quite different configuration than for earlier MS options for the Zephyx, and looks to be an improvement. In short, I am impressed by the design of the MS shock-mount from the bar that holds the suspension hoops upwards: I am a little less enamoured with the design and materials of the section below, with the screw fixing to the basket, the conn box (a little homely, but usefully smaller than the Rycote ones), the bellows, the XLR holder and the 3/8″ mount. Not to say that I had any problems with these lower parts, other than the fiddly screw, and that they aren’t all robust enough and effective: just not entirely what I expected on a relatively expensive windshield.

The Zephyx shock-mount removed from the basket.
The Zephyx with the basket attached: the rear cap has its small piece of fabric covering attached at all times.
Underside of the Zephyx showing the thin rubbery bellows, the pivot, XLR holder and 3/8″ mount.

Pianissimo: The basket’s overall maximum dimensions are 165mm W; 324mm L; and 140mm H. Weightwise, this version is 370g with the fabric cover only and 560g with the fur added, so a little lighter than the Zephyx. The grey injection moulding has the look of the sprues or, more correctly, runners, used for the Airfix kits I made as a nipper. It comprises two halves, top and bottom, which separate to allow access to the interior: unlike the Zephyx, you cannot remove the basket from the shock-mount, but that didn’t concern me, and I found it much easier and quicker to access the mics than in its older sibling. The fabric cover for the lower half stays on permanently, while the cover for the top half has to be put on after the two basket halves are joined (it is elasticated and overlaps the lower half of the basket). Although the four-armed suspension connects to the bottom half only, the top half has the same fixing points, which is surprising as the two half-basket mouldings are not entirely identical: the upper one lacks the integral thick ring at the bottom that allows connection to a boom pole or stand. No great significance, but, again, something I wouldn’t expect in a relatively expensive windshield. There are different gauges of plastic in the basket: 3.1-3.4mm diameter round minor ribs and approximate circles; 3.5mm wide x 6.7mm high T-shaped longitudinal ribs top and bottom; and three sets of T-shaped main cross-ribs c.8.0mm wide and 6.7mm high. The last expand into wide round feet, 15mm diameter, which form the push-fit connectors between the two halves of the basket: when joined together, these feet form six cylindrical posts 75mm high. Although the Pianissimo basket has smaller spaces between the basket components than the Zephyx, the lighter structure and placement of the larger elements means that, on visual grounds at least, the design looks to be more transparent. The main concerns from a mid-side recording perspective are the front and middle rings, with their thicker posts at the joins: the front one is positioned off-axis to a forward-facing mic, and the middle one, which is set behind the mic position a little, is positioned off-axis to the side mic. The version of the Pianissimo for the MKH 8030 + MKH 8000 MS has the same back-to-back clip for the mics and suspension as the Zephyx, which is excellent.

Pianissimo with top half of basket fitted.
Pianissimo with top half of basket removed, showing mic shock-mount and the four-armed basket suspension.
The Cinela windshield connections to boom poles and stands might be made out of a slightly unusual looking plastic, but I must say I do like the pivot/clutch on the Pianissimo: small, but really effective.

Cyclone: The basket’s overall dimensions are 160mm maximum diameter; and 285mm L. Weightwise, this version is 620g with the integrated fabric cover only and 744g with the fur added: so significantly heavier than the Cinela models, with the difference being greatest without the furs (the Rycote fur being lighter). While also being made of grey injection-moulded plastic, there are substantial differences from the Cinelas: the 3D-Tex material is integrated with the basket; the basket is quick to assemble and disassemble (leaving the shock-mount easily accessible) due to its form and connection (held together with magnets and four small levers); and the basket structure is made of smaller cells and ribs of smaller dimensions (3.5mm wide). The smaller cross-section of the ribs of the basket is countered, however, by more substantial mouldings at the top and the bottom (for connection to the shock-mount) and to allow the two halves of the basket to clip together easily, with magnets to aid the fit. As a result of the division of the basket into two parts, the junction of the front semi-dome with the tapering body to the rear is marked with a 19.5mm-wide plastic ring. I can’t pretend other than that this ring has made me wonder about the Cyclone’s suitability for MS as it is positioned on-axis to where naturally you would have the sideways-looking fig 8 mic: with that in mind, I have been using the Cyclone Stereo Kit 5 with the mics forward of this plastic ring, and I notice that is exactly how Rycote have set up their new MKH 8000-specific MS versions (the Stereo MS Cyclone Kits 17 and 18). Obviously the ring remains within the lobes of the fig 8 and the mics are now pushed rather further into the front cap than is ideal (I remember the advice of the designer of the original Cyclone, Chris Woolf, that this was to be avoided…). The basket suspension for the Cyclone is a lot more substantial than that for the Cinelas, which again adds unwanted bulk (and weight), albeit in arguably less sensitive locations than the basket ring: both the top and bottom parts house multiple lyre-like suspension elements to provide a flexible connection to the basket, and are joined by the removable C-arm. The latter itself provides an extra component within the basket, but it is set well behind the capsules of the MS pair so is unlikely to cause significant acoustic issues (DMS may be another matter: one for a later test). More positively, the Cyclone offers a lot more immediate flexibility than its Cinela counterparts: you can move the lyres, reverse them and, indeed, even replace them with Radius hoops should you wish, while the Cinelas very much come specific to the MKH 8030 MS pair, although additional suspensions for different mic set ups can be bought (at a significant cost).

The Cyclone with one half-basket removed.
The Cyclone shock-mount and basket suspension with the basket fully removed. If you want one with MZL connectors for MKH 8000 mics you will need the Stereo MS Cyclone Kit 17.

Overall, then, there is no doubt that the Rycote Cyclone is more flexible, makes use of more consistent materials, and seems better built and better engineered. But, and this is a big but, this engineering gives it some large and chunky components in the thick mouldings in parts of the basket (from an MS perspective, most concerningly the wide ring at the rear of the front cap) and the top, bottom and C-arm of the shock-mount/suspension.

Operation

The two Cinelas operate quite differently. As we have seen, while the Zephyx allows the shock-mount to be used without the windshield, the Pianissimo does not. The Zephyx, then, is like the Cyclone (where the basket and, if required, the C-arm can be removed), although the process of removing and adding the Zephyx’s basket is much more fiddly. For some, this ability to remove the basket may well be crucial: for example, if transitioning from outside to inside booming. That said, such a transition with a mid-side pair may be less common than with a single more directional mic. Certainly, having long used a Cyclone I have rarely found myself using it sans basket as a shock-mount: rather, I have found the ability to remove the basket primarily of use in installing and removing the mics, unimpeded. The ease with which the Cyclone basket can be removed and replaced is very different than with the Zephyx, which is rather more fiddly – it requires removal of the back part of the basket and unscrewing the knob below the mic suspension, with replacement being fiddlier still, getting the bellows in place and getting the screw into the hole. Far from ideal in the field, let alone in low light. So from a practical point of view, the apparent limitation of the Pianissimo of not being able to use sans basket is far from that: while still short of the slickness of a Cyclone, removal of the top half of the basket to get access to the mics is much easier than with the Zephyx.

Obviously the integration of the fabric cover of the Cyclone with the basket means that there is no additional process involved on that front, while both Cinelas need their fabric layer adding after the baskets are assembled. This is a little fiddly, but not as difficult as putting on their fur covers: both furs are unlined, quite stiff and with a coarse internal surface, so are much harder to fit than the lined Rycote fur. Indeed, all the Cinela preparation operations are much easier to do with the windshield in your lap than, say, on a stand at head level (if, for example, doing field recording): I have found myself pulling on a Zephyx fur with both hands providing counter-resistance to the considerable tugging by use of my forehead against the rear of the windshield. Fortunately, nobody has witnessed my clumsiness, and doubtless those using the windshields day-in day-out have mastered the techniques.

When it comes to mounting the windshields, there are differences again . The two Cinelas have XLRs close to the attachment point, evidently geared to boom-pole use, but with no flexibility in positioning, while the Cyclone allows rotation of the whole pivot clamp (indeed, swapping between a 3/8″ and quick-release versions) and the XLR, which is very useful for field recording set ups. Small details that may not matter to some. And this isn’t to argue that for my usage the external details of the Cyclone are entirely preferable: for instance, I have found the small pivot clutch of the Pianissimo easily the best of the three windshields, gripping well without recourse to an over-sized lever like the Cyclone.

Finally, there is the operational aspect of cueing. The Zephyx is harder to point in the right direction than the other two windshields, largely due to its more spherical shape, but also due to how the mics sit inside the basket.

So, operationally, although some have eulogized the Cinelas on all fronts, there is no doubt in my mind over a period of using the three interchangeably over six weeks, that the Cyclone is much easier to set up, add/remove the basket, and dress/undress with its fur. It is followed at a distance by the Pianissimo, and with the Zephyx very much in third place. Once ready to use, the Cyclone and Pianissimo are much easier to aim, with the Pianissimo slightly winning on this front and certainly so in terms of weight when on a long boom pole; the Zephyx is less easy to aim, which doesn’t only matter for production sound, but also for field recording – not problematically so for the latter use, just needs a little more care.

So the question you might be asking – and I certainly was having first set up the Cinelas – is the much-heralded performance of the Zephyx and Pianissimo evident and enough to outweigh any downsides? Well, high time for some testing then!

Handling noise

All three windshields have sought to tackle vibration by having baskets that have separate suspensions from the microphone shock-mounts. As we have seen, Cinela was the first to introduce this with the Zephyx in 2007, and it was then adopted in the Pianissimo (introduced in 2014, after the similarly styled, but longer, Piano model of 2012). Rycote introduced its version of independent basket suspension with the Cyclone in 2014. To compare the windshields I mounted two at a time on a stereo bar at the end of a boom pole and carried out both a static test (i.e. holding the extended boom steady so all that was transmitted was my muscles straining – not insignificant given the weight of two such windshields and my lack of muscle!) and a deliberately shaking/vibrating test. Given the similarity of the two Cinela mic and basket suspensions I found the difference in handling noise to be negligible, but they are both observably different from the Cyclone. Testing the static hold first, here are the sound file clips:

While rendering the clips I noticed that the LUFS for the Cyclone recording was slightly lower (1dB), but listening to the files it is clear that the additional energy in the Pianissimo recording is at a lower frequency and, consequently, to human ears it sounds much more effective. You can see this different frequency in the spectrum analyzer visualizations, with the vibrations falling away very quickly from around 50Hz in the Pianissimo compared to the Cyclone:

Static suspension tests of the Stereo Cyclone (top) and Pianissimo (bottom).

Moving on to the tests with the pair of windshields on the end of the boom-pole being deliberately shaken, here are the sound files:

Again, the Cyclone produces slightly less noise in the test (this time by 2dB when considering LUFs and with a peak 3.8dB lower), yet the frequency spectrum of the noise makes it more audible, as the spectrum analyzer visualizations confirm:

Shaking suspension tests of the Stereo Cyclone (top) and Pianissimo (bottom).

While the differences in the suspensions between the two Cinelas and the Cyclone are measurable and audible, it is hard to tell whether this will be relevant to any user: it will come down to a matter of how much movement is likely, be that fast boom swings (which seem unlikely with an MS pair), handling noise or, if stand mounted, transmitted structure-borne noise from the ground or the stand (the latter itself perhaps produced by wind buffeting), and the degree to which use of an HPF (and at what frequency) is acceptable. In practice, I have not found the Cyclone any less usable on shock-mount/suspension grounds than the Cinelas, but it is something to bear in mind: there is a difference and it may well matter to some users. Certainly it is likely to matter to production sound recordists using versions of the baskets (very probably not the MS variations considered here) on boom-poles.

One interesting aside on suspensions and handling noise is the question of reduction in the mass of the MKH 8000 mics by use of the MZL connectors. MZLs are great when you want to reduce the visual impact of the already small mics (say while recording a live or filmed performance) or where reduction of the bulk of the mic helps acoustically (most obviously in double mid-side – or DMS – recording), but it isn’t entirely clear to me why it is so advantageous for an MS pair in a large windshield, where the additional mass of the MZX 8000 XLR modules and then the XLR plugs themselves may well help lower the resonant frequency of the spring system of the shock-mount (something that Chris Woolf discusses in his eminently readable article ‘Keeping Microphones Quiet’in LineUp 120 for summer 2009, which is freely available via the IPS website). Indeed, when including the pair of MZF 8000 ii filters when he sent the Cinelas, Philippe Chenevez made the point that this was because ‘the suspension is optimised for those, whatever [sic] you switch the filter on or off’: in other words, the additional mass seems to be helpful (although, of course, in addition to its switchable 70Hz HPF, the MZF 8000 ii has a fixed low-cut filter at 16 Hz). More prosaically, the additional length from the MZF filters helps with fitting the mics, but then so would the MZX 8000 XLR modules and, of course, if XLR connectors were used then other similarly-sized mics could be used interchangeably. That’s certainly the case with the Cyclone model used for these tests, which I use equally happily with the Rycote range of mics.

Transparency

I really began to think about transparency of windshields when finally getting around to comparing the wind reduction performance of my massive DIY blimp (built for LDC mics many years ago) to that of my smaller windshields: I had never tested the DIY blimp with SDCs before. As expected the reduction in wind noise was considerable, which is the inevitable consequence of its large size, but I was surprised by how much more transparent it was: I could hear much more in the way of leaves rustling and birds tweeting. What was unclear was how much this was to do with differences in size, coverings, basket design/construction, and shock-mount and other internal differences. Of course, some attenuation of higher frequencies is to be expected from a windshield covering, especially fur – that’s the quid pro quo for wind noise reduction – but, evidently, additional colouration should be minimized: this seems especially relevant to mid-side stereo pairs in a windshield. So a considerable amount of my time testing these windshields was focused on transparency, comparing, where possible, the impact of the bare shock-mount, then the bare basket, the basket with any fabric added (or permanently fixed to the basket), and the impact of adding fur. The tests were carried out using an MKH 8040 cardioid and MKH 8030 fig 8 pair rather than a calibrated test mic: this was due to the shock-mounts (and for the Cinela windshields, the connectors) being designed for such mics, and because I wanted to test the windshields with the actual mics that would be used and in the exact positions in which they would be placed.

In the absence of an anechoic chamber, I started off by making quasi-anechoic measurements, in which room reflections are removed by adding a gate, or time-window, which in this case was 5ms. This meant that lower frequencies were not measured, but this wasn’t a significant concern as my preliminary rough tests showed that colouration only became significant – and significantly different – at higher frequencies. To allow repeatability as I swapped windshields, added baskets to shock-mounts etc. I took a leaf from the Dambusters: instead of using convergence of angled lights to show an exact distance (in that case 60ft above the reservoirs) I applied Benjamin Lockspeiser’s inspired idea to angle two laser levels to coincide on the centre of the mic capsules, allowing me to set and reset distance and height to millimetre accuracy. By angling the two laser levels on axis to the loudspeaker and at 30 degrees, alignment of the mic bodies was also made easy: to reduce the number of measurements to something manageable I had decided to measure head-on (0 degrees) and at 30 degrees with the forward-facing MKH 8040, and at 60 degrees and 90 degrees with the sideward-facing fig 8 mic. Not the full 360 degrees of a polar plot, but, of course, with a full frequency sweep from 200Hz to 20kHz. Simplifying things by reducing the number of angles was just as well as it still took me 11 hours to work through the measurements, each time leaving the test room to control things (via REW software) from my PC: maintaining stability of the windshields while progressively adding baskets, fabric and fur took immense patience and, in some cases, multiple attempts. I am only too aware that much better and more comprehensive measurements could be achieved with an anechoic chamber, better equipment and more expertise, but this is at least an attempt to carry out measurements and I am happy enough with the broad gist of the results.

Lining up the mics for quasi-anechoic tests with a pair of converging lasers (not easy to see the red one, I know): a touch of the Dambusters!

I began the series of measurements looking at the impact of shock-mounts alone. This was measurable with the Cyclone and Zephyx, as only they can be removed from the basket. There was a modest, albeit quite noticeable, impact at 0 degrees vs the bare mics in a back-to-back clip mounted in the simple mic clip provided by Sennheiser, becoming more significant at 30, 60 and 90 degrees with the Cyclone, probably due to the large plastic C-arm (left in place for this test) that links to the top of the basket. Moving on to the impact of bare baskets, this was measurable with the Zephyx and Pianissimo only, as the Cyclone 3D-Tex fabric is bonded to its basket. This showed reasonably increased colouration over shock-mounts only, most noticeable at 30 and 60 degrees with the Zephyx, which makes sense when you consider the more substantial impact of the basket ribs (which are much larger in cross-section than those of the Pianissimo) at such angles. As a comparison, I measured the impact of my massive DIY blimp basket, which was negligible in comparison, as would be anticipated given its open structure and the thin structural components (3mm diameter stainless-steel wire). However, windshields need a covering to be useful, so, though the shock-mount and basket components will have an acoustic effect, sometimes considerably so, it makes sense to look in more detail at the measurements with coverings on.

Rycote Cyclone Kit 5: sound pressure level (SPL) 1kHz-20kHz with MKH 8040 and sound source at 0 degrees (i.e. straight on axis). The black line is the reference of the bare mic (albeit in an MS pair, with back-to-back clips, a simple mic clip and on a stand). The green line shows the basket (which has integrated fabric) and the red line shows the windshield with fur added. All these graphs have 1/48 smoothing.
Cinela Zephyx Z-8030-8040 with MKH 8040 and sound source at 0 degrees. The black line is the bare mic reference, the green line represents the basket and fabric, and the red line shows the windshield with fur added.
Cinela Pianissimo PIANI-2-8030-8040 with MKH 8040 and sound source at 0 degrees. The black line is the bare mic reference, the green line represents the basket and fabric, and the red line shows the windshield with fur added.

With a straight-on signal to the front of the windshields the performance of the three baskets with the addition of the various fabrics supplied shows a fairly modest colouration of the sound, broadly consistent across the different models, with very little attenuation. The addition of the fur shows, as expected, a significant attenuation in high frequencies, beginning as low as 1kHz. The Cyclone and Zephyx are close in this test, with the Pianissimo performing less well, especially from around 12kHz where the attenuation increases significantly. I found almost identical results when repeating the test, but swapping the long-pile fur for the short-pile fur also supplied. Thinking more generally about the attenuation from fur, below is a graph showing the same test but with my massive DIY blimp, in which lined fur (both lining and fur supplied by Rycote many years ago) sit directly on a more open basket, which itself has no fabric covering. In this case, the impact of the fur is much reduced, and there is very little attenuation of high frequencies: food for thought.

DIY windshield for LDC mics with MKH 8040 and sound source at 0 degrees. The red line shows the windshield with fur added, and the minimal attenuation of high frequencies that is in contrast to the smaller windshields above, with more complex basket constructions and tight fabric coverings of the baskets.

Anyway, back to the three windshields we are primarily concerned with here! Turning to their transparency at 90 degrees is particularly relevant to their MS use, as this is, of course, on axis to the fig 8 side mic.

Rycote Cyclone Kit 5 with MKH 8030 and sound source at 90 degrees (i.e. straight on axis to the fig 8 mic). The black line is the bare mic reference, the green line represents the basket and fabric, and the red line shows the windshield with fur added.
Cinela Zephyx Z-8030-8040 with MKH 8030 and sound source at 90 degrees (i.e. straight on axis to the fig 8 mic). The black line is the bare mic reference, the green line represents the basket and fabric, and the red line shows the windshield with fur added.
Cinela Pianissimo PIANI-2-8030-8040 with MKH 8030 and sound source at 90 degrees (i.e. straight on axis to the fig 8 mic). The black line is the bare mic reference, the green line represents the basket and fabric, and the red line shows the windshield with fur added.

Not unexpectedly, when the sound is measured from the side of the windshield, the Cyclone is showing significant colouration from around 7kHz, with a series of peaks and troughs from around 9kHz: that these are seen in the basket + fabric measurements as well as with the fur on confirms that they relate to the basket design, with the obvious culprit being the large plastic ring around the windshield that joins the cap to the tapered body. I understand from Rycote that the suggested set up for the new MS Cyclones for the MKH 8000 mics, whereby the mics are pushed forward into the end-cap, is a consequence of measurements of the impact of this plastic ring in the anechoic chamber: my crude measurements previously with pink noise suggested the same, and, as I mentioned previously, I have followed Rycote’s proposed more forward positioning. The Zephyx sees some similar, but much reduced, behaviour to the Cyclone from around 9kHz too, affecting basket + fabric and fur, while the Pianissimo sees little attenuation with the basket + fabric at any frequency and, in a sharp reversal of its performance at 0 degrees, some fairly modest attenuation when the fur is added.

With no published data for windshields (if only we could have detailed polar plots and frequency response graphs with, say, a measurement omni mic for each windshield basket design), I found making my measurements (necessarily many more than included here) an instructive if painfully long process. It confirmed my suspicion that none of the windshields was free of colouration, suggested that the Cyclone held its own with forward-facing mics, but that the Cinelas had better all-round transparency, and, above all, that they did not suffer from anything equivalent to the impact of the Cyclone’s wide plastic ring on the fig 8 mic. Again, as with the difference in handling noise, whether or not the different transparency matters is another thing: given these tests and what I have noticed with a more informed ear as I listed to my MS field recordings, I would be less inclined to use a Cyclone with an MS rig for the most demanding situations (say outdoor acoustic music recordings), but for many a field or sound effects recording, I suspect that the colouration would be too subtle to notice. Anyway, after all this measuring, with relief, I packed away the laser levels, restored furniture to the test room, turned off the PC, and headed outside…

Wind reduction

While much of this post has been about the compromises that windshields bring – the fiddliness and faff, the inevitable effect on the sound recorded – the bottom line is, of course, the ability to reduce the impact of wind noise on the microphones, whilst keeping these downsides to an acceptable minimum. After weeks of a strange anticyclonic gloom in October and November, at last the weather changed so I headed up to the coast at Cley to get a bit more wind to compare the difference between the two Cinela models. Pointing them into the northerly onshore wind, I first tested the Cinelas with just their fabric covers on (these being a double layer polyester/polyamide fabric), and here the Zephyx clearly won out by a substantial margin, presumably reflecting its larger size and more spherical shape (the latter better for turbulent wind):

Putting furs on made a huge difference, as expected, but interestingly the difference between the two models is much reduced, although the Zephyx still performed better in terms of wind reduction. And in neither test is there an obvious difference between the two windshield models in the recording of the footsteps walking past on the shingle, which were included to get some sense of the effect of the wind reduction on higher frequencies. Admittedly, this isn’t as nuanced as recording an acoustic instrument or vocal, but in the real world these are unlikely to be recorded on an exposed windy shingle beach.

With the strong sound of the wind and the sea beyond, and the fact that the incoming spray wasn’t doing my specs or the equipment any favours, I thought perhaps something more subtle might be equally, or more revealing, so beat a retreat to the garden. There, in addition to wind, there was the noise of leaves moving, the singing of the odd bird that forgot to migrate somewhere nicer for winter, and other village street noises. Again I kicked off with the Zephyx with just its fabric cover, but this time compared it to the Cyclone also without its fur:

The difference between the two windshields is very obvious, with the Cyclone picking up so much more wind noise. Of course, the construction is quite different – the Zephyx having its fabric ‘Z-cover’ stretched over the basket, while the Cyclone has its 3D-Tex material built-in to the basket, with plastic elements of the latter remaining exposed.

Adding furs reduced the wind noise, of course, but the difference between the two windshields remains very evident.

Now that’s more like wind! OK Storm Bert might imply something more dramatic than was the case – certainly far away from the centre, here in Norfolk – but wind around 20-25 mph with gusts over 40 mph was welcome after weeks of anticyclonic gloom. Here we have the Pianissimo (foreground) and the re-purposed LDC DIY blimp (background).

With Storm Bert hitting the UK, scope for windier tests improved, so I went through a whole sequence of comparisons with the MS pairs, each time comparing the Pianissimo to another windshield. First is a variant of the last clips, albeit with more wind, being the Pianissimo (with its long-pile fur) vs the Cyclone (with its fur, of course):

And here are the spectrum analyzer visualizations of the difference between the two, with the audible component (say above 20Hz) clearly greater with the Cyclone.

Pianissimo (top) vs Cyclone (bottom) performance in wind: fig 8 mic only.

As we saw (or heard) with the Zephyx vs Cyclone comparison above, the difference between the two windshields is substantial again, with the Pianissimo offering much better wind reduction that the Stereo Cyclone.

With the gusty wind, I thought it would be interesting to repeat the Pianissimo vs the Zephyx test, this time without the background white noise of the sea. First up is the Pianissimo:

And here is the recording of the Zephyx:

The differences between the two are perhaps rather more evident than in my tests on the beach, and, clearly, of the two Cinelas the Zephyx does a better job at reducing wind (entirely as expected and as advertised, I should hasten to add!). Again, we can see the differences in the spectrum analyzer visualizations:

Pianissimo (top) vs Zephyx (bottom) performance in wind: fig 8 mic only.
The Kelly rain cover on the Pianissimo. I must confess it took me worryingly long to work out why it had such a name!

A slightly unexpected extra in the package from Cinela was a Kelly rain cover for the Pianissimo. I must confess that it will take more than a cheerfully named rain cover to make me think I am Gene Kelly and feel like singing or, rather, recording in the rain – I am a fair-weather recordist – but for some dealing with rain is unavoidable: a few hardy souls even choose to record in the rain. Comprehensive testing of the Kelly is rather outside the scope of my recording experience, but, with the rain cover in hand, I thought that a wind test might prove useful (it is a choice between the Kelly and the fur: you can’t have both on the windshield at the same time). Now, this comparison is between the Pianissimo with the Kelly and the Zephyx with fur: not quite like-for-like, but the two windshields are similar enough and the differences so dramatic that the test is perhaps worth including here:

Pianissimo with Kelly rain cover (top) vs Zephyx with fur (bottom) performance in wind: fig 8 mic only.

Obviously, the rain cover is not something you would deploy unless absolutely necessary. And, of course, it’s function is for rain not wind although, of course, wind and rain often go together (certainly here in the UK!). As the Cinela website says: ‘Depending on the strength of the wind and the intensity of the rain, you have to make the best choice between adding the fur or the rain cover. Your experience and your ears will guide your choice!’ Indeed.

Rycote Nano Shield NS1-BA adapted with Radius hoops and 3d-printed MS clips and mount to hold a MS pair centrally.

Right, and here for something different in the last of this particular batch of tests is a comparison of the Pianissimo with the Rycote Nano Shield, which I promised at the beginning of the this blog post:

As expected, there is a lot more wind noise in the diminutive Nano Shield NS1-BA when coping with the lively wind, and it runs up into much higher frequencies than you’d want (i.e. hard to remove without a high-pass filter set horribly high for most uses – say 200Hz or higher), as evident in the spectrum analyzer visualizations:

Pianissimo (top) vs Nano Shield (bottom) performance in wind: fig 8 mic only

While using the Cinela windshields over many weeks I got better at putting the furs on and taking them off (and I guess they would get more supple with use), but still I wasn’t keen on the fiddly process, and began to wonder just how different they would be with a lined fur. Radius Windshields make aftermarket furs for other makes of windshield, such as Rycote and Cinelas, so I tried a pair of these (thanks to Simon Davies). As expected, fitting was so much easier with more suppleness and the lining making the furs slide on smoothly, but what about performance? Testing was a bit difficult, what with having one of each model only, but trying different combinations of furs (including, as controls, both windshields with the original furs and both with the Radius alternatives), it became clear that while so much easier to deploy, the Radius furs (which are very much the same as Rycote ones: not surprising given their pedigree) offered no performance gain, and, if anything, the original Cinela furs (or at least the long-pile variants) have a slight edge.

Testing aftermarket lined furs by Radius Windshields on the Pianissimo and Zephyx: much easier to fit and remove, but just slightly less effective. A price worth paying?

Anyway, you can judge for yourself in these test files, for which, for a change, I have uploaded the MKH8030 fig 8 tracks only. First off, here are two ‘control’ recordings, with both the Zephyx and the Pianissimo wearing their Cinela furs:

As per the previous tests, the Zephyx has a slight edge in terms of wind reduction. And here are the recordings with the Pianissimo sporting the Cinela (long-pile) fur and the Zephyx with the Radius fur:

There’s not a huge amount in it, and the differences may well be much reduced (or disappear) if using a high-pass filter (you can download the files and have a play in your DAW to examine the effect of your likely HPF settings), but if trying to squeeze every last drop of performance out of the windshields, then the Cinela furs appear to have the edge. But if you are continuously taking the Cinela furs on and off, it is perhaps useful to know that there are some competent alternatives that would make life easier.

And as something of a total aside (I’ve accepted that this is going to be a very long post anyway!), if you are unfamiliar with the physics that relates size of windshield to effectiveness, the Radius furs gave me a chance to make a direct comparison with my large DIY blimp. First off is the Pianissimo with the Radius fur:

And here is the DIY blimp with pretty much identical fur (it has fur and lining provided some years ago by Simon Davies, when running Rycote and, not surprisingly, it seems pretty much identical to the Radius furs):

Pianissimo with Radius fur (top) vs DIY mega blimp (bottom) performance in wind: fig 8 mic only.

The differences are significant and, with some background voices of passing walkers, you can also hear the increased transparency of the DIY blimp in the field. Of course, this doesn’t help you if you wish to boom an MS pair or, indeed, travel very light for field of effects recording!

NB In all these wind tests do note that I used no high-pass filtering at all either in the field or in post, so do download the files and play around. My main aim was to show the differences between the three windshields without the masking effect of HPFs being applied. If you are really keen, you can decode back to M and S if, for example, you wanted to hear the difference just on the forward-facing mid mic to compare the windshields for non-MS use.

Pricing

I haven’t mentioned pricing at all so far, other than oblique references to the windshields being expensive. All three are not cheap, which is, perhaps, which is often a bit of a surprise to some: I think this stems from the plastic construction, which lends itself to mass-production, and that the designs of the baskets and main components are not new (so you might hope that the R&D and tooling investment for the injection-mouldings would be offset by now). Anyway, all three cost no more than one of the MS mics inside!

Here in the UK, the Rycote price is easiest to establish: looking at the prices at Pinknoise (and I would use them for any such purchase), the Stereo Cyclone Kit 5 is priced at £758.40 (inc. VAT). The two recently announced versions specifically for the MKH 8030 + MKH 8000 MS are pricier, with the one with MZL connectors – the Stereo MS Cyclone Kit 17 – naturally being more expensive (at £888 inc. VAT) than the one with XLRs – the Stereo MS Cyclone Kit 18 – at £834 inc. VAT (both prices at Pinknoise again). None of these comes with the small Cyclone fur, which you will almost certainly need: this costs another £138 inc. VAT.

It is harder in the UK to establish the price of the Cinelas, since I can find no stockist of these specific models. I am sure that Pinknoise, Soundkit or similar specialist retailers who sell other Cinela models could order either, but I have found prices for both at Audiosense in Brussels, where the Pianissimo (the Cinela Piani-2-8030-8040) is €1,171 inc. VAT and the Zephyx (the Cinela Z-8030-8040-MS) is €1,411 inc. VAT. At today’s exchange rates, these equate to £977 and £1,177 respectively, which are pretty much as I would expect from the prices of other MS versions of the Pianissimo and the Zephyx that are stocked in the UK. Given that both Cinelas come with furs and travel cases, I can’t really see the price would be a determining factor in making a choice between the three.

Quite different cases for the Pianissimo (left) and the Zephyx (right), with pros and cons (room for furs etc. vs overall size), but good that they – and the furs – are included with the Cinelas.

Conclusions

So where does this leave me or anyone else so minded? Cinela windshields have an excellent reputation amongst professional sound recordists, especially those involved in production sound. Often they are described as the best available and a definite step up from the more prevalent Rycote models, but, in the absence of much comparative testing, it was hard to know what to make of the largely anecdotal evidence. Having had the Pianissimo and Zephyx in my hands for over six weeks, the short answer is that I am impressed, and there is no doubt that they have a significant edge over the Cyclone in terms of pure performance as windshields, not least – as this was the underlying aim of the tests – ones suited to a mid-side pair. That said, I have been a little surprised with some aspects of their construction and the elements of the designs that make them fiddly to use (most especially the means of disassembling and reassembling when changing mics: this is especially the case with the Zephyx), and which are so much better addressed in the Rycote Cyclone.

The design of the windshields has meant there are inevitable compromises in all three cases, some of which they have in common (e.g. overall size). And it is clear that there could be a still better solution within the general design parameters: that is, a windshield as light as the Pianissimo and as effective at reducing wind noise and handling noise as either Cinela, but with a bit more transparency than either of them and, above all, with more of the operational convenience of a Cyclone. But dreaming of non-existent products aside, if I was booming a shotgun mic or a supercardioid mic on a long boom-pole and not continually swapping in and out mics, there is no doubt I would choose the Pianissimo, on grounds of weight, ability to aim and its excellent handling and wind-noise reduction. If you want an MS rig on a long boom-pole, then this is the way to go too. But that isn’t my usage of MS: typically, I am using MS in the field for effects recording with mics on a stand, and frequently swapping out mid mics (changing from omni, to wide-cardioid, to cardioid and supercardioid) and the whole MS pair, and putting the fur on and taking it off again depending on the wind level. And then I am recording music outside, where the lack of complete transparency of any of the options becomes perhaps more evident, but especially with the Cyclone. So I am left scratching my head. Should a sound recordist in similar shoes accept the lesser high-wind reduction of the Cyclone (which, I should clarify, is not at all shabby anyway: it outperforms my other windshields) and the acoustic effect of its large plastic hoop on the fig 8 mic as compromises worth making for increased ease of use in the field? Or should the recordist go for one of the Cinelas, with greater transparency overall and better handling and wind-noise reduction, and just accept it will be less easy to rig? OK, as we have seen, this could be made a bit easier by recourse to an aftermarket lined fur from Radius Windshields, but at the cost of a slight loss in wind reduction performance. And if a recordist is to choose a Cinela, should they go for a Zephyx with its better performance in wind, or the Pianissimo with its greater convenience and ease of aiming? A bit of a dilemma for the recordist that I cannot resolve: what I hope, rather, is to have provided some useful comparative information and food for thought for those looking for capable MS windshield solutions and weighing up these three options. Personally, I would be rather pleased if the Pianissimo didn’t have to disappear back to Paris!

NB Just for transparency, the Cyclone model tested here is one I have been given previously by Rycote for testing, while the Pianissimo and Zephyx have been loaned by Cinela.