Mini-RAD hoops from Radius Windshields retrofitted to a Rycote Nano Shield.
Introduction
Back in 2024, when Radius Windshields had introduced the RAD-1 and RAD-2 hoops, but hadn’t yet produced the Mini-ALTO windshield, I retrofitted the hoops to a Rycote Nano Shield: you see this in the blog post here. This was tricky since the hoops are too tall to fit easily into the Nano Shield, so they had to be mounted on the underside of a purpose-made rail: this was a bit fiddly in use. With my 3d-printed double clips this gave me a workable compact MS rig, which – while a bit clunky – was better than using back-to-back clips in a Nano Shield fitted with lyres (not enough vertical room and the Nano Shield lyres have very little side-to-side compliance, which does side-address mics no favours). Once the Mini-ALTO arrived, such need ended and, of course, Radius’s subsequent production of their own injection-moulded (and adjustable) version of my more rudimentary 3d-printed MS clips was the icing on the cake.
The arrival of the smaller Mini-RAD hoops from Radius Windshields, however, means that retrofitting to a Nano Shield becomes much easier: no longer is hoop height an issue. Now this raises the question. from two different angles, as to why bother? First off, the smaller Mini-RAD hoops are just too tiny to allow insertion of an MS pair, so what would they offer over the Nano Shield’s original lyres? And, secondly, given that the Nano Shield was seemingly insufficiently tested before going into production, thereby attracting some negative feedback from users due to unexpected handling noise issues when used for production sound (which led to the issuing of some revised parts, including the 3D-TEX sock that covers the basket), why bother with the windshield at all? Well there wouldn’t be this blog-post if there wasn’t some merit in the retrofit, although, needless to say, reasons for doing so will vary from recordist to recordist and for some there may be no value. The key reasons for me are:
• Side-address mics. The Nano Shield’s lyres in many ways were an improvement on the standard Rycote lyres, but their design, which means compliance became much more restricted to the Z-axis (axial to the mic diaphragm for a typical end-address SDC), works well for end-address mics, but is not so good for side-address mics. The standard Rycote lyres have more side-to-side (X-axis) compliance and the Radius RAD-2 and Mini-RADs more still. This is why the Radius hoops work so effectively seemingly off-axis in, say, the ORTF in a Mini-ALTO designs I have been designing. So, if wanting to use a side-address SDC (be that a cardioid like the Schoeps MK 4V, a fig 8 or a stereo shotgun – of course, with a fig 8 capsule in it – such as the Sennheiser MKH 8018) is a very good reason to retrofit.
• Vertical use. This slightly overlaps with the point above, because the Nano Shield lyres are not effective when used vertically, first of all since vertical use implies side-address mics (unless recording planes or high-flying birds!) and, second, as the Z-axis compliance means they are simply too floppy when used vertically. OK, the answer could be to use a different windshield for vertical use, but this is where the Nano Shield’s design really comes to play, even if, as I suspect, through serendipity rather than deliberate design. The basket design is extremely unusual: I’m not thinking so much of the elliptical profile, but, rather the seamless construction. Most windshields, of course, have a basket that meets in a seam or a rail along the underside: this makes for simpler construction and, also, the rail – if it has one – provides scope for a variety of support points for shock mounts for mics of different length and design. The rail of the Nano Shield, however, is internal (part of the mic mount) and each pod is seamless around the straight barrel and into the hemisphere (if you can call it that when elliptical!) although, of course, there is a significant plastic component where the two halves of the windshield mate. The lack of a forward ring – a product of a separate end-cap in many a windshield – is beneficial to almost all use of a windshield, and the Cinelas are very good in this regard too. The thick plastic ring of an end cap evidently has an impact on (i.e. colours) the sound. What is more surprising with the Nano Shield is that the seamlessness extends to what is usually the bottom of the windshield: a seam or rail on the underside of a windshield in normal use has little to no impact. However, turn the windshield vertically, and use with either a mono omni mic or some form of 360 degree array (be that DMS or ambisonic), then a chunky seam or rail at the rear of the windshield starts to have an impact. Of course, not all windshields are equal in this degree: the relatively modest thin seam of a Mini-ALTO offers much less impact than the chunky rail of a Rycote Modular. But the seamlessness of the Nano Shield combined with its lightweight and open basket structure offers something quite different if – and I accept this is a big if – you are after a compact vertical windshield for individual side-address SDCs or, like me, an end-to-end pair for double mid side (DMS) using at least one twin mic: as I showed in my blog-post for DMS with the MKH 800 Twin and MKH 8030 combination, the Nano Shield offers an alternative to the Mini-ALTO for a compact rig, with the advantage of more transparency at the rear, but with the disadvantage of overly sagging lyres (and, of course, the general lack of robustness, ease of use and fit that mark the Mini-ALTO).
The emphasized Z-axis compliance of Nano-Shield lyres can be useful when used horizontally, but when used vertically, as here, the lyres sag.
Some readers may also wonder whether retrofitting the Nano Shield with the Mini-RADs resolves any remaining noise issues. I am not at all certain how much of the Nano Shield’s problem was related to its lyres, if at all, not least as I have struggled to replicate the noise/resonance once the Rycote-issued revised parts were fitted. But, that said, I am not swinging a boom day in day out, and much of my use involves static mounting of windshields for recording sound effects etc.: others may find in more intense real-world boom-pole use that the Mini-RAD retrofit is helpful in further resolving the noise issues of the Nano Shield, and it would be fascinating to hear if that is the case.
Rigging and testing
Given my reasons for doing this retrofit, there isn’t a great deal of testing to be done: I am already happy with the performance of the Mini-RADs and have posted my real-world tests on them here. For the sake of thoroughness, however, I did a specific comparison of the standard and retrofitted Nano Shields (i.e. with the baskets on, not just comparing the bare shock mounts), with both mounted on a short stereo bar at the end of an extended boom pole. There was no noticeable difference, and the spectrum analyzer results are shown here:
Comparing Nano Shields fitted with original Nano lyres in 55D (top: red), and retrofitted with Mini-RAD hoops in 45D (bottom: green). Rigged with matched Rycote C-08 cardioids on a Gitzo GB3560 carbon-fibre boom pole at full extension (3.95m) and being given some rough handling.
In terms of the vertical rigging prevention of sag, the results are very much as expected, as shown in this DMS rig:
Vertical DMS rig with the Nevaton MC59/8 and MC 59 Twin: no sag in the suspension with the retrofitted Mini-RADs and, of course, the benefit of the all-round transparency afforded by the seamless Nano Shield basket (the mics capsules are nice and clear of the mount and the junction of the two pods).
Conclusions
The Nano Shield had a mixed reception and, as I understand it, only modest sales, doubtless in part due to the many social media comments on the noise issue. Despite the windshields not being as well tested or, indeed, as easy to use as the Mini-ALTO (in many ways the natural successor and alternative), the basket design remains quite unique and a rather clever bit of injection moulding: there isn’t, for example, even a Cinela equivalent that has all the same attributes. As such, if a Mini-RAD hoop retrofit helps anyone bring their Nano Shields back into use, then that’s a good thing: I’ve certainly found the fairly simple process worthwhile.
My simple 3d-model for the bar to support the Mini-RADs is freely available here in Onshape, but I am sure others interested in trying the retrofit will want to develop their own versions, perhaps with different lengths and spacings between hoops: fit is also a bit dependent on 3d printer and material.
The Mini-RAD shock mount, showing what’s in the box: the dark (‘espresso’) brown hoops (45D) and black hoops (55D) are the muted colours/tones chosen for production and designed for low visual impact.
Introduction
In a recent post I showed how the updated ORTF mounts for the Mini-ALTO were able to take advantage of the Mini-RAD hoops, but, needless to say, this wasn’t the design intention behind the new shock-mount components from Radius Windshields. So this blog is about using the hoops for their designed purpose, as low-profile suspensions for single mics. As one option, Radius sell the hoops as part of a complete kit, as shown in the photo above. This comes with the Mini-RAD shock mount, fitted with a pair of Mini-RAD hoops (55D black) with 19/21mm clips, as well as the following spares/alternative parts: 1 off Mini-RAD hoop (45D espresso brown: i.e. Pantone 497C ) with 8.0mm clip; 2 off Mini-RAD hoops (45D espresso brown) with 12.5mm clips; 1 off 2mm Allen key; 2 off M3 x 10mm screws; and 1 of metal 5/8-27M to 3/8-16F adaptor. The kit has an MSRP in the UK of £72.00 inc. VAT, which means it is slightly more expensive than, say, the Rycote InVision INV-6 or INV-7 (both with an RRP of £63.60), although, of course, the Rycote alternatives don’t have any spare lyres or clips. While talking prices, the Cinela E-OSIX model used in the comparisons below retails at around £240 inc. VAT, but that does include the integral XLR connectors and cable. Given that the Mini-RADs can be retrofitted to existing Radius Windshield bases (not least the diminutive Field Edition base) and – like the larger RAD-1 and RAD-2 hoops – to Rycote mounts (including the Invision INV-7 and INV-6) the availability of the hoops sans mount will be very useful for many too: these come in at £15 inc. VAT for a pair (and include any of the three sizes of clips).
Size and mounting
The fundamental difference between the standard hoops from Radius Windshields and the Mini-RAD hoops is, of course, the size. A picture (especially one with dimensions!) is worth a thousand words:
The RAD-2 and Mini-RAD hoops compared: dimensioned drawing courtesy of Radius Windshields. As well as the sizes it also shows the different shore ratings and colours.
Although the fixing at the bottom remains the same, the top mount is a radical departure: the smallness of the hoop means there is no longer scope for a mic clip that is screwed to the hoop. Rather than eschewing a separate clip and going for a clip and hoop injection moulded all as one (like the Rycote lyres), I am mightily relieved that Radius have kept the modular approach: without that I would not be able to use the Mini-RADs for such unintended designs as the ORTF bars or, more prosaically, fit the 19/21mm clips to the softest hoops (45D)! The separate hoop and clip has been achieved instead by the use of a dovetail joint: this is a tight fit, but with any tendency to slide out removed by use of a projecting pip on the underside of the hoop’s dovetail and a corresponding dimple on the top of the clip’s part of the dovetail.
Mini-RAD hoops in ‘Evil Red’ (a colour used for a pre-production test run of the 45D hoops), which makes it easier to show the details of the dovetail: you can see the pip on the underside of the dovetail in bare hoop on the right, and the corresponding dimple in the unfitted clip.
While a tight fit of the dovetail is essential to remove any movement – and noise/vibration arising from that – this does mean that pulling the two parts is bit of a challenge: in reality, I think most users will leave hoops and clips mated most of the time, which is not an issue.
Some suspension and mount visual comparisons, all fitted with a Sennheiser MKH 8040 (with a mix of XLR and MZL connectors/cables) and at the same scale: a) Rycote Invision INV-7 with XLR; b) Rycote Invision INV-6 with MZL; c) Cinela E-OSIX-4018C with XLR; d) Radius Mini-RAD with XLR; e) Radius RAD-2 hoops on a Radius Field Edition mount, with XLR; f) Radius Mini-RAD hoops on a Radius Field Edition mount with XLR; g) Radius Mini-RAD hoops (19/21mm and 8mm) on a Radius Field Edition mount with MZL; and h) Sennheiser MZQ8000 mic clip (no shock mount or cable clip) with XLR.
The photo above shows a size comparison of the Mini-RAD hoops, in various configurations, with the RAD-2 hoops, Rycote lyres and the Cinela E-OSIX, and a basic mic clip. I’ve shown the Mini-RAD hoops fitted on both the supplied pivot mount and the still smaller non-pivoting Field Edition mount from Radius since the latter particularly suits low-profile use on a stereo bar (for coincident, near-coincident and spaced pairs) where any pivot is better – and, indeed, normally – applied to the whole bar where it joins the top of the stand. The small size of the Mini-RADs doesn’t just help visually (think of audiences for live concerts, and, the bane of many location recordists, the pressure for visually minimal set ups to suit video), but also practically – think especially about spot mics in tight places, including those on individual drums within a kit.
Compliance
This gripping sub-heading doesn’t mean I’m looking at how the hoops meet regulatory standards, but, of course, addressing the issue of the impact of different size and design on the stiffness/compliance of the different sizes of hoops. Obviously, despite their same internal dimensions, the original RAD-1 and RAD-2 hoops differed in this regard even when made of the same shore-rated Hytrel: that was the whole point. The Mini-RAD hoops add a third degree of complexity to this, but, if we are to compare performance – and not just size – equivalence needs to be established. Handling the different sized hoops strongly suggests that, for a given shore rating, the Mini-RADs are stiffer by around one order (i.e. the standard 55D black Mini-RADs feel more like the light blue/dark grey 62D RAD-2 hoops).
While the Mini-RAD and RAD-2 hoops are similar in their compliance in the X, Y and Z axes, by virtue of their similar design, there are some significant differences compared to other suspensions. By my measurements (measuring deflection when applying a standard weight) the various hardnesses of Mini-RAD and RAD-2 hoops have 80-90% compliance in the X axis (side-to-side) compared to the Z axis (axial along the mic body), and around 10% compliance in the Y axis (vertical), again compared to the Z axis. This compares to my measurements for the Rycote lyres of around 60% for the X axis and 10% for the Y axis. More dramatically, with the Rycote Nano Shield lyres the comparative measurements are around 20% for the X axis and around 17% for the Y axis. Shock mounts for SDC mics primarily focus on the Z axis since for most SDCs this is axial to the diaphragm: it is the movement – from vibration – to and fro of the whole mic and diaphragm that generates noise just as if sound waves were hitting a stationary mic. That is fine in principle, but, of course, not all mics are end-address: there are side-address cardioid mics, such as the Schoeps MK4V, and, more commonly, fig 8 mics (or, indeed, stereo mics such as the Sennheiser MKH 8018 that have fig 8 capsules in them). A lack of X-axis compliance serves such mics poorly, as can be seen in the tests below. Y-axis (vertical) compliance, of course, has no benefit to any SDC mic (I can’t think of an instance where you would mount a side-address SDC horizontally, but with its capsule facing up and/or down!).
Using the Mini-RADs off-axis works really well due to their X-axis compliance, as in my ORTF mounts for the Mini-ALTO.
The Mini-RAD hoops, like the RAD-2 (and, indeed, the RAD-1) hoops, are well thought through, compliant to suit both end and side-address mics, mono and mid-side. On a personal note, I’ve also found their high X-axis compliance very useful for such things as my ORTF mounts for the Mini-ALTO, where the hoops are not conventionally aligned, as there is almost no loss of compliance (and performance) in such rigs.
Mini-RAD shock mount
The mount itself is rather dual purpose: it provides a compact pivoting base for a small set up with the Mini-RAD hoops and, at the same time, fits the Mini-ALTO windshield, providing a more compact base than that offered by the RAD-2 shock mount. As such it is much better suited to a boom pole and, of course, for a more minimal set up with the smaller Mini-RAD hoops for, say, music recording. It is with the latter in mind, no doubt, that the threaded brass insert has a 5/8″ thread, suited for mic stands, rather than the standard 3/8″ thread of boom poles etc. (I should hasten to add that it does come with a 5/8″ to 3/8″ adapter). The large (30mm) diameter of the pivot makes for fantastic grip: no chance of mic droop being caused by this shock mount even with a heavy mic. And that grip is continuously variable, which is nice if you don’t want the restrictions of the teeth of the RAD-2 mount (which allow pivot in 10 degree intervals): taking the pivot apart, I see that the teeth are still there in the Mini-RAD mount, but in this case don’t need to mesh as they each grip the opposing faces of the soft blue washer. Neat, and you can always remove the washer if you want the RAD-2 type mechanism. But as supplied it is, as I say, extremely grippy and has none of the issues that I have had with my Rycote Invision INV-7 (especially the older style, small knob variant) and INV-6 mounts.
Up close with the shock mount for the Mini-RADs. The 5/8″ thread with 3/8″ insert speaks volumes for the intended market! You can see the blue washer that allows continuous rather than stepped rotation for those fine mic position tweaks, whilst still providing immense grip.
And if you need a smaller mount without a pivot, there is, as we have seen, the ultra-minimal Field Mount from Radius: this is well suited – with the Mini-RAD hoops – for very small SDCs, such as the MKH 8000 mics with MZL connectors or the Schoeps mics with Lemos.
Performance
So much for the rather obvious physical differences between the Mini-RADs and the RAD-1 and RAD-2 hoops, but how well do the smaller counterparts perform? Obviously, that’s the key question. I went down something of a rabbit hole on this, exploring vibration shaker test machines, and even going as far as making one fed by sine waves or pinknoise, before I realized that I’m no engineer and that as a consequence I was struggling to know what amount of vibration was required to translate meaningfully to real-world use, and, likewise, the relevance of Z-axis vibration (these machines produce vertical vibration). So, for all our sakes, I have retreated to the more familiar territory of real-world testing! To my mind, there are two main areas to test: use in motion (some may want the lowest profile for booming a small mic – say a small supercardioid indoors with a small foam windshield) and, above all, for fixed use. The last is especially important, since use by the music industry – be that recording, broadcast or live sound – is evidently a driver behind the development of the Mini-RAD.
For boom use, I have tested as I have done before: mounting two identical mics (MKH 8040 with XLR module) on a short stereo bar on the end of a boom pole to record boom handling noise. All mounts used matching ultra-thin Mogami cables for the final stage to the mic to minimize effects of cable-borne noise. The boom pole was fully extended, and held statically but with a medium vibration induced, to represent the sort of movements that are translated and magnified along a boom pole.
Spectrum analyzer visualization for boompole handling: Mini-RAD 55D hoops (green) vs RAD-2 62D hoops (red overlay).Spectrum analyzer visualization for boompole handling: Mini-RAD 55D hoops (green) vs Rycote 72D lyres (red overlay).Spectrum analyzer visualization for boompole handling: Mini-RAD 55D hoops (green) vs Cinela E-OSIX (red overlay).Spectrum analyzer visualization for boompole handling: Mini-RAD 55D hoops (green) vs Sennheiser MZQ 8000 clip (red overlay).
There are no surprises that the Mini-RAD hoops hugely outperform the basic Sennheiser MZQ 8000 clip (i.e. no shock mount), apart from the slightly higher peak at around 12Hz (i.e. well below any frequency that would be of concern when booming – or indeed most microphone usage): all mic shock mounts are going to have some extreme low-frequency emphasis, or resonance, as that is the inevitable consequence of any spring, but the trick of a well designed system is keeping that too low to matter and, also, ensuring that the harmonics don’t cause issues. That low-frequency is slightly more emphasized in the RAD-2 hoops, again without being a concern, and the larger Radius hoops are a bit better performing than the Mini-RADs above this: this suggests that, if booming, the RAD-2 hoops could be the better choice, which, again, is not a surprise. In these tests the MIni-RAD hoops slightly outperformed the Rycote standard (72D) lyres (with the latter’s noise between 100 and 200Hz being distinctly audible), but, and more expectedly, were bettered by the Cinela E-OSIX.
For static use, I again used a stereo bar to mount two identical mics (MKH 8040 with XLR module), but in this case putting them at the top of a lighting stand placed on a suspended wooden floor. To get a largely non-audible impulse similar to the vibration effects requiring mitigation in the real world (e.g. movement of people on stage or in an audience, tapping of a performer’s foot or low-frequency vibration transmitted from traffic movement) I simply and very gently tapped my (shoeless) heel on the floor near the stand. Obviously repeating that vibration exactly each time is nigh on impossible (and I did consider some mechanism to try and help this), so it is really the comparison of each pair that matters: given that each time I compared the Mini-RAD to something else, that still allows useful conclusions to be drawn. Anyway, here are the spectrum analyzer results:
Spectrum analyzer visualization for stand-mounted mics: Mini-RAD 55D hoops (green) vs RAD-2 62D hoops (red overlay).Spectrum analyzer visualization for stand-mounted mics: Mini-RAD 55D hoops (green) vs Rycote 72D lyres (red overlay).Spectrum analyzer visualization for stand-mounted mics: Mini-RAD 55D hoops (green) vs Cinela E-OSIX (red overlay).Spectrum analyzer visualization for stand-mounted mics: Mini-RAD 55D hoops (green) vs Sennheiser MZQ 8000 clip (red overlay).
With floor-transmitted vibrations to mics statically mounted to a lighting stand, the results were a little different than in the boom pole test. If nothing else, it shows that different types of real-world vibration react differently with mics in suspension systems so supports my abandonment of a lab-based vibration device! There is one consistent element, in that the Mini-RAD hoops outperform the basic mic clip (i.e. no shock mount), albeit more subtly due to the much smaller degree of vibration involved (which is why, of course, many music recordists don’t use shock mounts at all on SDCs). Looking at the crucial area of 20Hz to 200Hz where low-frequency vibrations can cause audible issues, the Mini-RAD 55D hoops slightly outperform both the Rycote lyres and, also, the larger RAD-2 hoops. The boom-handling advantage of the Cinela E-OSIX is no longer clear: it has a very slight edge under 100Hz, while the Mini-RAD hoops are slightly better than it above this frequency. Of course, the E-OSIX is expressly designed for production sound and not music recording, so this is hardly surprising.
Conclusions
I am painfully aware that the rather homely comparative tests in performance are unlikely to be the last word on comparative performance, both from the perspective of the test procedure and, also, that they don’t cover all variations of mics, suspension compliances and sources of vibration. But, having used all these shock-mounts for some time now, the results above are consistent with my broader observations. That is, for boom pole use, the Mini-RADs seem to be slightly outshone by the larger RAD-2s and, above that, the very specific mic-tailored Cinela E-OSIX. But the Mini-RADs are competent for such use, nonetheless, so I wouldn’t hesitate to go for them if, for example, you needed a super small indoor rig for a supercardioid such as the MKH 8050 with an MZL connector. And, with any boom pole or pistol-grip use, correct mic placement, appropriately thin and flexible cabling to the mount, careful cable routing, and correct selection of hoop/lyre compliance (not least mixing front and rear hoops) is critical for whatever shock mount you use.
For static mounts for music recording – which is very much a target use – the Mini-RADs are excellent and are not outperformed by any other shock mount tested here: indeed, knowing, and having used, many other types of shock mount, I can’t think of any other contender that is likely to be as effective as those considered here. Of course, many involved in music recording and live music don’t use shock mounts for SDCs: in a stone-floored church and when using very short, non-resonant and solid mic stands that may be a sensible choice, but in a whole host of situations I suspect they are missing a useful tool. Given the performance of the Mini-RADs, their low visual impact (especially compared to RAD-2s and the Rycote lyres) and their comparatively low pricing (very obviously compared to the Cinela E-OSIX, but also, more pertinently, compared to the Rycote lyre-based mounts), it will be fascinating to see how widely they are adopted for SDCs in the music world, be that for live performances, or studio and location recording.
Meanwhile, be prepared for some more off-the-wall complex DIY mic mounts using Mini-RAD hoops here: they’ve certainly got me thinking!
Readers may remember the launch of the first Deity microphone by Aputure back in 2017, since when – with the company spinning off to become its own entity in 2018 – they have launched a range of low-priced products aimed at production sound. Following the launch of their pocket recorder – the PR-2 – in 2023, 2026 has seen the launch of the PR-4: with four inputs (two XLR P48 – which also take 6.35mm or 1/4″ TRS jacks – and a stereo 3.5mm input) all of which can be recorded at the same time along with the stereo mix, making it a six-track recorder. As one might expect in 2026, it is what is described as a dual-ADC 32-bit float recorder. Some of the features reflect Deity’s focus on production sound gear: the timecode, AES3/AES42 inputs, and automix are the most obvious examples. Indeed, the company’s web page for the PR-4 assumes (dare one say, a little optimistically!) its use in professional production sound scenarios. But some features will appeal to a wider market and, of course, this non-production sound market may account for a significant proportion, if not the majority, of the recorder’s sales. Such features include dual media, small size, low power consumption, and the fact that the four inputs can be recorded as isos simultaneously. As such, it presents a viable and, on paper at least, attractive alternative to other compact recorders for the field recordist, be that for nature, ambience, sound effects or, even, simple location music recording.
Intrigued and wanting to test the recorder for such use, and to build on my exploration of the usefulness of small dual-ADC 32-bit float recorders for this type of recording, I got in touch with Deity and they kindly sent me an example, gratis. Hopefully, looking at it through this lens will interest one or two others. The aim is not to repeat the content of the plethora of reviews and vlogs, but, rather, to look at what I see the as the key things relevant to field recording that can’t be ascertained from simply reading the specifications and manual.
Physical form
OK, you can see the dimensions and weight from the Deity website, but there’s nothing like having a device in the hand to really get a grip on how it measures up – literally – to alternatives and, moreover, to get a sense of build quality. First up, here’s a few photos showing how it compares to my small stable of tiny recorders: the Sound Devices MixPre-3 and the Tascam FR-AV2.
A size comparison. Left to right: Tascam FR-AV2, Sound Devices MixPre-3 and Deity PR-4. The latter is shown without (top) and with (bottom) the optional cage.
As well as the obvious size comparisons, the photos make all the more obvious the design differences: in essence, the PR-4 is copying the vertical form of many a field recorder used for production sound (think Sound Devices, Sonosax, Zoom F series etc.), and to that end even makes a little production sound bag for it.
We all have our own likes and dislikes about ergonomics, usually based on what is familiar to us, so I won’t get into the placement of inputs, outputs etc.: certainly there’s nothing odder in this sense with the PR-4 than my much-used MixPre-3 with its third XLR input alone being on the right-hand side. Given my gripes about the fiddly battery compartment of the FR-AV2, the simple latched door on the PR-4 is a relief as is the simple catch to the Sony NPF550-style battery inside: an excellent powering arrangement and impressive in such a small unit. And nice to see a slot there for a full-sized SD card slot rather than a miniSD card. Ditto the hirose input for external DC supply, which is reminiscent of professional recorders, such as my Sound Devices 788Ts. After the fiddly buttons of the FR-AV2, I was looking forward to the PR-4’s use of three knobs (two for the channel controls – switchable between channels 1 and 2, and 3 and 4 – and the select knob) on the front, but, sadly, these feel precariously wobbly and are a far cry from the similarly small but metal knobs (in that case for input trim/gain) on the 788T and, at a much lower price point, the plastic knobs on the MixPre recorders: at a lower price still, the Zoom F8’s knobs are superior. The PR-4’s wobbly knobs and, indeed, the plastic casing (which feels less robust than that of the FR-AV2, though I haven’t done a drop test!) are far from reassuring, and the latter is presumably why Deity has designed (and included in my case) a chunky aluminium cage that can be bolted on. The cage addresses some of the concerns about the case, though it leaves the bottom rear corners exposed, and raises the question, why on earth didn’t Deity give the recorder an aluminium case/chassis? It is not as if this is out of reach of budget recorders: the Zoom F8, F6, F4 and, most relevantly, the little F3 are all substantially cased in aluminium, as indeed is the Tascam FR-AV4. I also note that Deity’s upcoming PR-8 seems to have a metal chassis/case.
The PR-4 with its cage added, along with mics using the near-ORTF mounts.
Well, given my concerns about the toughness of the PR-4, we had better have a look at the aluminium add-on cage. It’s a nicely chunky affair, with a thick (7mm) top plate and a still sturdy (5.5mm) bottom half-plate (as I said, leaving the bottom rear of the PR-4 exposed), joined by standoffs in typical field recorder style. Both plates are peppered with 1/4”-20 and 3/8”-16 threaded holes, like a cheese plate, and obviously aimed at those incorporating the PR-4 into a camera rig: rest assured, the holes don’t penetrate the whole thickness of the aluminium so there is no chance of unwittingly driving a bolt into the plastic case of the PR-4. I am surprised, though, that there are 3/8″ threaded holes on the bottom plate: with only 5mm depth these give only about half the required thread engagement depth if using an aluminium screw (and about a third of the required thread engagement depth for steel into aluminium). I only noticed this when trying to mount the cage with a Rycote quick release, which seemed to have precious little engagement. Rather an unsatisfactory bit of engineering. Intriguingly there are four slots for fitting Rycote lyres or Radius Windshields hoops direct to the top plate, at what is marked up as ORTF. The website proclaims these allow ‘users to quickly mount a matched pair of microphones in the correct stereo configuration without needing separate bars or adapters’. Evidently there is nothing correct about the use of ‘ORTF’, which is an unequivocal industry standard for cardioid mics at 110° and 17cm capsule spacing, while on the PR-4 cage this is marked at – and indeed measures – 120°! As for speediness, this rather presupposes that you have pre-mounted four hoops or lyres to the top of the plate, are happy to use mics that fit into a very small range of usable body lengths (out of a large mic locker, the only mics I could seat comfortably and get the correct spacing were MKH 8040s with the XLR modules: heaven help you with anything significantly longer or shorter!), if you don’t need a foam on the mic, don’t require any form of cable grip/clamp, and don’t mind the pair facing at 60° to the face of the recorder. Obviously, it is far easier to grab an ORTF bar set up for your mics from your bag when needed and just mount this one to one of the many fixing points and have it point the right way. I know it’s trivial as nobody need use the supposed ORTF feature of the cage, but such details, like the too-shallow bottom plate 3/8″ threads, don’t engender confidence in the design and testing process. But, to the main point, provision of a cage by Deity from the off (at a price: £57 inc. VAT) gives some much needed additional protection, albeit with more weight (up from 333g bare to 531g with the cage vs the MixPre-3 at 635g, both with batteries fitted: the FR-AV2 weighs 289g, again with batteries) and bulk than if the recorder itself had been given an aluminium chassis.
An overhead view of the cages with the mics in the near-ORTF set up.
If you don’t fancy the cage, Deity also provide protection in the form of a dinky sound bag designed for the PR-4, at £73.20 inc. VAT. It’s actually quite well designed and made, even down to the entirely removable clear plastic cover: obviously the pocket is too small for headphones, but I guess you can hang them off the bag along with coiled cables. It’s not really intended for field recording, though, where you would clearly be better off with a bag for all your gubbins, mics included, but perhaps an option for anyone contemplating using the PR-4 for production sound.
The PR-4 in the ultra-dinky bag Deity make for the recorder.
Functionality
This is the section where I particularly want to avoid simply re-hashing the manual or existing reviews – especially video-based ones – which run through the full functionality of the PR-4: for that, those are your obvious sources. Rather, it is probably more useful if I focus on the positive and negatives (and with the latter done in the hope of encouraging some tweaks in future firmware – just remember how Sound Devices modified the MixPre recorders in firmware updates, much in response to feedback) in relation to field recording. So this section discusses what I found as the most interesting and relevant aspects of the functionality of the PR-4.
Turning the recorder on (and the locking on-off switch seems fine), the knobs – despite their disconcerting wobbliness – are certainly functionally one-up on the FR-AV2’s buttons. The ‘skirts’ of the two channel control knobs light up a little like those of the MixPre recorders, although here not for additional metering feedback, but to show which mode you are in (yellow for basic, blue for expert). Perhaps equally usefully they ensure you can locate the knobs in poor light. A significant weakness of the Tascam FR-AV2 is its lack of backlit buttons when in using in low light, so the lit channel knobs on the PR-4 are a huge improvement on that: the unlit select knob is at least easy enough to locate in the dark and, though some backlighting and a bit more projection of the buttons would have helped (did the designers not imagine the recordist might need gloves sometimes?), the three buttons adjacent are just about OK to find. And when I say without backlighting, the record button at least goes from unlit to bright red when pressed. So, yes, there’s room for improvement both in terms of backlighting and tactile finish on the three buttons (come on, it’s 22 years since the Sound Devices 744T was introduced and nailed such matters, amongst many more!), and the basic physical controls fall well short of the MixPre-3 in the field, but the PR-4 is much less of an exercise in random fumbling and frustration than the FR-AV2 (or, I’d assume as it also lacks backlit buttons, the Zoom F3) when recording in poor light.
The AMOLED screen is small (36mm x 22mm: 456 x 280 pixels), but not impossibly so: it really isn’t very different in terms of area to that of the MixPre recorders (32mm x 26mm, but with a lower resolution of 320 x 256), and that one is used more heavily as a touch screen. The main home screen, however, seems much smaller on the PR-4 and that reflects the fact that use of the real estate of the screen is not brilliantly thought through. For example, it is nice having a display of the gain applied to any input, but a large ‘G’ and, even, a ‘+’ sign (there is no negative ‘gain’ option anyway!) in front means that it eats into the level meter area, as does the indicator, to the right of the meters, for whether an input has power (be that P48 or PIP). Black spaces between the four channel meters and above them all consume more of the available area. Deity have missed an opportunity to make better use of the limited available space for metering, I assume since the thinking is that this doesn’t matter when recording in 32-bit float! But that brings me to the real oddity on the screen: despite having room for a current frame rate indicator (in a distractingly bright blob of red), there is no room for sample rate or bit-depth display. I guess this shows their priorities, but sample rate in particular seems pretty key information to have immediately to hand, and is clearly shown on the admittedly larger (42mm x 30mm) FR-AV2 screen, and likewise on one of the selectable home screens of the MixPre-3. OK, you can get that information on the PR-4 by pushing the select knob to reveal the quickset screen, but that shouldn’t be necessary. Perhaps there are good reasons for Deity’s choices, but I hope that the firmware can be tweaked to at least give a couple of home screen options to suit different uses: there are plenty of recorders that do so.
Discussing the screen takes me neatly to a more positive side of it: while not a full touchscreen in the manner of the MixPre recorders, it has some touch functions. Swiping up gets you to last take), down to next take, right to record menu (such things as sample rate, arming channels etc.) and left to timecode mode, and tapping the screen sees the channel knobs shift from channels 1 and 2 to 3 and 4, and the same again reverses this. Given the negligible difference (5%), it is amusing to hear some commentators commending Deity for not using such a small screen as a complete touchscreen while liking the 2017 MixPre recorders for that functionality, but the PR-4 has a workable approach with this partial touchscreen approach, and a lower dependence on touch may appeal to many: equally, with the knob functionality too, it makes for any easier ride with the PR-4 than the FR-AV2.
This leads me on to menu structures and this I find very hard to assess: I have been using the MixPre-3 for nine years, so naturally it is second nature, and it is hard to compare objectively to the FR-AV2 (one year of very occasional use) or the PR-4 (fumbling my way around it still). Best watch one of the functional run throughs of the PR-4 or read the manual to get a more objective handle on it if interested. One general point, and not one very specific to the PR-4, is that I wish that the menus, derived quick menus and, indeed, user specified function buttons seen on so many cameras that offer much more customization could carry across to audio recorders: is it simply a case of sales numbers (and therefore product development budgets) that leaves many audio recorders seemingly so far behind in terms of firmware development?
Recording screens with the Deity PR-4, Sound Devices MixPre-3 and Tascam FR-AV2. The latter, with only two channels and the largest screen, is arguably the best, although there is almost nothing to differentiate the recording screen from the record-ready screen (that nice red area on the screen is common to both). The similar size, though different proportions, of the PR-4 and MixPre-3 screens is apparent, as is the less efficient use of space by the PR-4: the seven longer level meters of the MixPre-3 fit into the area of the six meters of the PR-4 with space to spare horizontally and, yet, are so much more usable.
Getting back on to less subjective ground, the PR-4 does a pretty good job of the most fundamental function: starting to record and, crucially, making it clear you are recording. Many a sound recorder and, indeed, camera, makes a meal of this, not realizing that operators are often working in low light, or rushed, even frantic, conditions: and, of course, the issues are exacerbated if the recordist isn’t using the gear day in day out. OK, the PR-4 isn’t as wonderfully clear as my 788Ts in this regard (but, then, it would be unforgiveable to miss pressing record on a Hollywood movie set!), but a single press of the record button causes this to light up and start the recording (with different pre-roll options) and a red border appears around the screen: a longer hold on the record button ends the recording. Contrast this with the FR-AV2 where you have to press the record button once to put the device into standby (which allows you to hear the mics and lights up parts of the screen in red) and then again to record (at which point the screen stays almost unchanged, though some, easily hidden, LEDs on the side light up): a recipe for failing to activate record properly. So a clear win for the PR-4 vs the FR-AV2 in this regard. Moreover, the PR-4 has the option for the large ‘DEITY’ on the rear to illuminate in RED when recording too: aimed at vloggers etc., I’m not sure how useful this is for field recording!
The expert and basic mode choice for the PR-4 is an interesting aspect of the recorder. It echoes the two modes (basic and advanced) of the MixPre recorders, but, in this case, the pros and cons are not so clear if you are an experienced sound recordist. Obviously, if you need one of the few features only available in expert mode (such as setting post-fader recording for the ISO tracks or panning) then you will need to use that mode, but the downside of doing so is that the two channel knobs become faders and not input gain controls. Yes you can push the knobs in to use them to change gain, but the change from fader to gain function isn’t instantaneous (it is all too easy to push in and start turning before the mode change has caught up), it is rather clunky to do with the tiny and wobbly knobs (this functionality really cries out for better-made knobs), and, of course, with just two XLR and two 3.5mm inputs the assumed preoccupation of ‘expert’ users with the mix seems rather unlikely to match reality: I suspect that many will mainly use the recorder for a stereo pair (either XLR or 3.5mm) and, certainly, that will apply to most field recordists. But gain/trim changes are a doddle compared to the same on the FR-AV2 where many a button push is required. Perhaps not such a big deal with only two channels on the Tascam, which is also probably likely to be used mainly in 32-bit float mode. Of course, this lack of need to change gain as much as with a more traditional preamp/recorder could justify the PR-4 design decision, and the faders’ predominance: but,even in 32-bit float mode, setting gain with such a machine is still useful to ensure that files come in to your DAW with waveforms that look vaguely normal, to be able to use the metering in a meaningful way and as part of the headphone monitoring chain. Anyway, it would seem a simple and reasonable thing to give the user the choice of the primary function of the channel knobs in the expert mode via a firmware update.
Mid-side (MS) is a staple of field recording, not least due to it allowing compact stereo rigs especially suited to windshields. The PR-4 offers MS decoding (which, for example, is not something found on the Zoom F3), although the implementation is a little basic and, given that, surprisingly confusing. The MS options – under the stereo link section within the input menu – are for ‘MS 60°’ and ‘MS 120°’: these are misleading terms – not least since the sensitivity of mid and side mics rarely match in MS – but essentially mean a wider or tighter stereo image. Once either option is selected the channel 2 knob becomes a means of adjusting width from a scale of MS18 via C to S18: C evidently represents equal gain for the mid and side mics, although, like many an implementation of MS (including that on the MixPre-3 and the FR-AV2), it is not a precise input gain adjustment to, say, match the sensitivities of the two different mics. The more significant limitation is that MS decoding is applied to the ISO tracks and the LR mix, and, in lacking the ability to record raw M and S to the ISO tracks and the stereo decode to the mix, there is no option to record M and S while using a headphone preset to decode the MS to LR. The MixPre-3 offers both, while the FR-AV2 – in keeping with being a strictly two-channel and two-track machine (i.e. there is no mix to concern the user) – allows the M and S to be recorded raw, while monitored in LR, or decoded in the recording too. And as long as your two inputs aren’t ganged on the FR-AV2 you can set yourself different input gain on the two channels in MS mode: it is handy to have such an offset set up for the different M and S mics, especially if handing on the raw M and S recording to someone else in post. Of course, with the PR-4 the decoded MS – necessary for proper monitoring – can be converted back to MS (a lossless process) in post, but this can lead to confusion, not least with recorded levels. It is frustrating how few recorders offer the ability to apply different trim/gain to the M and S inputs, so that the different sensitivities of the mics can be balanced, before the ISO tracks are recorded and before any decoding, but, of course, this is a benefit of the MS headphone preset in the MixPre-3 and more professional recorders such as the Sound Devices 6, 7 and 8 series: using a headphone for preset leaves the recordist able to change the M and S gains independently. So, to cut to the chase, the PR-4 has a basic if slightly confusing MS capability: again, hopefully this will be improved in a future firmware update.
Self-noise
The specifications of most field recorders in recent years are such that for most use they all have low enough self-noise that, if you are using condenser mics, you are going to be fine. That said, to be thorough, of course, I should test the self-noise of the PR-4 in comparison to other small recorders: in this case the Tascam FR-AV2 and the Sound Devices MixPre 3. The latter is the original 24-bit model from 2017. One thing I wanted to explore a bit more was not just their respective self-noise using the XLR phantom-power (P48) inputs, but, also, the 3.5mm PIP inputs: all three manufacturers are disappointingly coy about the specifications of the 3.5mm inputs, but it is clear that in each case different (and lesser) preamps are in use than for the XLR inputs.
Initially I tested the different recorders with 150 ohm dummy loads, but, with the Tascam and Deity models, getting a clear grip on gain was nigh on impossible, even when feeding the recorders with a 1kHz tone before swapping to the dummy loads: only the MixPre-3 returned figures that were in line with the EIN in the specifications, which was reassuring (at least my procedure was correct!). So, instead, I turned to more real world testing. For the P48 XLR inputs I set up a very low self-noise mic (the Rode NT1: 4.5dBA) in my usual homely quiet space (buried in duvets in the airing cupboard, with mains electricity turned off) and used a three-way passive splitter (an EMO E335) to send the signal to the three recorders: a 1kHz tone was played to set the levels (both to allow for the different gain structures of the recorders and any variance arising from the splitter). And I placed a mechanical stopwatch next to the mic for a bit more interest and, of course, as confirmation that nothing odd has been done with the levels.
First off, I set the three recorders at max gain, although, of course, that only makes real sense with the 76dB of the MixPre-3: the 1kHz tone was used to match the levels of the other recorders to this in my DAW (Reaper).
Second, I set the three recorders to minimum gain, which, again, only makes sense with the 6dB minimum gain of the MixPre-3: I gave this a whopping 70dB additional gain in post to bring this up to the level of the first recording, and, again, used the 1kHz tone to match the levels of the other two recorders.
The second test might seem rather pointless since, needless to say, everyone would expect the two 32-bit float recorders to have no difference in self-noise whatever the (notional) gain setting: for these recorders gain is simply a tool for monitoring purposes and to ensure that the level and waveform looks healthy when brought into a DAW. The more astute and/or readers of this blog will know that – contrary to expectation – the 24-bit Mixpre-3 performs exactly the same: there is no difference if you record a quiet sound at 76dB max gain or if you record at minimum gain of 6dB and add 70dB in post. This doesn’t apply to all 24-bit recorders, of course (for example, drop the gain to 6dB on my 788T for a quiet sound and boost heavily in post and, as you would expect, you will hear much more hiss than if recorded with more appropriate gain in the first place), but I included this test here as another salutary reminder to those who think the irrelevance of gain is somehow intrinsically linked to use of recorders using a 32-bit float file format.
So, these real world tests confirmed the hierarchy of quietness of the three recorders is line with the specs: the MixPre-3 EIN is specified as -130dBV (-128dBU); the FR-AV2 as -127dBU; and the PR-4 as -127dBV (which equates to -125dBU). Taking a recording of near silence (rather than the stopwatch), showed slightly greater real-world differences than the specs would suggest (1.4dB more noise for the FR-AV2 and 4.2dB more noise for the PR-4, both with reference to the MIxPre-3 and all A-weighted). Of course, while the differences are demonstrable with even a condenser mic, at 4.5dBA the NT1 is an extremely quiet mic and using it to record a stopwatch with 76dB gain is not an everyday occurrence: for most use, the self-noise of the XLR inputs of all three recorders would be fine.
The smallness of the PR4 makes it ideal for the super-compact travel kit, especially if used with small mics such as the many Primo EM172/272-based mics: in this case a pair of Micbooster Clippy mics plugged into the 3.5mm input.
Real world testing of the 3.5mm plug-in-power inputs of the recorders means, of course, that a low-noise LDC mic such as the NT1 is not feasible: indeed, the typical use of lav mics with substantial self-noise (usually around 23dBA or more) on such inputs masks the greater self-noise of the preamps used for these inputs. But, of course, for field recording frequent use is made of PIP mics with lower self-noise made using Primo EM172/272 and AOM-5024L-HD-R capsules (either as DIY projects or via small-scale mic makers such as LOM, FEL Communications/Micbooster, Immersive Soundscapes and Oaka): these omni capsules have a self-noise of 14dBA, which is into the territory of many respectable SDC mics. Taking an example of this with a Clippy mic from Micboosters (with a Primo EM172 capsule), I tested as before, albeit sequentially (I have no 3.5mm PIP splitter, should such a thing exist) so ensured nothing moved (including the 1kHz test tone source) between each test. The results were quite revealing: the PIP inputs of the PR-4 produced the lowest self noise with the MixPre-3 inputs 0.9dB (A-weighted) noisier, and the FR-AV2 very noticeably worse at 10dB noisier than the PR-4. Of course, it is hard to remove the impact of the 9.5dBA noisier mic than in the XLR tests, but, again, the dummy load approach ran into correct gaining difficulties with the two 32-bit float recorders: suffice it to say, however, that the PR-4 is substantially better than the FR-AV2 in this regard and if recording very quiet nature sounds or effects with PIP mics such as the Clippy or LOM ones with Primo EM172/272 capsules, or equivalents, you may well be better off with the Deity recorder. Of course, using P48 XLR versions of such mics will avoid the lower preamp quality for the PIP inputs and, with mics with self-noise of 14dBA, any self-noise differences between the recorders would effectively disappear.
Understandably, wildly cranked up recordings of stopwatches may not be your thing, and you might want to know simply how the recorder sounds. This, of course, is much trickier than with microphones, where differences tend to be much more obvious (there’s a lesson there!), but, as with my FR-AV2 vs MixPre-3 comparison, I had a bash at something relevant to field recording.
When comparing preamps or recorders, getting an accurate comparison is tricky: on practical grounds I think a passive splitter is the best, but, of course, there will be those who say the different outputs (especially the difference between the direct pass-through and the transformer-isolated outputs) will skew the readings. Having seen some very – indeed, surprisingly – positive test results of the EMO 335 when used for this purpose, I kicked off testing the three outputs of that same model of splitter on the MixPre-3, using a mic in front of a speaker playing pinknoise. I also tested my Palmer PMS-02 splitter, and both were equally excellent: given that the Palmer is not rack mounted and is more suitable for field recording, I will use this. Here at the spectrum analyzer tests for it:
Spectrum analyzer results (pinknoise) for the Palmer PMS-02: direct (parallel) output (green) vs transformer-isolated output A (red): it is almost impossible to see the individual colours of the different outputs as – with level matching (+1.0dB for output A) – they match almost perfectly. Spectrum analyzer results (pinknoise) for the Palmer PMS-02: transformer output A (red) overlaid with transformer-isolated output B (yellow): again, it is almost impossible to see the individual colours of the different outputs as – with level matching (+1.0dB for output A and +0.1dB for output B) – they match almost perfectly.
OK, I know that’s a bit of an aside from the PR-4, but it’s useful to establish just how good a splitter can be, and it was a reassuring check before cracking on with some comparative field tests. Whilst still in studio, I also took the opportunity to use the same set up with pinknoise (replayed through a Vivid S1 into an MKH 8040) split into the MixPre-3, FR-AV2 and the PR-4, with the following results:
Spectrum analyzer results (pinknoise) for the PR-4 (yellow), overlaid with that from the FR-AV2 (red).Spectrum analyzer results (pinknoise) for the PR-4 (yellow), overlaid with that from the MixPre-3 (green).In for a penny, in for a pound: and here’s the spectrum analyzer results (pinknoise) for the FR-AV2 (red) overlaid with that from the MixPre-3 (green).
The match is very close: granted, not as close as the three different outputs from the splitter going into the same recorder (the MixPre-3), but matched well enough that one would not expect significant differences for field recording.
Amongst the cathedral bells for a bit of extreme testing, with mics under the bell frame.
And, going into the field, here are three recordings from a familiar location (to those readers of this blog) – the massive belfry at Norwich Cathedral. To make things a bit more extreme, the mics (an MKH 8090 and MKH 8030 pair) were placed within the bell frame, just below one of the bells for the midday chimes. As usual, there was a little wind blowing in the belfry so I used the Mini-ALTO basket for a bit of protection. I think this is as good a field test as any, and the downloadable files mean that readers can scrutinize and play around with the tests further.
Spectrograms of the bells tolling the midday chimes: MixPre-3 (left), FR-AV2 (centre) and PR-4 (right). The recordings were at 96kHz so the vertical scale is from 0-48kHz.
All three recorders handled the loud sound of the bells fine, and the differences between the recordings is negligible – well, at least to my ears! I cranked up the quiet section before the bells start to chime by a massive 60dB and did likewise with the tail of the final bell. and the recordings were extremely close (incidentally with no difference in self-noise discernible). That said, looking at a spectrogram of the three 96kHz recordings, you can see the ADC switching in the case of the two 32-bit recorders. The MixPre-3 looks as one would expect (the high-frequency peaks of the bells disappearing into the rising self-noise – at high frequencies – of the MKH8000 mics), while the FR-AV2 and the PR-4 show the sharp banding in the self-noise of the mics as their dual ADCs switch. Of course, there is a gulf between seeing or measuring such things – especially at such high frequencies – and hearing them, and I’ve not managed to discern anything audible, even slowed down to half and quarter speeds (with one and two octave drops in pitch respectively): the files are downloadable for anyone to have a play with. Moreover, in doing some high frequency burst tests using a shaker close to some much lower noise mics (Nevaton MC59-O at 5dBA) it was impossible to even see the switching visually: as far as I can see it is the ultrasonic self-noise in the MKH8000 mics that means the switching between loud and quiet sounds is obvious in spectrograms of the two 32-bit float recordings.
Conclusions
There are many aspects of the functionality, such as timecode, of the PR-4 that I have skipped over that likely to be fundamental to many of its potential users: this functionality – in a small and affordable package – certainly seem to be the basis of the various awards the recorder has garnered in its launch year, and, of course, may well be what drives the PR-4’s sales. For example, if you want a very affordable recorder with AES3 and AES42 inputs, the PR-4 stands alone.
My focus, as set out from the start of this post, has been somewhat different, looking at the basics of the recorder: its physical form, robustness, operability, functionality for straightforward field recording, and, of course, how it sounds. Starting with the latter, the PR-4 is competent: self-noise is entirely respectable (and much better than the FR-AV2 for the 3.5mm mic inputs) and fine for most use; max input levels are not as minimal as on many other budget recorders; and, subjectively, the preamps sound fine for much usage. With the last, I wouldn’t grab the PR-4 in preference to other options I have here to record an acoustic music performance, but there are other things that would drive that too: XLR P48 channel count, form factor, transport controls etc. But the recorder would still manage a decent job on many a simple stereo-pair music recording, and could even be useful as a simple back up (e.g. of a stereo mix). Obviously size, weight and the decent powering options make the PR-4 a more attractive proposition for field recording for nature, sound effects etc., as part of an ultra-compact rig: here it competes against the Tascam FR-AV2, Zoom F3, Sound Devices MixPre-3 and, perhaps for some, even the many hand-held recorders with in-built mics and external XLR inputs. None of these devices is remotely up there with the quality, functionality and serviceability of field recorders made for professional use (such as Sound Devices 6, 7 and 8 series, Sonosax SX-R4+, Zaxcom Nova or Nagra VII), although the MixPre-3, which is part of Sound Devices’s foray into a lower-priced market with the MixPre recorder series, comes closest. But just as it is frustrating that Sonosax have yet to add a recording capability to their exquisite and solid SX M2D2 preamp, it is frustrating that at the cheaper end of the market that Zoom, Tascam and, now, Deity have come near, but have yet to make a small two (four with 3.5mm inputs) channel recorder that is robust (i.e. an aluminium chassis/case, with well engineered knobs, buttons and latches), ergonomic (i.e. has knobs for functions best served by them, and tactile back-lit buttons otherwise), and gets the basic functionality right (e.g. displays all relevant information clearly, perhaps gives more custom display options/choices; and provides decent MS capability). The recording quality of the Tascam FR-AV2, Zoom F3 and Deity PR-4 is fine for the purposes that they are likely to be put to: if only they were a bit better engineered, more ergonomic and mastered the basic functions. Much could be done with simple firmware changes (and let’s hope Deity echo Sound Devices in that regard), but some involve improvements to the physical form of the recorders and doubtless would increase cost and, therefore, price. However, with the MixPre-3 ii priced well over twice the PR-4 there is considerable scope for getting this right at a still attractive price with a device that remains significantly smaller than the Sound Devices recorder: besides, many are likely to buy the aluminium cage for a bit more protection, and it is hard to imagine that a tougher case/chassis wouldn’t exceed the present combined price. It’s very early days for Deity in terms of making audio recorders, it is good to see another maker on the block (field recorders being a lot rarer than, say, cameras), and I’m hopeful that they are nimble and responsive enough to see that – in a future iteration – they could bring something to the market that hits the spot. And if you feel I have been a bit hard on a budget recorder (let alone its add-on cage!) and that key features – such as those AES inputs – mean it will perfectly meet your needs as it is, well good on you – I truly hope it works out: there is no denying that there’s a lot of useful functionality and performance in the PR-4, and at a price that would be unthinkable a few years ago.
Close-up of the new Radius Mini-RAD hoops showing dovetail connection to a new MJF-printed ORTF bar for the Mini-ALTO (in this case for the MKH 8040).
Introduction
Last year I wrote a three-part series on fitting an ORTF pair in the diminutive 80mm diameter Mini-ALTO from Radius Windshields. This was, as I described, a (non-commercial) challenge from John and Simon at Radius, and I made the task a little trickier for myself by keeping the capsules of the mics on the centre-line of the windshield: too often people squeeze ORTF pairs into windshields with the capsules right against the basket, with consequent impact on wind protection. The result, as readers may recall, was a series of designs for some suitably short mics: the small cardioids I found that fitted properly were limited to the Schoeps CMC 1 KV + MK4, the DPA 4011 + MMP-GS or MMP-ES preamp, the Nevaton MC 59S + 59/C, and the Sennheiser MKH 8040. The first three are hard-wired and, crucially, avoid the projection of connectors, while the Sennheiser needs a custom MZL connector to become short enough to fit. Since then, I have added the new Nevaton MC59uS + C2 combination, which, with a length of 23.5mm, is unbelievably short for a cardioid mic.
In an update to part 3 of the original series on the ORTF in a Mini-ALTO project, I added that Radius Windshields had introduced an ORTF add-on kit with the necessary symmetrical pods (each 90mm) and fur to fit, and that Ed at ETK Cables was producing Y-cables with the customized MZLs necessary for the MKH 8040 version. I also posted links to (freely available) parts for 3d printing so that readers could make their own mounts, and I have had some feedback from those that have done this. Obviously, refinement of the mounts and turning them from homely 3d prints to injection-moulded parts would have been great, but, needless to say, ORTF in a Mini-ALTO is a tiny potential market for Radius Windshields – not least given that the necessary mics are, for the most part, relatively unusual: only the MKH 8040 is what one might call a ‘mainstream’ cardioid used in field recording and, indeed, it is this for which I have seen most interest (as gathered from feedback by those DIY-ing their mounts from my 3d files).
So the project could well have rested there, except for two things: first, I have been experimenting with getting Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) 3d prints made for me; and, second, the advent of the new Mini-RAD hoops got me thinking about revision of the ORTF in a Mini-ALTO design. This post, therefore, is about how those two aspects have come together and nudged the project on.
Detail showing the dovetail joint on the top of one of the MJF bars to fit the Mini-RAD hoops: the dimple mates with the pip on the underside of the Mini-RAD’s dovetail to ensure that nothing slips out. They are a tight fit anyway.
The revised design
The attraction of MJF printing for me, vs my modest 3d printing at home, has been that it liberates the designs from a flat bed. I know that people use supports, that are then removed, in their prints, but I have had little joy with this and invariably end up with a pile of spaghetti. So, getting one-piece prints of complex pieces instead of having to make them up piecemeal, with brass inserts and screws holding them together, seemed a real advantage: in short, for much I am doing nowadays I am using the little printer I have here (a Bambu Lab A1 Mini) to test things, then get them printed commercially using MJF technology.
I had just begun refining the ORTF bar designs for MJF printing – essentially combining the mic clips/mounts with the bar that holds the mics at the right angle and spacings, when I realized that the pre-production Mini-RAD hoops from Radius were imminent and that by using these I could simplify the designs. All the mounts for the ORTF pairs for the Mini-ALTOs had a common feature in that two posts or connectors linking the ORTF bar to the top of the hoops, so that the bar and the mics sat centrally in the windshield. With the much smaller Mini-RAD hoops (they are c.19mm shorter internally) it was clear that the posts/connectors could be removed from the design, and, instead, the ORTF bar could be fixed directly to the hoops. Also, the Mini-RAD hoops do not have a screw fitting at the top, as found in the standard hoops, but, rather, use a dovetail joint to connect: the dovetail includes a pip, which fits into a dimple in the Radius clips to ensure that the two parts don’t slip.
OK, a picture is worth a thousand words, so here are a few that, I hope, clarify how the new designs work and compare to the previous approach. In these examples, the updated designs are for the two Nevaton variations and for the Sennheiser MKH 8040, for the simple reason that I own these mics: I had to borrow the Schoeps and DPA short cardioids for the designs and tests last year.
Here – as a recap – is the previous design with the standard RAD-2 hoops, showing the posts that connect the hoops to the ORTF bar and the separate clips for the mics themselves (in this case, MKH 8040): so a five-part assembly.And here is the revised design, with the one-piece MJF printed ORTF bar with integrated clips and no posts necessary to connect to the hoops. Again the mics are MKH 8040.Close-up of the new ORTF bar for the MKH 8040 showing the small groove inside the mic clips that ensures correct positioning of the mics (there is a slight projection where MZL meets the body of the mic).Composite image showing the ORTF bar with Mini-RAD hoops within the Mini-ALTO ORTF edition (i.e. with two 90mm pods), showing how the bar and the mics sit centrally in terms of height within the windshield.A single-piece MJF ORTF bar with the new Mini-RAD hoops, with the very short Nevaton MC59uS + C2 combination.Rear view of the bar for the Nevaton MC59uS + C2, showing the magnetic mounting of the mics.Side view of the Nevaton MC59uS + C2 ORTF pair, showing that the capsules remain central to the windshield basket: essential to maximize wind reduction.Mini-RAD ORTF bar for the Nevaton MC59S + 59/C combination: the preamps in this case are attached to the bar with M2 screws.
Conclusions
So there we go. From tests, there is no difference in performance and, indeed, you wouldn’t expect there to be, as long as the right compliance hoops are used (and the smaller hoops need a softer Hytrel to match the compliance of the larger hoops: for example, 45D shore in the Mini-RAD is roughly equal to 55D shore in the standard hoops; 55D = 62D etc.). But the new designs are useful simplifications of the previous versions, a lot further on from proof-of-concept designs, and as near as possible to the slick and robust injection-moulded versions that would be the ultimate, but which I think are not commercially viable. I hope this postscript to the original series on the ORTF in a Mini-ALTO project inspires others to venture along the route of bespoke shockmounts. And let it serve as a warning: the Mini-RAD hoops will doubtless feature in more elaborate and esoteric shockmount designs here!
Update: 22.7.2026
A postscript to a postscript? Hmm. Anyway, just thought I should add a short piece on base adapters. Obviously, the pivoting bases for RAD-2 and Mini-ALTO connections to boom poles, stands etc. pivot up and down the way expected for a mono mic or, indeed, an MS pair, but not for an ORTF pair where the windshields is used side-on to the sound source. In my original development of a 3d-printed solution I came up with a very simple base that allowed a 3/8″ connection to a ball head, and I have very slightly tweaked that basic design for MJF printing, retaining the captive 3/8″ UNC nut (a nice tight fit into the MJF base) and M3 brass inserts:
Simple base adapter in MJF with and without the 3/8″ UNC stainless-steel nut and M3 brass inserts.Simple base adapter in MJF inserted in the bottom of the ‘smiley face’ of the Mini-ALTO.Simple base adapter in MJF inserted in the bottom of the ‘smiley face’ of the Mini-ALTO, with a 3/8″ ball-joint attached (in this case the Gravity MSQT1B).
In due course I am sure Radius will produce something rather better and, indeed, their upcoming 1/4″ adapter bar is not at all bad and, with it’s 1/4″ female thread, allows use of some well-machined small ball joints that are rather nicer than the 3/8″ one from Gravity pictured above.
ORTF pair with upcoming Radius Windshields 1/4″ adapter bar – printed in MJF prior to the injection-moulded version being made – connecting the ‘smiley face’ to the ball joint (in this case one branded ‘Innorel’, but seemingly sold under several names: but nicely made nonetheless).
A Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin and MKH 8030 DMS rig (right) in a compact windshield (Mini-ALTO 250), along with a Nevaton DMS rig (left), and a Sennheiser MKH 8090 and MKH 8030 MS pair (centre) in the field…or village street. And, yes, there was no traffic at 5 a.m. on a Saturday morning.
Introduction
The Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin was launched back in 2008, and was based on the MKH 800 of 2000 (itself the successor to the MKH 80 of 1993), so is far from a new microphone. But, during my recent testing of the Nevaton MC59 Twin, I began to wonder more and more why, given the reputation of the Sennheiser MKH mics – with their humidity-resistant RF technology – for outdoor use in all conditions, I had seen no examples of this mic being used for such purposes, whether that be for field recording, sound effects, production sound ambiences or outside broadcast. I’m sure there have been recordists putting the mic to such use, but certainly it is nothing like as popular as the older MKH 30 etc. and the newer MKH 8000 series mics. Above all, I was puzzled why it seems to see such little use for double mid-side (DMS) recording in the field.
Size comparisons of selected Sennheiser MKH mics with connectors, top to bottom: MKH 30 (fig 8), MKH 800 Twin, MKH 8030 (fig 8) and MKH 8030 with custom side-exit MZL connector.
OK, the MKH 800 Twin is expensive (with a street price in the UK usually above £2,500 inc. VAT), but not (well, at least for some!) frighteningly so: that’s around double the price of a single MKH 30 etc. or an MKH 8000 mic, for what is, arguably, double the mic or more. And it is by no means a small mic: measuring ø27mm x 136mm, and with a weight of 172g, the mic is certainly chunkier and heavier than, say, the MKH 30 fig 8 (ø25 x 174mm, and 110g), but is noticeably shorter. I wonder, therefore, whether it is a combination of weight, size and the rigging options – and with this I am thinking especially of windshields – that has resulted in low use outdoors. For field recording, using a near-coincident or spaced pair of MKH 800 Twins is, perhaps, less desirable than for music recording, although this would be easy to rig with each MKH 800 Twin in a separate windshield, and would be very flexible in post. Rigging a coincident pair of MKH 800 Twins or one MKH 800 Twin and a fig 8 seems more suited to field recording, given its suitability for MS (with the mid mic polar pattern decided in post) or for DMS, yet this might seem challenging to house in a windshield. Even if placing two mics side-by-side (a viable approach: there is often too much concern about the shadowing effects of such a configuration) the overall width and shock-mounting arrangement can be problematic. Certainly there are no off-the-peg options for this. And, equally, going for the preferable end-to-end rigging makes for a long mic pair, again with some trickiness to the mounting inside a windshield. With two MKH 800 Twins or one MKH 800 Twin plus an MKH 30 I can see why such rigs might be daunting, but my recent rigging of the new and diminutive Nevaton MC59 Twin for DMS got me thinking: surely the comparatively small MKH 8030, especially if used with an MZL connector, opens up opportunities for something acceptably compact? The MKH 8030 has been in production since 2024, but, as yet, I haven’t seen it rigged with the MKH 800 Twin in this way, let alone for field use.
So that, in short, is the purpose of this blog-post: to test the MKH 800 Twin + MKH 8030 combination as a practical and supremely flexible field-recording option. Does the new MKH 8030 provide a means to make the MKH 800 Twin a more practical tool for use outdoors? Well, let’s see!
NB I am grateful to the good folks at Sennheiser for sending me an MKH 800 Twin so that I could explore this.
A quick recap: the advantage of a twin
The MKH 800 Twin is closely based on its predecessor, the MKH 800, but while the latter combines its two cardioid capsules internally to allow different polar patterns (just like any multi-pattern LDC mic), the later Twin outputs the two diaphragms separately, allowing any polar pattern to be created in post, from fig 8 to omni, and, of course, two different mics to be created simultaneously: for example, the output can be used to create both a forward-facing cardioid and a rear facing cardioid, or indeed the same with other polar patterns (which need not be the same front and back). Added to this flexibility, a twin mic like the MKH 800 Twin also has a distinctive form, being a side-address mic: this means that if used to generate forward and rear-facing direction mics, as required in DMS, the capsules are both coincident and are not obstructed by the mic bodies (as would be the case when using two end-fire cardioids for the mid mics). As we have seen in my various blog-posts, a twin mic opens up scope for the cleanest (as in least obstructed) DMS, and with near-perfect coincidence of the two mid mics in all planes.
A brief introduction to the MKH 800 Twin
There’s no great value in repeating the specifications of a mic that has been on the market for 18 years, and for which the technical details have long been available on the Sennheiser website. But a few salient points and comparisons are useful. We have covered the physical nature of the mic above, but moving on to the sound of the mics it is perhaps worth considering the frequency response. Below are frequency response graphs for the two cardioid capsules in my MKH 800 Twin, which, as you would expect, are well matched and which, also, are broadly comparable to the cardioid MKH 8040. I include the frequency response graphs for two different MKH 8040s below, which, as unmatched, provide a useful indication of the variation across the model.
Frequency response graph for the two cardioid capsules in my MKH 800 Twin.Frequency response graph for my two (unmatched) MKH 8040 cardioids.
Looking at the self-noise profile, the MKH 800 Twin has the same sharply rising self-noise towards 20kHz and continuing to increase above this as found in the MKH 8000 mics. This isn’t at all surprising, since the mic has the same transducer as in the MKH 800, which, when introduced in 2000, was the first Sennheiser MKH mic to have the extended high-frequency range, then seen in the MKH 8000 mics, for which this self-noise at high frequencies is the quid pro quo. Not a problem per se, unless recording very quiet ultrasonic sounds, but a reminder that the mic has more in common with the MKH 8000 range (and, therefore, the MKH 8030) than the older MKH 20, 30, 40 etc. series. And I should hasten to add that the MKH 800 Twin has self-noise in the audible spectrum of 12dBA (as per the specs), which is very respectable and consistent with the other MKH mics.
Self-noise of the MKH 800 Twin, showing the high-frequency rise typical of the MKH 8000 series mics, and a consequence of the extended high-frequency range – above 50kHz – of these mics vs the older MKH series.
Comparing polar patterns between the MKH 800 Twin for a single cardioid capsule only vs that of the MKH 8040 shows consistency, as you might expect, although the differences in the approach to the published graphics below make that a little tricky. In short, there are some differences from 4kHz upwards, but they aren’t huge. Sadly, Sennheiser don’t publish the polar patterns for the combined capsules (especially for omni and fig 8), where the differences will inevitably be more marked vs their single diaphragm counterparts in the MKH 8000 or older MKH 20, 30, 40 etc. series.
Polar pattern of a single cardioid capsule in the MKH 800 Twin compared to that of the MKH 8040 cardioid mic.
As discussed in previous posts, whereas most SDC omni mics are also imperfect, typically becoming more directional from, say, around 8kHz (I am thinking here of the polar pattern of the MKH 8020 mic), the frequency response on-axis remains consistent, while the omni polar pattern of a dual-diaphragm mic is best at the front and rear (i.e. on-axis to the individual diaphragms), but sees significant high-frequency fall off at 90 degrees. We saw this with the Nevaton MC59 Twin, and I repeated the measurements with the MKH 800 Twin to see how it compared. For this, I placed the MKH 800 Twin on-axis to pinknoise played back via a single nearfield monitor in my studio, then carefully and precisely rotated it so that it was then at 90 degrees, adding the two capsule outputs together in post to compare the on-axis and off-axis omni responses. As expected there is a significant fall off in the high-frequency response of the off-axis omni, in this case from around 14kHz, and corresponding with the progressively greater fall off of such higher frequencies at 90 degrees with any cardioid mic: it is, therefore, an inherent feature of the omni mode in similar dual-diaphragm mics. Aimed on-axis the mic in omni mode will sound fine, but aimed off-access (in effect used as an end-fire mic) it is less likely to be so successful. Again, as discussed in the MC59 Twin blog-post, this last use might seem an unlikely one, but in the past I have come across those advocating the use of the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin as a single mic solution to omni MS (i.e. using the same capsule for the fig 8 and the mid mic): more experienced voices counter this, of course, noting that the omni mid mic (made of sideways-facing cardioids) will have significant loss of high frequency facing forward. I mention it here as a cautionary note: there is much to love about the flexibility of a twin mic, but best not get carried away (and, if your ears are old, forget that frequencies beyond your hearing might be rather curtailed)!
MKH 800 Twin in omni mode off axis (red) overlaid on the mic in omni mode on axis (green).
Rigging the MKH 800 Twin and the MKH 8030 for the field
Mounting an MKH 800 Twin as part of an MS or DMS pair in one of my Mega-Blimps, as shown for the Nevaton DMS rig, gives the most transparent set up in part due to the sparse structure of the TIG-welded basket, but also due to the fact that the upper mic – in this case the fig 8 – can be suspended from the top of the basket, obviating the need for any linking support. These large windshields also, and rather obviously, can easily cope with larger mics: indeed, as readers will know, the origins of the Mega-Blimps lie in the first TIG-welded windshield I designed back in 2017 for a pair of LDC mics. But that is rather besides the point of this blog-post: the aim here is to explore the use of the MKH 800 Twin in a DMS set up that is a viable everyday alternative to other rigs and, for that, this means compact and using more commercially available windshields.
The DMS pair in the mount of a Rycote WS4 modular windshield: easy to mount the mics (even if rather crudely aligned here!), but that chunky plastic mount or rail normally along the bottom of the windshield – out of harms way – is a real impediment to the rear-facing cardioid when used vertically for DMS.
Many a windshield – such as the Rycote modular series, or the Rode Blimp – has a long mount or rail that, when the windshield is rotated vertically (as necessary for end-to-end DMS rigging with a twin mic), offers a significant acoustic obstacle (see photo above). With that in mind, I returned to my compact DMS rig for the Nevaton MC59 Twin + MC59/8 in a Radius Windshields Mini-ALTO, and created a very similar version for the MKH 800 Twin and MKH 8030. To keep things super compact I asked Ed Kelland at ETK Cables to make a custom cable for the rig, with a low-profile XLRF for the twin mic and a custom side-exit MZL for the fig 8, which he has now made available for others. For reference the cable is configured as follows: channels 1 and 3 have a low-profile XLR 5-pin female (with 29cm cable) from the MKH 800 Twin, and channel 2 has a low-profile/custom MZL (with 36cm cable), with both cables ending in a single 7-pin XLR male. It’s handy to have a single cable for the rig with lightweight flexible cable, to reduce cable-borne noise, and it’s great to have the channels in the correct order for DMS. With the customized MZL the MKH 8030 is very dinky and sits neatly above the larger MKH 800 Twin: with a low-profile XLR for the MKH 800 Twin, this gives a 235mm total length for the pair and their connectors. As with the Nevaton version of this vertical rig, two 4mm rods (actually stainless-steel tubes with M3 stainless-steel threaded bar inside) pass by the sides of the fig 8, but offer little acoustic impact. These connect two simple 3d-printed clips for the two very different sized mics.
The DMS pair mounted with a DIY clip in a Mini-ALTO 250.
There is one downside to using a Mini-ALTO vertically for such a purpose and this is that the basket has a thicker plastic element running longitudinally, which would normally be along the bottom of the windshield, but which here is placed in front of the rear-facing cardioid. Not as chunky as the long mount in a Rycote modular windshield that we have seen (above), but, it must be admitted, not ideal. Which led me to another similarly compact alternative in the form of the Rycote Nano Shield. I haven’t been using either of my two sizes of this windshield recently since the Mini-ALTO is so much more practical for most usage, but the basket of the Nano Shield has one useful difference for this DMS application: its basket has no rail or seam along what would normally be the bottom and that, when used vertically, becomes the rear.
The DMS pair mounted with the same DIY clip as before, but in a Rycote Nano Shield NS4-DB. The two right-hand photos (from front and rear) show the 3D-Tex material removed to expose the seamless basket.
I must admit that the Nano Shield is rather clunkier to use, the lyres are less suited to vertical use than Radius’s hoops (though I have managed to retrofit the latter to a Nano Shield in the past, with a 3d-printed adapter), and routing the two cables is a serious squeeze. Also, I could do with a cable better suited to this mounting option (shorter to the 5-pin XLR and longer to the MZL). But there is no denying it is a more transparent option for this usage than the other compact windshields. Others, I am sure, will – perhaps already have – come up with similar or more effective mounts and windshield options: the Mini-ALTO and Nano Shield examples demonstrate how compact such a rig can be.
A custom cable (an XLR7M Y-cable to custom MZL and an XLR5F) makes life easier for this rig, courtesy of Ed at ETK Cables: this one was tailored to use of the DMS pair in the Mini-ALTO 250.
Naturally, with a larger twin mic, this DMS rig is not as diminutive as that for the Nevaton equivalent, but requiring a Mini-ALTO 250 only (vs the Mini-ALTO 180) or a Nano Shield NS4-DB, the windshield is still of modest size and quite happily fits in a shoulder bag for a compact rig. For stand or tripod mounted use, in the Mini-ALTO, which is the option I used in the field tests, the black 72D-shore hoops are fine on the shockmount, although for anything handheld you might want to step up to 82D-shore hoops and, in extremis (or, perhaps, in transit), there’s always the foam insert Radius make to stop long shotgun mics hitting the windshield basket. But, to be honest, I fail to see the point of handheld stereo or surround rigs moving around to the detriment of the image and introducing handling noise.
Sennheiser and Nevaton DMS rigs using twin mics, in Mini-ALTOs, with the top pods removed to show the mics.
Field testing
To me, it’s a virtue that the same or similar sound sources feature regularly in my tests, but perhaps that’s just a defense of my laziness! Anyway, here we go again with a passing steam train recording down at the North Norfolk Railway. This time, conscious of the DMS perspective, I set myself a bit further back from the track into a little bit of scraggy lineside woodland: not sure this makes much difference or indeed was necessary, but at least I wasn’t as visible to all and sundry for once! The DMS files have been rendered to XY stereo in Harpex-X,
Recording a loco pulling a train backwards out of Holt station on the North Norfolk Railway with the two DMS rigs.
First up here is the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin + MKH 8030 DMS recording:
Next we have the Nevaton MC59 Twin + MC59/8 DMS recording:
Recording around dawn in rural Norfolk, with the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin + MKH 8030 (DMS), the Nevaton MC59 Twin + MC59/8 (DMS) and the Sennheiser MKH 8090 + MKH 8030 (MS).
For a more subtle field recording, I got up at 3.45 a.m. (not my forte!) on the 30th of May, which was well before sunrise, did a little recording in the garden in this quiet Norfolk village, then wandered down the road, popping off into fields along my way. For this I took the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin + MKH 8030 DMS rig, again along with the Nevaton equivalent (MC59 Twin + MC59/8), and, for a bit of fun (and I had two spare channels on the Sound Devices 788T) an MS pair: for this I chose one of my favourites – the Sennheiser MKH 8090 (wide cardioid) + MKH 8030 combination. It was a near windless morning, so I left the furs for the Mini-ALTOs at home and even, at a couple of points, recorded with the naked mics to no ill effect. In post I rolled of the lower frequencies with an 80Hz high-pass filter to remove a little bit of very distant and almost constant aeroplane noise. Here are some short clips of the recordings. For the two DMS ones I rendered to Blumlein stereo in Harpex-X, as this sounded nicest, although, needless to say, the rear lobes become reversed. Of course, the MS render to LR stereo with the wide-cardioid mid mic sounds rather different, but that is rather the point: it is instructive to compare the DMS setups to an alternative approach that one could well take – indeed, I would be very likely to – to a stereo end product. The three files each are a combination of five brief clips, separated by very short silences, and comprise:
i) in the village garden 15 minutes before sunrise (4:21 a.m.);
ii) in a field with the distant sound of a bird scarer firing twice, and a pheasant breaking cover nearby (4:46 a.m.);
iii) by a stream (actually, the exit of the stream from where it goes under a lane in a round pipe) (4:56 a.m.);
iv) the same as above, but with the windshields removed (5:02 a.m.);
v) in the middle of the traffic-free village street, with someone running past (OK, I will confess, it was me, but I was inspired by an early-morning runner who came past moments before, but, needless to say, chatted about what I was up to, so a rather literal re-run seemed better!) (5:28 a.m.).
First up, here is the Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin + MKH 8030 DMS recording:
Next we have the Nevaton MC59 Twin + MC59/8 DMS recording:
And finally, here is the Sennheiser MKH 8090 + MKH 8030 MS recording:
One of those very still mornings where you can chance it removing the windshields….Set up for DMS tests by the Willis organ in St Mary’s Church, Horsham (West Sussex).
A little bit of music
Well, I am conscious that this isn’t a field test sensu stricto with the MKH 800 Twin, but I thought that for some a bit of music would provide an informative test of the MKH 800 Twin and MKH 8030 combination. Added to which, an indoor music test provides some scope for comparing the pair vs others that are not so easy to take outdoors. So, in the midst of the May heatwave here, I popped along to the church of St Mary in Horsham (West Sussex) with my old pal Jake Purches. Instead of recording the organ, as he does for his organ-centric Base2 Music label, he played the organ for me (his love of organ recording has led him to start learning the instrument in his later 50s: a braver person than me, but, aside from the pleasure, without doubt it helps with his recording and editing work) and, also, brought along an additional pair of MKH 800 Twins and a Soundfield ST250 so that we could broaden the comparisons. Rather than bung all the mics up at once – and have a very wide spread of mic positions – I recorded three rigs at a time. The rather nice Willis organ is about to undergo restoration, so, needless to say, the instrument is significantly hissy at present (doubtless the air leaks will disappear during the restoration): so, for those unfamiliar with pipe organs, don’t think it is mic self-noise!
Left to right: Nevaton MC59 Twin + MC59/8; Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin + MKH 30; Soundfield ST250; and Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin + MKH8030.
First up, is a comparison of DMS with an MKH 800 Twin + MKH 8030 vs an MKH 800 Twin + MKH 30. Here, I have rendered them to a stereo Blumlein pair using Harpex X:
As you would expect the difference is subtle, since only the fig 8s differ. But, from the same take, the rendering to a Blumlein pair of the Soundfield ST250 (thanks to Jake: I am not familiar with use or processing of the ST250) is rather different, again as – indeed perhaps more than – you would expect. There’s certainly a lot more high-frequency emphasis than was actually the case with the organ (i.e. the Sennheisers and Nevatons are not oddly muffled!).
Reverting to comparing the Sennheiser and Nevaton twins, next up is a different take, which is a DMS comparison of the MKH 800 Twin + MKH 8030 vs the Nevation MC59 Twin + MC59/8, rendered to a Blumlein stereo pair:
Left to right: Nevaton MC59 Twin + MC59/8; Soundfield ST250; Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin pair; and Sennheiser MKH 800 Twin + MKH8030.
And, finally, and in another take, as we had multiple MKH 800 Twins, here is a DMS comparison of two MKH 800 Twins vs the Nevation MC59 Twin + MC59/8, again rendered to a Blumlein stereo pair:
Obviously it is a bit tricky for anyone not there to compare the mics, especially with regard to the rather different frequency responses, and with different mic comparisons across the three rather different sounding takes: the comparisons are really valid only within the same take (so I have left the take number prefixes – T173, T174 and T175 – in the file names for the avoidance of doubt). But, nonetheless, they may be useful to some: they were to me!
Conclusions
Above all, these tests demonstrate that it is entirely practical to use an MKH 800 Twin in the field and, with some very basic adaptations, it can be utilized as part of a DMS rig within a modest-sized commercially available windshield: in this demonstration, the fairly compact Radius Windshields Mini-ALTO 250 and the Rycote Nano Shield NS4-DB. The key to this is the relatively new MKH 8030 fig 8 mic which, when used with an MZL connector (especially a customized version of this), is so much smaller than the older MKH 30 or, indeed, a second MKH 800 Twin. The pairing not only means the rig is sufficiently compact for most forms of field recording, but also gives a DMS set up where the forward and rearward-facing mid mics are not opposing end-fire SDCs: the cardioids are not heavily shadowed by mic bodies and suspensions. Perhaps because the MKH 8030 is so new compared to most of its MKH 8000 siblings, and perhaps since it takes a (very modest) bit of ingenuity to rig it with the MKH 800 Twin for DMS, the combination seems to have been little utilized: added to that, DMS is, of course, a less-used technique than MS or other – stereo – approaches. Of course, vertical rigging of a twin mic for DMS isn’t suited to all outdoor use: for example, those using DMS for production sound, where it is often used as an adjunct to a forward-facing shotgun mic (for, say, capturing pristine mono dialogue), would find this impractical. But that still leaves considerable scope for field recording, including sound effects recording, where the MKH 800 Twin + MKH 8030 would be very effective.
While for some the MKH 30 fig 8 remains preferable to the MKH 8030, the reality is that they are not hugely different and, consequently, the differences between them when combined with the MKH 800 Twin for DMS are subtle to say the least. Moreover, the design of the MKH 800 Twin – with its extended high-frequency range – is more consistent with the MKH 8030 than the MKH 30. I certainly don’t think I am losing anything by using the MKH 8030 within the DMS rig vs the MKH 30, and, of course, the shorter mic is so much more practical for this usage. Both Sennheiser fig 8s appear preferable (sound-wise) to using a second MKH 800 Twin for DMS: this should not be a surprise, perhaps, given the single diaphragms of the MKH 8030 and MKH 30 vs the double-capsule design of the MKH 800 Twin. Which, of course, brings us to the comparison with the Nevatons, where the MC59 Twin, obviously, has a dual-capsule design, but so also does the MC59/8 fig 8: and yet they hold up so well in the comparisons. Ultimately, however, whatever the pros and cons of these two twin-based DMS rigs – and such things are often a matter of taste and practical requirements – both are excellent options, and, while not achieving something quite as compact, even diehard Sennheiser MKH aficionados should be grateful to the Nevatons for inspiring me to rig and test something very similar for a DMS field-recording rig with the MKH 800 Twin! And talking of inspiration, let’s hope that more manage to get the MKH 800 Twin out into the field.
Update 21.8.2026: in line with the modifications I have been making to my DMS mounts for Nevaton MC59 Twin mics, I have tweaked that for the MKH 800 Twin + MKH 8030 combination, so that the two connecting rods are at 45 degrees to the rear. This reduces any – probably negligible – impact of the rods on the sideways-facing lobes of the fig 8. Here’s a photo of the improved design, shown in a Mini-ALTO, but, as before, applicable to a Nano-Shield or, indeed, other windshield:
Composite image showing the updated and improved design of the DMS mount for the MKH 800 Twin + MKH 8030 combination, with the connecting rods between the upper and lower mic clips moved to 45 degrees to the rear. The new clips are MJF (Multi Jet Fusion) printed, so rather nicer than my more homely 3d-printed protoypes.
