RAD-2 – Dr Badphil

Audio Gear

Mini-RAD hoops from Radius Windshields

September 30, 2026

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!

0 Comments

Audio Gear

Radius Windshields: RAD-1 and RAD-2 shock mounts

September 12, 2023

The RAD-1 (interior) suspension (right) and the RAD-2 (exterior) suspension (left). Both suspensions come with pairs of hoops of different compliance: the ‘lite’ (62D shore) blue hoops, and the standard (72D shore) black hoops.

I first became aware of Radius Windshields this spring, and a bit of delving showed a familiar figure at the helm – Simon Davies, formerly of Rycote (and whose mother, Vivienne, had succeeded the founder, John Gozzard, as owner). Evidently Simon hasn’t lost the bug for designing and manufacturing shock mounts and windshields, and, along with his wife Odette and daughter Megan (both with strong Rycote credentials) and a small team, has tantalized many of us with details about the nascent business, its ethos and, increasingly, the steps on the road to its first products. As I understand it, the new company is focused on making its products locally (Radius is based in Devon, with some production in Stroud) and on working closely with its customers: it very much sounds as if the plan is to stay small, so I doubt if we will see another company offering the huge range of Rycote’s products – at least in my lifetime!

After all the social media updates on the fledgling company it was good to receive examples of the first two products and put them through their paces. These are a pair of microphone shock mounts geared for the end of a boom pole, one – the RAD-1 – being for interior use and the other – the RAD-2 – being for exterior use. Both come with two pairs of suspension hoops: 72D shore standard hoops in black, and more compliant 62D ‘lite’ hoops in a light blue. The hoops can be mixed and matched, and can face either way (but – the included notes say with obvious reason – always opposing). The mic clips hang from the top of the hoops – so are inverted compared to a Rycote lyre – and have rubbery straps: as the (comprehensive) instructions note, these are primarily designed to retain mics in the clips when in transit, so optional when in use. The hoops fit to the mount that is evidently designed for use with a boom pole, and which has an integrated XLR holder. The angle of the shock mount can be changed by a pivot knob that does not just rely on friction. The injection-moulded thermoplastic construction feels very precise and good quality. So far, so good: they look great (OK, perhaps the Cambridge-blue of the lighter hoops isn’t everyone’s cup of tea…) and feel great. And, the details, such as the retaining O-ring on the pivot knob, the cable cleats, and the boom pole mount, all show careful – and experienced – design. But, and this is the crux, how do they perform? On to some tests then…

RAD-2 exterior shock mount

First then to the shock mount designed for exterior use: the RAD-2. Evidently designed for a softie type slip-on windshield (Radius are producing the Nimbus softie imminently), I set this up with a Rycote Classic Softie (18cm) alongside the Rycote Classic Softie kit (18cm) on a short stereo bar on the end of a boom pole, with a pair of Rycote’s excellent HC-22 shotgun mics. Recording into a Sound Devices MixPre-3, I held the boom in a conventional manner with the mics angled down as if booming normally, and then moved the mics up and down and then side to side: these were rapid movements, clumsier than normal. And finally, I held the boom pole vertically, bumping it (lightly!) repeatedly onto a carpeted floor to send shocks up the pole. Obviously, all this was something of a stress test for the shock mounts and essential since in smooth and gentle operation, both performed well and were impossible to differentiate. Normally, I include wav files with my tests and reviews, but I think with these tests numerous sound samples of me wobbling a boom pole would make for pretty tedious listening, and the following spectrograms – which very much reflect what I could hear in the field and when listening back – make the findings more easily digestible.

Radius RAD-2 + 72D shore hoops (top) and Rycote Classic Softie kit (bottom) with HC-22 shotgun mics: boom pole held and mics angled conventionally, and mics moved up and down.

Radius RAD-2 + 72D shore hoops (top) and Rycote Classic Softie kit (bottom) with HC-22 shotgun mics: boom pole held vertically and bottom bumped on to carpeted floor.

The tests with the classic softies then show fairly consistent results, with noise from motion and transmitted via the boom pole all, as would be expected, at low frequency and, if wild movement was to be attempted for real, easily removable with a, say, 80Hz high-pass filter: this would likely be needed for wind noise anyway. One thing is evident in that the RAD-2 has a slightly more base-heavy profile, which opens up scope for a slightly lower high-pass filter. But I’d be happy using either: evidently choice would come down to whether you want a pistol grip too (the Rycote) or prefer the more boom pole-friendly RAD-2.

RAD-1 interior shock mount: standard (black) hoops

Moving then to the shock mount design for interiors – the RAD-1 – I first compared the mount with its stiffer 72D shore hoops against the Rycote InVision 7 with its, standard, 72 shore lyres. I used the Rycote HC-22 shotgun mics again, with the same stereo-bar on boom pole set up, and repeated the same three sets of movements. The spectrograms below show the results:

Radius RAD-1 + 72D shore hoop (top) and Rycote InVision 7 + 72 shore lyre (bottom) with HC-22 shotgun mics: boom pole held and mics angled conventionally, and mics moved up and down.

Radius RAD-1 + 72D shore hoop (top) and Rycote InVision 7 + 72 shore lyre (bottom) with HC-22 shotgun mics: boom pole held vertically and bottom bumped on to carpeted floor.

Again the first two tests showed fairly similar results, with the InVision 7 just slightly shading the RAD-1 in terms of peak noise, but with the RAD-2 showing a lower frequency weighting: this was subtle, however, and not evident in the boom bumping test. With both mounts, the noise was very low: even a 40Hz high-pass filter removed it.

RAD-1 interior shock mount: ‘lite’ (blue) hoops

So much for the 100g HC-22 shotgun mics: I was interested to see how the RAD-2 worked with lighter mics, so mounted a pair of my CA-08 cardioids (69g): the CA-08 weighs the same as my SC-08 supercardioid and, evidently, use of a light supercardioid or hypercardioid (perhaps with no more than a foam cover) is a likely use for interior booming. With the lighter mics, I switched the RAD-1 to its light blue 62D shore hoops, and the InVision 7 to the softest (i.e. 62 shore) lyres. The tests were as before and, again, the results can be seen in the spectrograms below:

Radius RAD-1 + 62D shore hoop (top) and Rycote InVision 7 + 62 shore lyre (bottom) with CA-08 cardioid mics: boom pole held and mics angled conventionally, and mics moved up and down.

Radius RAD-1 + 62D shore hoop (top) and Rycote InVision 7 + 62 shore lyre (bottom) with CA-08 cardioid mics: boom pole held vertically and bottom bumped on to carpeted floor.

In the two mic movement tests, the RAD-1 has the slight edge in terms of overall peak noise levels, although this is matched in the boom pole bumping test: and there is again a slightly bass heavier element to the noise from the Radius shock mount. But both perform well, and the noise, even from such extreme mishandling, is very low in frequency and easy to remove with a high-pass filter (which, again, would be necessary on wind grounds for any rapid boom movements indoors).

RAD-1 interior shock mount: ‘lite’ (blue) hoops vs Nano Shield shock mount

I have been impressed by the new lyres designed for Rycote’s Nano Shields. In use I have found they perform better than the older lyre designs used in Rycote’s Cyclones, modular windshields and InVision mounts, as indeed intended. In particular, I have found the most compliant 55 shore Nano Shield lyres to be the best performers for Rycote’s own lightweight (i.e. 69g) SDC mics, outperforming the 62-shore soft lyres (my previous best fit for such light mics). At present the new lyres only fit the mount within the Nano Shield full basket windshields, so the comparison – unless you also own a Nano Shield – with the RAD-1 is a bit spurious, but, in for a penny in for a pound!

Radius RAD-1 + 62D shore hoop (top) and Rycote Nano Shield (NS2-CA) + 55 shore lyre (bottom) with CA-08 cardioid mics: boom pole held and mics angled conventionally, and mics moved up and down.

Radius RAD-1 + 62D shore hoop (top) and Rycote Nano Shield (NS2-CA) + 55 shore lyre (bottom) with CA-08 cardioid mics: boom pole held vertically and bottom bumped on to carpeted floor.

My expectations for the RAD-1, even with its most compliant 62D-shore hoops, against the 55-shore Nano Shield shock mount were low. Indeed, the Nano Shield suspension outperformed the RAD-1 on the side to side test, where the lateral resistance of the new lyres proved most evident; but the difference was more subtle with the up and down motion (and the RAD-1 again had more of its energy at lower frequencies); and, surprisingly, the RAD-1 was slightly better in the boom pole bump test. So a much closer match between the two shock mounts than I had assumed would be the case.

Conclusions

The results of small differences in such specific tests and with such specific mics, cables and boom pole should not be overstated. From these tests (and broader testing that I have undertaken with the shock mounts), however, it is clear that the RAD-1 and RAD-2 perform well and, also, close to the Rycote equivalents, insofar as there are exact equivalents. Indeed, it is the physical differences between, and different features of, the shock mounts that are likely to determine which model anyone could or should choose: the XLR plug holder and better pivot knob of the Radius shock mounts vs the more minimalist InVision series shock mounts (which make the latter more suited to acoustic music recording, for example); or the more boom pole geared design of the Radius shock mounts vs the Rycote InVision softie lyre mount with pistol grip? Of course, as Radius introduce new models, those differences will change. Pricing will come into play too, although the different suspension hoops included will make up for the slightly higher pricing of the Radius shock mounts for many. Anyway, it is good to see such a high-quality start to Radius Windshield’s production, to have another UK manufacturer, and to have more choice in terms of shock mounts and suspensions. I’m also glad that all the experience embodied in the team hasn’t been lost to some unrelated business or the golf course! It will be interesting to see what comes from Radius over the next few years; what their first full basket windshield is like; and, with my personal interests, what they produce in due course in the way of suspensions for more esoteric uses such as mid-side mic pairs.

NB Although I matched the mics and gain in each set of two-mic test, the signals were normalized in Reaper so that I could get a decent level of shock mount noise for each comparison: therefore, please don’t compare noise levels across the different sets of tests or, indeed, start thinking that the shock mounts are all noisy! All the shock mounts I used here are ones I would (indeed, do) happily use and are excellent: this was very much about accentuating any differences between mounts in each set of tests.

3 Comments