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!
I’m not one normally obsessed by small sound recording kit, as my development of over-sized TIG-welded windshields attests. But just occasionally, I fancy some sound-recording kit that is ultra-compact and by that I mean even smaller than my Radius Windshields Mini-ALTO 115 and Sound Devices MixPre-3 combination: something that involves no tripod or stand or indeed anything as large as even this smallest of basket windshields. Now some use handheld recorders for such purposes, but since my Sony M10 died, I haven’t felt the urge to replace it with a recorder with inbuilt mics: I invariably used the Sony M10 with external mics (its internal mics being a pair of closely spaced omnis, which were of little use for stereo) and, doubtless unfairly, can’t get enthusiastic about the current crop of handheld recorders with inbuilt mics. Indeed, some of these are hardly that small – the Zoom H5 Studio and its ilk come to mind. Others will have different approaches and preferences, in many cases well-established and more thoroughly thought through: for them this blog-post will be a pointless read! But perhaps something here will resonate with the odd reader and, at least, give them food for thought for their own different and doubtless better solutions. Besides, it’s just a bit of fun!
Criteria
When putting together a mini travel sound-recording kit, it’s important to be clear as to what matters, especially if you have a stack of gear that is all crying out ‘take me’! My criteria for my latest travel kit – a trip from the UK by Eurostar/TGV to Avignon with my wife for a significant birthday – were as follows:
• small size of kit (obvious)
• discreet recording capability, for two reasons: a) to be able to make recordings without being obtrusive and b) not to turn a holiday into a sound-recording trip.
• simplicity: I didn’t want to be fiddling around with setting up etc., so that rather ties into the point above about being discreet, but also has to do with not holding things up.
• reasonable sound quality, a decent stereo field, no handling noise, wind protection, and low mic self-noise, so that the recordings are listenable.
• cheapness: when travelling for non-sound recording purposes, I don’t want to be worrying about expensive recorders and mics, any more than I want to be worrying about expensive cameras
Now looking at some of my kit, such as the well-used the MixPre-3, the new dinky little Nevaton MC59uS/C2 cardioids, or even a little MS rig in a Mini-ALTO 115, there are some appealing options that meet some, but far from all, of these criteria: it’s crucial to ignore such temptations! Well at least I thought so beforehand. Anyway, here’s what I chose:
Mics
Small mics using the Primo EM172 and EM272 (or, even, AOM-5024L-HD-R) 10mm diameter omni capsules are much beloved by field recordists, either DIYing their own or buying them from the various small-scale manufacturers that assemble them ready made, such as FEL Communications Ltd (Micboosters) in the UK, LOM in Slovakia, Oaka Instruments in the UK, and Earsight in France (which I have tested previously). In my case, I chose a pair of the Clippy mics made by FEL/Micboosters, who also sell capsules and other parts for DIY, for the good reason that I have them. The Clippy mics are also the smallest of the options, though I am not certain that the recessed capsule position means that they are the best sounding: one to test perhaps? The Clippy mics I have are a pair with the earlier EM172 capsule, which I prefer (this capsule doesn’t have the RFI issues that affect the Primo EM272 capsules, although FEL/Micboosters (run by the extremely responsive and helpful Nick Roast, who has been a BBC sound engineer for over 30 years) now offer an EM272 option that apparently doesn’t have the issue. LOM, Oaka Instruments and Earsight are less explicit as to what capsules they use, which is disappointing and perplexing, and, of course, creates uncertainty as to exactly which model capsule is being used in the mics you are thinking of buying. I went for my 3.5mm PIP pair rather than an XLR P48 pair, in the interest of compactness. They are cheap as chips if you DIY (and you can make housings that best suit your usage), but are hardly expensive if you buy them ready assembled: a stereo pair of Clippy mics using the new low-RFI EM272M capsule costs £111.48.
A stereo pair of Clippy EM172 mics, with a 3.5mm plug for PIP. Similar alternatives include DIY.
Windshields
Getting furry windshields for such small mics is no trouble. In the past I have used Rycote ones made specifically for the Clippy mics, but these had separate foams inside which either got easily lost, or ended up rather squashed over time. So I have been pleased to see that Radius Windshields have made neat little fur windcovers with in-built foams and handy loops that stop the furs getting lost. Simon Davies kindly arranged for a couple of pairs to be sent in readiness for my trip, and they proved fine for modest breezes (naturally, there are limits to what such small windcovers can do, even for omni mics): I would heartily recommend the Mini Windcovers for EM172/272 capsuled mics.
The Radius Windshields Mini Windcover for the Clippy (as well as Lom Uši and Oaka Verdi) mics. The blue retaining loops and inbuilt foams are practical features.
Recorder
As per my recent post, I was intrigued by the little Tascam FR-AV2 for its potential for those rare occasions when I want to go ultra compact, so bought one a month or two ago for this very purpose. For my thoughts on the recorder and, more specifically, its functionality as an example of the current crop of 32-bit float dual-ADC recorders, then do look back at that blog post from last month. For this present post, the key factors are that it is significantly smaller than the already tiny MIxPre-3; it is frugal with power consumption (so reduces power supply related bulk: I just took a spare set of fully charged Eneloop Pro AAs, and didn’t even need them); has a decent PIP mic input (i.e. including a 5V option, which better suits the Primo capsules than a lower voltage: incidentally, the PIP preamps on the FR-AV2 sound better than the PIP inputs on the MixPre-3, which are not a great strength of these Sound Devices recorders); and is relatively cheap (I paid £318 at CVP).
The little Tascam FR-AV2 with a pair of Clippy mics plugged in.
Headphones
Normally headphones are fine for sound recording, but they don’t really fit into the criteria above too well. Obviously, more people wear full headphones in public for listening to music nowadays, but there is something very different about how you look when wearing headphones and recording: perhaps it’s the standing still and the evident concentration? Whatever, it certainly draws attention to the fact that you are recording. Or perhaps that is just unnecessary self-consciousness? Now earbuds would be more discreet, of course, but from time to time I buy a set and, yet again, discover that I really don’t get on with them (they refuse to stay in my ears!), and then pass them on very quickly to one of the offspring. Perhaps I have weird ears, or perhaps should just splash out and get some properly moulded bespoke ones to fit. Anyway, for this trip, I packed a pair of Sennheiser HD-25s (my standard cans for recording), and decided to mostly record – as nothing was remotely critical – without anything if in a public area. It goes against the grain, but needs must!
Packed up and ready for action, along with camera, spare batteries, headphones and waterproof coat for that autumnal weather, all in the dinkiest of bags. The stuff in the bag provides a bit more of a useful baffle between the omni mics.
Bag
What, you might wonder, am I doing with a bag if going minimal when the kit listed above is pocketable? Well, there is a logic to this. A pair of small mics like the Clippies, which (surprise, surprise!) have clips for attaching to things like lav mics, need to be mounted in some fashion. Now you can mount them on your specs or hat if you don’t mind looking like a total prat and are happy with the inevitable handling noise or the odd change of perspective when you move your head, or you can mount them on something. If in nature, you might find a handy tree and tie them either side of its trunk for the much-loved ‘tree ear’ solution, but handy and willing trees popping up whenever I wanted in a mainly urban context seemed extraordinarily unlikely, so I went for a shoulder bag: this allows mounting mics either side of the bag, which is fairly discreet (especially if the furry windcovers are roughly colour matched), and for recording either standing still or, better, putting the bag down on a handy wall etc. or just on the ground. And, of course, a bag was useful for other things when travelling, not least for the light rain jacket I needed on hand (Provence in October was warm, but far from consistently dry). As for what bag, well I’ve long been a lover of the pinestone coloured canvas ThinkTank Retrospective bags, but wanting something smaller than the models I already had, I picked up the baby of the family – the Retrospective 4 v2.0: £88 from Camera World. This allowed mounting the clips either side: only a modest 260mm apart, but gubbins inside the bag helps with the effectiveness of the spaced pair. And, while my wife looked askance at the two little fur windcovers either side of the bag, I don’t think anyone else noticed: well, I like to think that was the case. Besides, it was more subtle than me doing a dance on the Pont d’Avignon to satisfy the demands of family and friends back in Blighty…
Recording in the Place des Palais (outside the Palace of the Popes), Avignon, under gloomy skies. The bag and mics does look a lot like a koala bear, so perhaps I was optimistic about being discreet!
In the field
Well, there’s not a great deal to add except to include a few snippets of recordings from the jaunt, plus a few photos of the rig in the field.
First off, here’s a short clip from recording with the travel rig placed on a wall in the Place des Palais, as in the above photo:
Sticking with the Place des Palais, here’s a second clip of a recording, this time about 100m to the south, adjacent to an outdoor (but covered) restaurant area, with the bag with the mics carried on my shoulder (I remained standing still during the recording):
Of course, where there’s an opportunity for clipping the mics to something other than the sides of the bag, then that can provide a different spacing, as here with the mics attached to window boxes outside a window overlooking the Place de la Principale, Avignon.
Here freeing the Clippy mics from the narrow spacing of the shoulder bag (see photo above) was only partially successful: there isn’t much going on in the street below, and when the wind picks up towards the end of the clip, you can hear how the mics are overloaded. The Mini Windcovers did a good job most of the time, but there are limits, of course: if there weren’t, none of us would bother with full basket windshields!
Recording one of the surviving waterwheels in the Rue des Teinturiers (the street of dyers) in Avignon.
The remaining water wheels – of which there were previously so many more – for the numerous former dye works of the Rue des Teinturiers produce an enchanting sound, of the water passing through and the clanking of the wheels (especially the noise from the shackles that hold the wooden blades to the iron wheels). Here, again, the rig is perched on a wall.
Recording by the Pont du Gard: a shortish bus ride from Avignon.
Although it was 1 p.m. when we arrived at the famous Roman aqueduct of Pont du Gard, near Avignon, there were few people about. I guess that’s October for you. A wonderful place to visit, not least finding continuations of the aqueduct well away from the main structure. Oh, sorry – back to the recording: well, the lack of people was rather matched by the lack of wildlife at that time of the year and day, so here’s a recording down by the river with the rig set as shown in the photo above. There’s a bit of distant birdsong and a distinct boom and echo at one point, which I assume was an explosion in a quarry in the vicinity.
Conclusions
There’s nothing profound and universal to conclude. The kit all performed as expected, and the sound is OK(ish). It delivered the discreet and quick to use side of things fine. Even the weird lack of monitoring wasn’t as terrible as I feared. Sure, a wider spacing of the omnis would have helped, but really the mics, polar pattern and modest wind protection were all just as limiting. None of the sound samples are very interesting or, for me, would really merit recording with care except, perhaps, the water wheels on Rue des Teinturiers: and for that a key improvement would be to record with far less ambient noise (say in the middle of the night) as well as with a better rig. So these, and the other files I recorded, are little snapshots: the unexceptional audio equivalent of a typically unexceptional holiday photograph taken with a phone or compact camera. A handheld recorder would have been a good, perhaps better, alternative if such a device had appealed to me, but at least the FR-AV2 can function well with better mics and set ups (perhaps I should even get around to trying it for a drop rig?). So, at a personal level, the main thing I drew from it is that such casual, hasty and unfocused sound recording, juggled around travel for other purposes, is very divorced from that which I usually do, where mics and rigs are carefully thought through, and where, often, I retrace my steps to locations again and again in much the same way as a landscape photographer returns to the same spot, trying to best capture the scene. Would I bother again with a compact holiday sound kit? Sure, but perhaps where the soundscape is likely to be more intriguing and where audio snapshots might have more of a resonance in the future. And would I change the travel kit in any way? Well, I really do think my tiny Mini-ALTO 115 MS rig would be the answer (it would still fit in the little ThinkTank bag), even if more conspicuous, used, I’d have thought, with a micro tripod that could double as a pistol grip. I suspect, though, that this might go down rather less well with any travel companion(s). And, of course, would rather defeat the idea of cheap and cheerful. Hmm. Well, food for thought. When and if I get a chance to try something different – perhaps in the warmth of next summer – I’ll revisit this subject.
Meanwhile, rest assured, it’s back to usual field-recording here for me with heavier gear: just off to test a pair of Mega-Blimps each on its own tripod, and one with a new 3D-Tex inner jacket…
During my recent experiments to see whether you could fit an ORTF pair into the diminutive Mini-ALTO windshields from Radius Windshields, I began to wonder whether any of the four mics I found that worked for that purpose would allow other stereo configurations in the windshields, including XY. Of the mics I used for the ORTF experiment, the DPA 4011 capsule with the MMP-GS preamp was the only one short enough, having an overall length of 33mm; but the mic pair was on loan only and had a little too much self-noise for my liking (OK, 18dBA isn’t that bad!). You can imagine, then, that I was delighted to receive a pair of an upcoming smaller version of the Nevaton MC59 cardioid. The standard MC59S + 59/C sounds excellent and has low self-noise (8.6dBA), and is already a short mic at 47mm: rather incredibly, and largely due to the miniaturization of the preamp (just 5.5mm long), the MC59uS + 59/C2 combination halves that to give a length of just 23.5mm, and, with a side-exit cable, its effective length is less than half that of its sibling. I will be looking at the mics in more detail in different posts, but suffice it to say here that the idea with the MC59uS + 59/C2 has been to keep the same acoustic and electrical specs as the larger standard version.
Anyway, with such small mics in hand there was scope to have a play with the idea of XY in a Mini-ALTO. First up was the challenge of mounting the mics, and here I took advantage of the MC59uS having magnets in its base (goodness knows how they were squeezed in!), so I used some powerful Neodymium magnets (Simon Davies at Radius kindly sent me some of the ones they use in the windshields) and incorporated these into a mount: the rebated form of the magnets means it is really easy to keep them secure and not popping out.
3d-printed mount sans microphones, showing the magnet pairs (above the M3 brass insert fixings that fix these mounts to the overall XY mount). The mount has two halves, which are bolted together to form a 19mm diameter cylinder that is held by the Radius hoops. With the mics popped on the mounts: I do like the magnetic mounts – super slick!And some head-on views with and without one of the Mini-ALTO pods, along with a rear view.
So there you go: another fun test with a bit of 3d-modelling and printing for another type of stereo in a Mini-ALTO. As with my mid-side pairs, this fits comfortably in the smallest model – the Mini-ALTO 115. I’m very much aware that the MC59uS + 59/C2 mic is not yet in production (first batches are planned in October-November) and will be fairly expensive (more than the standard MC59/C models) and, therefore, won’t be a choice for every recordist. But, as I said in the Mini-ALTO ORTF post, if DIYers are wanting a much more affordable ultra-short cardioid, but still with decent specs and sound, then the Primo EM200 (which is what I believe is used in the well-respected Line Audio CM4) could easily be housed in an equally short, if not shorter, body: in fact, I’m rather puzzled that none of the many small businesses making Primo-capsuled mics haven’t done so already. Perhaps there are other mics that might fit. Whatever the case, I hope this small project might inspire others to have a play: the modularity of Radius hoops is a call to inventiveness!
Four ORTF solutions for the Radius Windshields Mini-ALTO. Clockwise from top left: Sennheiser, Schoeps. DPA and Nevaton.
Introduction
In part 1 of this three-part blog-post series, I described the challenge of getting an ORTF pair into the new and diminutive (80mm diameter) Mini-ALTO from Radius Windshields and in part 2 I covered testing. In both cases I used the Sennheier MKH 8040 with an adapted (side-entry) MZL connector as this is one of the shortest cardioid mics available and, of course, due to its RF design, is particularly well suited to – and is a popular choice for – recording outdoors. That I had a pair also helped! While the MKH 8040 is an excellent choice, obviously it would make the chances of Radius Windshields turning this proof of concept into an actual product all the more likely if other mics could be used too, and that is subject of this post.
Just a reminder of the Sennheiser MKH 8040 solution,with its customized MZL connectors (courtesy of ETK Cables) covered in parts 1 and 2 of this three-part blog post.
The MKH 8040 with its shortened MZL has a total length of 54mm although the key measurement is the 47mm length of the 19mm diameter part of the mic (the heavily tapered 7mm part of the modified connector beyond that has no implications when angled for ORTF, as you can see from the overhead photo above). This enables the centre of the diaphragms of the ORTF mic pair (angled, of course, at 110 degrees and spaced 170mm apart) to be on the centre-line of the windshield: that is, 40mm from the basket in all directions. There is little point jamming mics into a windshield if they end up right near the basket since this simply hampers the effectiveness of the wind-noise reduction, so that central location remained a requirement as I looked at other candidates. A maximum length of around 47mm – and without any problematic projections of connectors or rear cables beyond that – rules out mics with XLR connectors (and I have excluded cardioid lav mics on the basis of high self-noise), but there are a few viable options that I have identified and have tested: these are all modular mics from makers of microphones aimed at (though by no means exclusive to!) professional recordists (i.e. not cheap) – Schoeps, DPA and Nevaton.
Few of the less expensive small mics have modular designs with small preamps and no XLR connector. For example, the seemingly short Rycote CA-08 is 78mm long and you need to allow for a low-profile XLR too – another 25mm – bringing it to over 100mm and over twice the length that would work effectively for ORTF in a Mini-ALTO. Even mics assembled, like many a DIY mic, with Primo capsules – such as the small Line Audio CM4 (77mm long + 25mm low-profile XLR) or the Sonorous Objects SO.103 (52mm + 25mm low-profile XLR) and SO.3 (83mm) – are too long, although, of course, such mics are reminders that for the practically minded it would be easy enough to use the same capsules (e.g. the Primo EM200, which is what I believe is used in the Line Audio CM4) to make a suitably short mic without an XLR connector. And, equally, there may well be budget-friendly mics from manufacturers that would suit ORTF in a Mini-ALTO that I have missed: I hope so!
Small (and all modular) cardioid mics comprising, left to right: the Nevaton MC59S preamp with M59/C capsule; the Sennheiser MKH 8040 with a modified (side-entry) MZL connector; the Schoeps MK4 capsule with the CMC 1 KV preamp; and, the baby of the foursome, the DPA 4011 capsule with the MMP-GS preamp.
Schoeps – CMC 1 KV and MK4
Compared to the Sennheiser MKH 8000 series, the offerings from Schoeps are varied and complex and it took me a fair bit of time – and a few blind alleys – to identify exactly which model (and there is only one) would fit the criteria for ORTF in a Mini-ALTO. Schoeps aficionados will doubtless snigger mercilessly at this unfamiliarity, but, anyway, eventually I happened across the CMC 1 KV, which was introduced in 2022. It is a short preamp (the shortest version of the CMC 1) with a side-entry cable, which, when combined with a MK 4 cardioid capsule, gives an overall mic length of 45mm. With a steel element in its rear it can be used with magnetic mounts (several were supplied in the case) and is very much designed as a plant mic (for example, useful for recording dialogue in cars, where mic placement is always tricky) or for any other purpose where such a short length is required. Of course, it would have been nice if one of the more popular Schoeps preamps would have fitted the Mini-ALTO for ORTF, but at least the CMC 1 KV takes any of the popular MK capsules. And while only some may have the preamp in their kit already, others may find it a handy addition for a compact ORTF rig and for plant mic use and worth purchasing (it’s similarly priced to the other CMC 1 amplifiers).
Having identified the best Schoeps mic to fit the Mini-ALTO for ORTF, the good folks in Durlach (in Karlsruhe) sent me a pair to test: sadly this is just a loan and not to keep!
Schoeps CMC 1 KV + MK 4: the wooden case includes three magnetic mounts for the mic and, of course, the capsule and preamp.
Right, that’s enough looking at the fancy Schoeps wooden case and contents: onto the ORTF rig itself. Adapting the proof of concept set up for the MKH 8040 to the CMC 1 KV + MK 4 was very straightforward: given the similar mic length, all that needed changing was to make some 20mm mic clips (the MKH 8000 mics being Ø19mm) and, as a consequence, very slightly tweak the joining part of the bar. The side-exit cables are a little beefier and less flexible than the custom dual MZL cables from ETK Cables for the MKH 8040, but that’s understandable because – at 3m long – they aren’t intended to be used purely inside a windshield: so careful clipping of the cable becomes essential to reduce cable-borne noise.
Schoeps CMC 1 KV + MK 4 in the ORTF mount for the Mini-ALTO.Composite view – from above – of the Schoeps CMC 1 KV + MK 4 in the ORTF mount, with the Mini-ALTO basket.
DPA – 4011 with MMP-GS or MMP-ES preamp
Back in 2013 DPA launched the MMP-ES, which is a small preamp measuring only 12mm long and with a side-exit cable. This was followed in 2016 by the similarly-sized MMP-GS, with the only difference being that the latter has a micro-dot connection rather than an XLR: rather neatly, and admittedly beside the point for this exercise, this allows many DPA SDCs to be powered from 5V and, therefore, used with wireless transmitters. Combined with a DPA 4011 cardioid capsule, the MMP-GS (or the MMP-ES) gives an overall length of 33mm which is remarkable, and significantly shorter than the other options considered here. Initially I did wonder whether such a short length meant I could tease it away from the centre-line of the windshield to increase wind performance, but modelling the capsule position with the cardioid polar pattern showed that this would be disadvantageous: the wide 110-degree angling of ORTF does mean that the centre of the windshield is best. So keeping the capsule position centrally meant making a new ORTF bar, which was easy enough with 3d-printing, but set me thinking: if Radius do take this forward, an adaptable bar for at least several different mic models seems ideal. One for their skilled designer, Tim, I think! Back to the DPA pair: in short, they fit (of course) and more easily than the other mics. Although the 4011 cardioid capsule is quite popular, the MMP-ES and MMP-GS are less common, but, as with the Schoeps, they do have their uses for small plant mics etc.: worst case, existing 4011 cardioid owners seeking super-compact ORTF could buy the short preamps and, at least, they are not crazily expensive (about £350 + VAT). For some users the 18 dB(A) self-noise might be a little high – it is certainly above the 13 dB(A) of the MKH 8040 – but that’s rather besides the point: many use the DPA 4011 for recording, and love how it sounds.
In this case I won’t include a photo of all that comes with a new pair since, although DPA were also kind enough to send me a pair for testing (super-speedily too, but, again, sadly just a loan!), they were a much-loved pair in a small pouch.
DPA 4011 with the MMP-GS. With such small and light mics I have gone for the softest (55-shore) hoops that Radius produce: the production version of these is a more subdued green and this ‘evil red’ was just the colour of the test run.
Now, as a complete aside, the shortness of the DPA 4011 with the MMP-GS or MMP-ES preamp opens up opportunities for other near-coincident stereo pairs, where the mics aren’t so obliquely angled. DIN and NOS both have the mics at 90 degrees to each other, which can be easily achieved with the short DPA mic with the centre of the diaphragm remaining on the centre-line of the Mini-ALTO. The 300mm spacing of a NOS pair would require a little longer Mini-ALTO than the two ORTF test versions made for these tests by Radius, but the DIN pair fits fine with a pair of the 136mm pods (the longer of the two sets provided)…but this is a digression from ORTF!
DPA 4011 with the MMP-GS. The ridged body of the preamp meant it was necessary to modify the 19mm mic clips with internal grooves: these provide really neat positioning and extra protection against the mics moving, and can be used with standard 19mm diameter mics.
Nevaton MC 59/C
Nevaton is doubtless not as well known to many as DPA, Schoeps and Sennheiser, but the company has a long history going back to its roots in Leningrad in 1947. In 2024 the company relocated from Russia to Austria, to Siegendorf near Vienna, so, hopefully, the mics (as well as servicing) will now become more readily available in Europe and the rest of the world: they are an immensely friendly and approachable company. I first became aware of the mics via Magnús Bergsson’s wonderful Hljóðmynd – Soundimage website: despite a brimming mic locker, which includes some fantastic mics, Magnús is full of praise for the Nevaton MC59 models that he uses. While the designers at Nevaton have a much shorter preamp (the MC 59uS) and a shorter cardioid capsule (MC 59/C2) in development at present, even their existing MC59S preamp with the MC59/C cardioid capsule measures just 47mm in length in total, so it was an obvious choice for testing for ORTF in the Mini-ALTO: also, it was an easy choice as, by happy chance, I had a pair on their way to me courtesy of Egor and Dmitry for testing more generally (and this time, I should hasten to add for full disclosure, to keep). At 22mm diameter the MC59/C is the widest of the four mics used in these tests, but that slight chunkiness allows use of a larger diaphragm (Nevaton say it has ‘a membrane diameter of 20mm, and the active part is 16.5mm’), with consequent scope for lower self-noise: the specs give a remarkable 6dB(A). I lack the anechoic chamber to check this properly, but, with my rudimentary tests (mics buried under duvets recording nothing in a quiet house, a high-pass filter applied to remove low end rumble of any passing tractors, and levels adjusted in post for different – measured – sensitivities), the MC59/C cardioid mic had notably less self-noise (which I measured at around 7dB less) than that of the MKH 8040 (13dB(A)), or indeed the Schoeps and DPA mics.
Now there’s a mic box small and rugged enough that one can actually take into the field: a much-appreciated detail!
With a similar length to the Sennheiser MKH 8040 and Schoeps CMC 1 KV + MK4, the MC59/C pair could have utilized a similar ORTF mount for the Mini-ALTO, but the clips would have added to the already significant 22mm diameter, edging towards the basket or, alternatively, pushing the centre of the mic diaphragms over the centre-line of the windshield. Besides, the MC59S preamps have a neat mounting option with three M2-threaded holes at the rear of the mic, which allow for very precise positioning of the mics. As, of course, the mics weren’t going directly into a suspension hoop, this seemed the best option, and the result is the most minimal of the mounting bars for the different mics in these tests.
Nevaton MC59/C showing the rather different approach I took to the ORTF mount.Composite view – front on – of the Nevaton MC59/C with the Mini-ALTO basket.
Field recordings
This isn’t the place for a detailed comparison of the pros and cons of the different cardioid mics, along with a range of comparative recordings. But, that said, some field testing does seem relevant, not least to check that the different mics function reasonably in the Mini-ALTO as ORTF pairs. So with a suitable breeze blowing, I headed outside with four windshields and a Sound Devices 788T – yet again to record the village street with wind in the trees and a nearby hedge, birdsong, passing cars and, dominating the first half of the recording, an RAF jet flying over. The last lacks the emotive power of that famous 1942 BBC recording of nightingales when 147 RAF bombers flew overhead, but I left it in as a proxy for recording thunder(!) – you can easily skip past it.
A blustery day for testing, but, then, this is really all about windshields!
Here are some clips of the recordings, with 40dB gain at the recorder and another 10dB in post (and the levels were matched using the Schoeps as the reference, following my previous 1kHz tone sensitivity tests of the mics). No high-pass filtering or any other modifications were made to the recordings.
First up, for reference, with the already tested Sennheiser MKH 8040 pair:
Next up, the Schoeps CMC 1 KV with MK 4:
Third, we have the DPA MMP-GS with 4011:
And, finally, here is the Nevaton MC59/C:
I’ll leave you to listen, download (even tinker with levels) and draw your own conclusions, but it is just worth noting, first, that in such conditions the higher self-noise of the DPA MMP-GS with the 4011 capsule is hardly noticeable, and, second, that the effect of wind is less noticeable with the Schoeps MK 4 due, of course, to its different frequency response: less low end is often an advantage for field recording and, in these breezy conditions with the small size of the Mini-ALTO windshield normally any recordist would apply a high-pass filter. None of the mics showed any increased susceptibility to wind, or other issues, over the MKH 8040, which, as tested in part 2 of this blog-post series, was on a par with its mid-side counterpart in a Mini-ALTO 115.
Conclusions
So there we have it: from my initial doubts about squeezing an ORTF pair into a Mini-ALTO to workable demonstrations of four mics, including examples from three of the most well-known manufacturers, plus the less well-known (at least in much of the world) but quite remarkable Nevaton MC59/C. The Sennheiser MKH 8040 might well be the most commonly considered option of these mics for field recording, due to its RF design, but it does require a bespoke MZL connector for such a compact ORTF set up: that said, this is less costly than the short preamps required for the popular Schoeps MK4 and DPA 4011 capsules respectively. And, uniquely, the Nevaton requires nothing other than its standard form. While the cable can be swapped out easily for the MKH 8040 for either a different MZL cable or (with the XLR module added back to the mic) an XLR cable, the DPA, Nevaton and Schoeps mics all have cables hard-wired to their preamps. Obviously, attractiveness of ORTF in a Mini-ALTO (should an ORTF version be produced) will come down to the balance between any need for extreme compactness, wind performance, acoustic transparency and cost. The last relates very much to the subject of this post: a recordist with the right capsules and preamps already would be well-placed; others may need to pick up a pair of short preamps to fit existing capsules or, in the case of the MKH 8040, a modified MZL cable; and some may need to buy entirely new mics to fit – and none of these mics can be described as cheap. For me, it has been an interesting exercise – even if it might seem slightly ironic given my work on Mega-Blimps at the other end of the size spectrum – and, certainly, I will no longer default to MS simply on practical grounds for the those occasions when I really do need a compact rig: in my case, the diminutive Sound Devices MixPre-3 and a Mini-ALTO 115 with MS or, now, a Mini ALTO 90+90 with ORTF, with a small stand/tripod and short cables, provides a minimalist kit when needed and when conditions allow. I suspect many others – with their evident desire for tiny and portable rigs – would find still more use of a Mini-ALTO ORTF solution. Let’s see what Radius produce!
UPDATE 8.7.2025 – Radius release pod and fur kit for ORTF, so here are the (free) 3d-models to help you use this
While their own versions of my ORTF mounts or, hopefully, a clever adaptable mount that doesn’t need to be quite so mic specific, will take Radius some time (injection-moulded parts take time to develop, and there are more urgent items in the queue), producing paired front and back 90mm pods and a fur to fit to suit ORTF is a much simpler matter, and today Simon Davies has confirmed that these will be going ahead next week. For these you will need a Radius mount and, of course, will need to 3d-print the mounts I created for this project. For the MKH 8000 version you will also need the custom MZL cable from ETK Cables. Anyway, here are links to the (freely available) 3d models for printing on Onshape, and to other parts (nuts, screws and brass inserts: for these I link to the suppliers I use, but doubtless you will find equivalents, especially if not in the UK).
And do remember: these are all parts I developed for my tests, so reflect the filament I used (PETG HF), the 3d printer I used (Bambu Lab A1 Mini) and the fasteners I used. You may need to tweak the models to better suit your materials and printer. And, of course, you may want to improve upon the designs I come up with. Certainly I expect any eventual injection-moulded design from Radius to be stronger and more sophisticated than my attempts!
Mini-ALTO base adapter – not essential, but it allows you to fit a 3/8″ threaded ball head and angle the windshield correctly for ORTF (the Mini-ALTO can be tilted but end-to-end, which isn’t useful for ORTF), and for this you will also need a thin 3/8″ hex lock nut.
