Radius Windshields – Dr Badphil

Audio Gear

Radius Mini-ALTO windshield

January 21, 2025

Introduction

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

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

Design, construction and operation

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

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

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

That flexibility of the Radius hoops, which allows MS clips to fit the shock-mounts directly (no more back-to-back clips!), is now carried over to the Mini-ALTO.

This might be taking it too far, but with some MKH 8000 mics and MZL connectors, the Mini-ALTO 115 can even house a double mid-side (DMS) rig: those Radius hoops are just so adaptable!

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

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

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

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

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

Handling noise

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

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

Static extended boom-pole hold of Mini-ALTO 115 with 55D-shore hoops.

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

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

Thumping of the boom-pole test: Mini-ALTO with 55D-shore hoops.

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

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

Shaking of the boom-pole test: Mini-ALTO with 55D-shore hoops.

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

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

Wind reduction

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

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

Mini-ALTO 115 with cardioid (CA-08) mic.

Nano Shield NS1-BA with cardioid (CA-08) mic.

Nano Shield NS1-BA with fig 8 (BD-10) mic.

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

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

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

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

Transparency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Pricing and availability

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

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

15 Comments

DIY Projects

ORTF: working towards a minimalist approach

November 15, 2024

The near-coincident ORTF stereo pair has a huge following that extends way beyond the remit of the body for which it was invented – the Office de Radiodiffusion-Télévision Française – and long after its demise in 1975. The required 110 degrees angling of the mics and diaphragm centres at 170mm spacing can be set up with any stereo bar. Or you can always use the Schoeps MSTC 74 ORTF mic (or its predecessor, the MSTC 64), where the spacing and angles are built in. And if you don’t have nearly £3k to spare, there’s the similarly designed Superlux S502 at around £100. But, evidently, there are many that find setting the angles and spacings on a stereo bar too fiddly by far (it’s certainly harder to eyeball 110 degrees than a right-angle); many who don’t want to splash out on a dedicated (but inflexible) Schoeps solution; and many who want something of higher quality than the Superlux. As a result there are many dedicated ORTF mounts available for SDC mics. These include offerings by major mic companies, such as DPA’s CXO4000 (which can also mount an XY pair) and, more recently, commercially available 3d-printed options. Ostensibly neat solutions, these dedicated mounts hold the mics directly, and can then be fixed directly to a mic stand: attempts to introduce shock-mounts then become clumsy, typically using Rycote lyres for the whole rig (fixed on a stem protruding from the bottom of the ORTF mic holder, and at 90 degrees to the intended use: a real shot in the foot). Come to think of it, an effective shock-mount or suspension for the Schoeps MSTC 64/74 or Superlux S502 isn’t immediately obvious: a Shure donut perhaps?

ORTF using a standard stereo bar (the small K&M 23550) and the smallest lyre/hoop mounts that I know: the Radius Windshields RAD field edition mounts. Rycote InVision INV 6s would be a larger alternative. The red hoops are a test run of softer 55D shore ones, and will go into production soon in a more subtle dark green. This is a fairly minimalistic ORTF rig with properly set up shock-mounts, but there is no denying that setting angles and spacing is a bit fiddly.

With a 3d-printer to hand, I wondered about a neater solution, using mics mounted correctly in suspensions (as if, for example, using a pair of Rycote InVision INV 6s or, smaller, Radius Windshields RAD field edition mounts on a standard stereo bar), which would then be fixed to a dedicated ORTF bar: the best of both worlds. First off, I designed a simple mount with size slots to fit both Rycote lyres and Radius Windshield hoops. The latter can fit Rycote mounts, but not vice versa. The three slots to each channel allow a bit of flexibility in the placement of the lyres/hoops for different mic models. I added a cable grip at the rear to help isolate the mics from cable-borne vibrations and, for my personal usage, designed this to perfectly grip a Sennheiser MZL cable: in my usage the ORTF mount will be used for MKH 8040 mics with MZLs. Taking a more minimalist route with MZLs made me think a bit more about the suspensions and clips, so I ordered a pair of 19/20mm clips from Radius (much more minimal than their chunky universal clips) and a pair of their 8mm clips (designed to hold the rear of a Sennheiser MZL or a Schoeps Lemo connector). This works fine although there is a mildly disconcerting slope to the mics as a result of the centres of the two clips being slightly different (they didn’t originate as such a pair), but the ORTF mount can be angled freely anyway: for this the bar makes use of a Gravity Quick-Tilt Microphone Adapter (MS QT 1 B).

With the same hoops mounted on the 3d-printed ORTF bar.

And angled a bit to show the construction of the ORTF bar more clearly.

So far so good, but when talking to Simon Davies at Radius about the different centres of the clips, he suggested that I try the two clips individually: that is, use one hoop only (the curved profile giving the new hoops more stability when used singly than the flat lyres from his Rycote days), and suggested I try the 8mm clip only. That was food for thought, so with the ORTF mount I tested the following:

8mm clip with single RAD-2 (21b) hoop x 2 (the control)

8mm clip with single hoop 21b vs two 21b hoops with 19/20mm + 8mm clips

8mm clip with single hoop 21b vs 19/20mm clip with single hoop 21b

8mm clip with single hoop 21b vs 8mm clip with single RAD-1 (21a) hoop

8mm clip with single hoop 21b vs single Rycote lyre 72 shore

8mm clip with single hoop 21b vs no shock-mount (another sort of control!)

With structure-borne noise transmitted from a suspended floor via the stand, the 8mm clip with a single hoop 21b sounded the best: in my test it offers less transmission of the lower frequencies than the 19/20mm hoop (or the latter with two hoops and an 8mm clip in the rear hoop), which I suspect is due to the fact that the 8mm clip is holding the rubber element at the rear of the MZL rather than the mic body direct. I couldn’t really hear/see any difference between the RAD-2 (21b) and RAD-1 (21a) hoops with the single 8mm clip. The single Rycote lyre worked OK on its own with such a light mic, but, connecting to the mic body, again transmitted much more than the 8mm clip. The absence of any shock-mount was definitely much worse than any of the clip/hoop/lyre combinations, as one would expect! So the conclusion is that the single-hoop and 8mm clip is an excellent idea for an ORTF mount for static mics with MZLs (sans windshield: or, indeed, inside a large windshield).

So with these useful tests in mind, I quickly modeled and printed a shorter version of the ORTF mount, this time with just with two slots – for one hoop for each mic. With the RAD hoops set with the concave side forward (orientation of the hoops is irrelevant as long as opposing if in a pair), the MKH 8040 sits nicely forward of any suspension or mount that could have an acoustic effect, and the whole arrangement has a certain minimalistic elegance (though I say it as shouldn’t, as my great grandmother would say).

Here’s the 3d model of the mini ORTF mount/bar.

A view of the single-hoop ORTF mount, this time with the 62D-shore hoops.

The view from the rear: the cable grips are important to both stop transmission of vibrations along the cables, and also to set the angle of the mics. I was a little sceptical that the cable clips would do both, but testing very much shows they do. Obviously differently sized cables than the Sennheiser MZLs used here would need different cable clips in the 3d-printed mount, but that’s part of the beauty of 3d-printing: you can design something that works for you!

It was only yesterday, after having modeled and printed these different ORTF mounts, that I received the 55D test hoops from Radius Windshields, in their ‘Evil Red’ colour. I had suggested the idea to Simon Davies as with Rycote lyres I felt that many end up using too stiff a suspension for a lightweight static mic with no windshields – be that for indoor effects or for music recording. Both Rycote and Radius are primarily geared to production sound markets, and those using mics statically often forget this and that there is a substantial difference between the needs of a mic that is moving – often quite quickly – on a boom-pole or in a pistol grip (think of the momentum involved) and a mic that is completely static, and where the aim of the suspension is to reduce the impact of structure-borne noise transmitted from, or through, the floor and then through the stand. So today I tested the 55D shore hoops on the mini ORTF bar, and they reduced low-frequency transmitted sound significantly, which can be useful on those occasions where you do not want to roll-off the low end of the mic. The MKH 8040 mics with MZLs mounted in 55D hoops (in the eventual production colour of dark green) and the mini ORTF bar (which I will now 3d print in black) will make a very minimalistic, discreet and well-suspended pair that are quick to set to the ORTF configuration on those occasions when I steer away from my favoured MS pairs. Sorted, as they say!

Just for completeness, here’s my comparison of the effectiveness of the 55D hoops vs the 62D hoops:a useful reduction in low-frequency structure-borne noise for those occasions (particularly when recording music: think of organ recordings, or even a standard piano where the lowest note is 27.5Hz) where you don’t want to use a high-pass filter.

Obviously the ORTF mounts shown here are very much tailored to my use, with MKH 8040 mics with MZL cables, but just in case anybody else wants to 3d-print these ORTF bars (free of course!), here is a link to the larger version for two Radius hoops/Rycote lyres per mic and here is the link for the more minimal one for a single Radius hoop. For others with very different mics and different cables, perhaps this DIY project will give a bit of inspiration!

7 Comments

DIY Projects

3d printing clips for the Radius Windshield hoops

October 27, 2024

At last, mid-side clips integrated into a shock-mount, yet easily swappable with clips for a single mic.

Mid-side clip for 19mm Ø mics

When Radius Windshields launched and produced their RAD shock-mounts one of the unique features was that the mic clips could be unscrewed from the hoops and switched to something different. A radical difference from, say, the Rycote Invision series shock-mounts, where the mic clips and lyres are all one moulding. This has provided scope for Radius to produce dedicated clips for the older MKH 50 etc. mics and, ultimately, to produce dedicated MS clips, doing away with the need to use clips to fix a mic to the shock-mount then a pair of back-to-back clips to attach the second mic to the first. A fiddly faff and also bedeviled by the lack of back-to-back clips with a close spacing, which is preferable for mid-side recording. I have been encouraging Simon Davies at Radius to produce MS clips, and this is now in train using some of the ideas I have proposed. While their nice injection-moulded version is awaited, here is my version for a MS clip to fit their RAD-1 and RAD-2 hoops, and designed for 19mm Ø mics such as the MKH 8000 series and the Rycote SDC series. I should add that Simon Davies at Radius Windshields has supported me in putting this design out into the public domain, which follows similar release of their first prototype for others to 3d print (their initial design was rather different to mine, and their upcoming production version, with a central bolt and a consequently wider spacing as this is tightened). The approach I have taken with this clip is very much a product of many discussions with Simon – via email – on MS clips and other Radius items in development, but also reflective of the company’s refreshingly open engagement with sound recordists.

One of the nice things about the Radius Windshields hoops is that they fit to Rycote shock-mounts such as the InVision INV 7 here, so you can make good use of existing hardware.

CAD drawing, created using Onshape, for the MS clip.

In designing this MS clip I have gone for a spacing of 2.5mm between the mics, which is nice and close but still provides just enough room to allow two MKH 8030 mics to be inserted for a Blumlein pair of two fig 8 mics(the MKH 8030 having a wider front part to the mic). The mics are given enough grip by the springiness of the clips, and this took quite a bit of work to get right: in particular, the internal seemingly circular clips are made up of several different radii so that they hold the 19mm Ø mics properly as the necessarily undersized opening is enlarged by insertion of the mic to give sufficient grip. I have printed them in both PLA and PETG filament (with solid infill) so nothing fancy is required: the PETG filament gives a bit more flexibility and is what I have been using for them mainly. If you are determined you can break them, but, of course, that applies to many a commercial-produced back-to-back clip!

There are two bits of metal hardware that you will need for each clip, which comprise an M3 thin square nut (standard size 5.5mm x 1.8mm), and one of the same M3 socket head button flange screws that Radius use, in this case 12mm long. Of course, you can just use the existing screws that come with your RAD-1 and RAD-2 shock-mounts, so strictly the only extra part you need is the square nut. Stainless steel A2 is best. I got both the nuts and some of the extra screws from Westfield Fasteners (in the UK).

You can go to the file here in Onshape and export in STL, STEP, 3mf etc. file format as required. Note that the clip looks a little skewed or angled when printed: this is deliberate since loading it with two mics opens up the two clips elements a little and consequently, with this built-in angling of the lower circle, the MS clip sits properly square and central (i.e. with the mic centres exactly one above the other) when in use.

MS clip showing vertical alignment when loaded with a pair of mics: a bit of a fiddle to compensate for the skewing effect when the clips are expanded to take the mics, but worth get right.

And, yes, with the MS pair nicely in the Radius Windshield hoops, you can not only retrofit them to InVision shock-mounts or, say, a Rycote Modular windshield, but even, with a bit of ingenuity, get them into a Rycote Nano Shield: with the rather high-set mount for the lyres in the Nano Shield there is not a lot of height to play with (which makes back-to-back clips a very imperfect solution: the top mic ends up right by the basket), so a 3d-printed mounting bar (here’s a link to this too) and mounting the Radius hoops on the underside gives a good workable solution.

While I am at it, here’s another view of the MS clips in Radius hoops being used in a Nano Shield: a pretty dinky MS set up!

Yes you can fit three mics into a RAD-1 and RAD-2 shock-mount!

Triple mic clip for 19mm Ø mics

For something a little more esoteric, I have also created a triple-mic mount to fit the Radius RAD-1 and RAD-2 hoops. Such a triple configuration of mics is something I have used from time to time for MMS (i.e. mid-side but with two different mid mics with different polar patterns – say omni and supercardioid – facing forward so that the polar pattern of the mid mic can be chosen in post) or side-by-side Blumlein with, say, a single supercardioid for recording a singing guitarist, as I demonstrated recently here. Previously I have had to use two pairs of back-to-back clips to connect three mics, which is a fiddle. As I said, a bit esoteric, but that’s the fun with 3d printing: making the commercially unviable possible.

In terms of design, this drew on the mid-side clip, but the loading of the three mics had an impact on the form of the different near circular forms, so even more complex curves were necessary to ensure a snug fit for each mic. I also chose to beef up the thickness of the clip a little, to 3mm, due to fear of the additional forces involved getting three mics into a single clip; and then angled the top interface/mating part by 3 degrees to allow for the change in angle arising from the necessary expansion of the individual clips due to inserting all three mics. In all, nine iterations were required, and doubtless there is room for improvement still: things like best thickness vary a little with filament used. I used a slightly different approach to the fillets, but that is a subtle change. The solid modelling takes a few minutes only, but the printing at finest quality takes an age! The interface, or mating, with the Radius hoops is the same as for the mid-slide clip, so the same size nut and screw are needed. I suspect not many will want to print this model – it is largely presented as showing the potential for very specific mic clips (inc. DIY) offered by the interchangeable design of the Radius hoops – but if you do want to use it, then you can download it (again freely) here from Onshape and choose which file format suits you for export.

And here are the triple clips as 3d printed.

EDIT (6.1.2025) More triple mic clips: double mid side (DMS)

I’ve also spent some time playing around with mic clips for double mid side (DMS), and, spurred on by receiving a Mini-ALTO 115 from Radius Windshields for field testing, I revisited this. DMS always feels a bit clunky (it’s that rearward-facing mid mic out front that seems so odd) and, though I’m never overly concerned about it, shadowing does seem more obvious than in, say, side-by-side Blumlein of MS. But using MKH 8000 mics with MZL connectors at least goes some way to reducing the bulk of the mics. With the size of the Radius hoops there is no scope for three mics in a vertical line so, as with, say, the Rycote Cyclone DMS kits, I have gone for the two mid mics set side-by-side (although facing opposite directions, of course) with the fig 8 centrally above. The wider front part of the MKH 8030 means that this needs to be taken into account by the front clip that holds it too: the fig 8 provides the only common mic spanning between the two mic clips, and there isn’t much to grab onto at the front, so I decided – like many a DMS rig – to include a couple of metal rods (these are chopped down ones, 2mm in diameter, that were redundant from a Rycote MS stereo Cyclone kit 5 – where they are superfluous and, indeed, prevent better rigging). Anyway, here are a few images of the model (you can download the front and rear clips from Onshape) and the resultant rig.

Rear clip for DMS, showing holes for 2mm connecting rods.

The 3d-printed clips with connecting rods in place.

And the DMS rig set up in Radius hoops (the mount looks a little different since this includes the ‘smiley face’ adapter that allows the RAD-2 shock-mount to be used with the Mini-ALTO windshield).

11 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