Radius Windshields – Dr Badphil

Audio Gear

Cheap and compact: musings on a holiday sound-recording rig.

November 18, 2025

Introduction

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.

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.

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!

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…

0 Comments

Audio Gear DIY Projects

XY in a Mini-ALTO

July 11, 2025

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!

2 Comments

Audio Gear

ORTF in a Mini-ALTO part 3: which mics fit?

May 27, 2025

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’ve 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!

General parts

Connector, or post, from ORTF bar to Radius hoops – this uses 12mm M3 socket head button flange screws as supplied with Radius products anyway, but will also require thin M3 square nuts.

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.

To fit the mic clips to the ORTF bars you will also need 8mm M3 socket head button flange screws and M3 brass inserts: these are the ones I use, and anything very different may require the holes to be resized.

Mount for Sennheiser MKH 8040

ORTF bar for MKH 8040

Right-hand mic clip for MKH 8040

Left-hand mic clip for MKH 8040

Mount for Schoeps CMC 1 KV + MK4

ORTF bar for Schoeps CMC 1KV + MK4

Right-hand clip for Schoeps

Left-hand clip for Schoeps

Mount for DPA 4011 with MMP-GS or MMP-ES preamp

ORTF bar for DPA

Right-hand clip for DPA

Left-hand clip for DPA

Mount for Nevaton MC59/C

ORTF bar for Nevaton

Right-hand clip for Nevaton

Left-hand clip for Nevaton

Given the the Nevaton mics usefully screw to the ‘clips’ at their rear, you will need M2 socket cap screws.

3 Comments

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.’

16 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

Older Posts