I bought an NTG-3 years ago and every time I hear it against the NTG5 or the venerable Sennheiser, I'm always convinced I made the best choice with the NTG-3.
@D R The more forgiving off-axis performance (a wider "sweet spot") is one of the things I really like about the NTG-3. Also, I've never found it "noisy" - although with the wider sweet spot you do get a little more environmental / ambient noise, but IME it sounds very warm and natural. The NTG-5 seems to be designed to be more of a direct "head to head" competitor with the 416 - the NTG-3 has its own thing going on.
I like the NTG-3, the low end is more full and a tiny bit crisper. But it can be done with a slight EQ adjustment in any audio software... so the cheaper should be the wisest choice.
Z, another video of supreme quality and excellence! Your comparison setup is just beautiful, and gives copious comparison. Absolutely marvelous and smartly done. Cheers brother! Xièxiè (my wife is Chinese).
FWIW, being that close to the mics will certainly introduce proximity effect and accentuate the bottom end. I suspect the NTG3 would sound quite a bit thinner moved up 10-12" out of the frame.
I use the 416 and have for over 10 years as a professional voice artist it's nice to hear how similar it is to other excellent mics. As a side note, I'm actually using that 416 microphone with my speech to text program to make this comment :-)
Prefer 5 over 3. 3 has a bit too steep decline into the low end IMO, crushing the low-mid details, and sounds sorta unnaturally overhyped for that reason. 5 has smoother and less crushed transition to lows, and more transparency mid-highs. Just sounds more natural.
NTG5 is clearly the all arounder, can do voice, sounds, music, good but not great in any. The 416 is similar but at a higher level than the NTG5. The NTG3 is the best for voice with very clean roll offs and seems tuned for that purpose. Great video as always!
The 416 is actually the perfect allrounder, fantastic for acoustic instruments, great with voice over if you place it right and has this lovely transparent sound that does have a lot of warmth if you need it. It's no wonder it has been a favourite for 40 years.
The NTG3 really suits your voice. The MKH416 actually sounds like an NTG3 but with the brighter high end of the NTG5 lol I have an NTG3 and I’m always going back and forth on whether to replace it with an MKH416 or Schoeps
I prefer the NTG5 honestly. 416 really has a bit too much boosted high end, the NTG3 has too much low end and the NTG5 is more of an in between. Great review btw
The 416 and the NTG-5 sound identical to me, out of Jamo bookshelf speakers. The NTG-3 suited your voice, but I can see why someone capturing mixed voices would prefer the 5.
HI! I have had the Rode NTG3 for more than 10 years and I always had the following question, when I turn up the gain on the recorder the recorded signal has a noise floor in the high frequencies, it is not so noticeable but noticeable when I see it in programs like izotope rx, when I do the same test with the 416 from sennheiser it does it but at a higher point of the recording. is it like that with all the rodes or will it be mine in particular? Thanks
I own the NTG3 and not trying to be biased still prefer it. I'm 45 and naturally lost my top end. I can only hear up to around 14kHz and thats if I strain, yet I still find the 416 and NTG5 irritating, so god knows how they sound to young ears. The 416 was designed in a time to compensate for the sound of analogue and tape, so to me it hasn't aged well in the digital era.
I thought the NTG-3 would balance high voices frequencies pretty nicely but boost the low-ends too much on bassy voices. I'm surprised to read this comment, I wish I could test these microphones myself on different people :)
@@Enliamusic I agree with you, I used to have a ntg3 and I really liked it (probably my favorite) but I have a relatively low voice and it was less clear, I now use a mkh 416 which is better suited for me. I use it for voice over.
@@Enliamusic All of them picks up good sound details on having different sensitivity to various frequencies. This means all of them will be very flexible on post production and can actually match each other on EQ. I have choose NTG3 and it doesn't sound as harsh as other mics and by pulling back the low end and boosting the high end on EQ, it actually sounds flat and softer which is really nice. By out of the box flatter sounding mics you should look at more expensive ones like DPA 4017B which is around $1,800 or CMIT mics.
Often for really deep voices, you want to roll off some of the bass so it doesn't sound too boomy and the NTG3 has a bit more low end than the others. I have the NTG3 and MKH-416 and the 416 usually sounds better on deeper voices since it's not accentuating the already strong bass. NTG3 can give a little more warmth to a voice that isn't that deep. They are both fabulous mics.
I tried closing my eyes to see if I can notice the change, and I can hardly tell the difference between the NTG-3 and NTG-5. But when the 416 came up, it was a pretty drastic change. Wow. I guess I need a second 416 then.
I also noticed the 416 sounded very different. That's not been my experience in the studio with the 416 and the NTG3. The NTG3 has a little more bass, but my experience was not as drastic as sounded here. Perhaps different preamps or placement or something else. You can't go wrong with another 416. Just watch out for knock off 416's (they exist...had a friend get burned when he bought a fake one on ebay years ago).
Great, but how about comparison with something little cheaper, like boya mic? they are pretty solid when it comes to small microphones and have good reviews, plus they are cheap on ebay
I mean doesn't everyone hear sound differently to a degree? When they say flat bass, I do agree with the NTG-5 but definitely will be application-based for sure. I'm no audio engineer or in the filming industry but I'm drooling over the NTG-5 enough I'm thinking about it...
I liked the NTG3 best then NTG5. I don't care for the 416 - to me it sounded a bit flat (and unflattering). I would go for the NTG3, but I would try them out with my voice to make sure that it works for me.
A good shotgun mic is often better for voiceover, especially if your studio is not very well treated with sound absorption material. If you're serious about vo, then the MKH-416 is one of the best choices. I've used it for 20+ years in voiceover and it's my go to mic. The other being a Neumann U87. Start with the NTG5 at half the cost of the 416 and see what you think. If you're also just starting out, you could also try the VideoMic NTG ($250). It would probably be a better choice than the blue yeti (which is also a good mic for $130)
Sean Caldwell I went with the VideoMic NTG. Not putting it into action until I get some blankets up for sound dampening, but on the podcast I’m on, I thibk I already sound the best now. Previously I was the worst. So wow. But apparently on the podcast I was never peaking no matter how close I got to the mic. Yet when recording, I was easily peaking. Maybe it’s their software.
Interesting. When you choose a mic, you need one that doesn't color your audio falsely a great deal. What may sound good raw may become a monster in the DAW or boards to correct and fit well into the mix. Too defined, undefined or poorly managed audio can ruin your take and day. In the end, your audio must FIT into a mix of other signals with the best possible outcome and the least required effort. When I listen to a mic, I listen the the elements of the sound and not the overall tone. Does it manage highs, mids and lows well? How does it handle plosives and other nasties? How does it deal with off-axis sound? Never listen to the overall image because in the real world that isn't what will be heard after sound engineers compress, limit, process, slice and dice your signal. Make sure you're giving them the best possible signal to work with; they know how to make it sound amazing. We use mics that have great acoustic representation within the entire audio spectrum they capture so we can become creative with them in production. The best mics may not always sound as good as others do raw, but are extremely forgiving in post or when mixed and mastered. Additionally, different mics manufacturers in production environments raise their own very real set of issues that will get you removed from your sound engineer's Christmas card list quickly. Standardization is a good thing. Predictability and process ability is why the 416 is commonly spec'd in the film industry. That said, Rode is a serious contender with great products and price points. We use a few in more specialized recording environments with great success.
The 416 sounds way better than the NTG-5 and the NTG-3. The NTG-5 sounds thin on the low end. The NTG-3 is ok, but the 416 cuts through all external noise. There's a reason the 416 has been the industry standard for 50 years.
Ntg5 doesn't even compare to the sound of ntg3. I don't understand those who write that ntg5 looks a lot like ntg3 at a price of -100$. Seriously? Guys, check your hearing, you have hearing problems.
Surprisingly there's a huge difference between the MKH416 and NTG5. Even though they're boosted in almost the same way (3 dB shelf boost starting from like 2KHz) the NTG5 sounds a lot more sibilant while also sounding boxy, probably because of the low end roll off and a bigger boost in the lower mids compared to the gentler rise in the MKH416.
@Dylan J I completely agree with your statement. I hear exactly the same. I think 416 has more detail and once you dress it up with Dead Cat and put it in Blimp that detail gets tamed down. 416 does sound a bit overhyped and sometimes that's needed. NTG-5 has this boxiness that I just don't like. NTG-3 sounds fat and that can potentially be muddy. I think that should be reasonably easy to eq out, but adding the 416 detail to the NTG-3 isn't that easy, but doable with good eq's.
@@itsjantore Try Sennheiser HD600 or cheap AT-M40X headphones, you must hear the difference between NTG-5 & 416. I might check later on my Beyer 770's as well
Je pense que dans ce test il aurait été bien aussi de nous faire écouté le noise gate de chacun des micros afin de ce donné une idée car la qualité d’un micro se fait aussi sur le noise gate qui me semble très important aussi lors de notre choix d’un micro écouter cette video et vous comprendrez mieux que le mkh est meilleur a ce sujet ua-cam.com/video/EKeB8ZM4QHM/v-deo.html
I bought an NTG-3 years ago and every time I hear it against the NTG5 or the venerable Sennheiser, I'm always convinced I made the best choice with the NTG-3.
@D R The more forgiving off-axis performance (a wider "sweet spot") is one of the things I really like about the NTG-3. Also, I've never found it "noisy" - although with the wider sweet spot you do get a little more environmental / ambient noise, but IME it sounds very warm and natural. The NTG-5 seems to be designed to be more of a direct "head to head" competitor with the 416 - the NTG-3 has its own thing going on.
Ntg 3 has a powerful presence. A cinematic and rich sound.
I like the NTG-3, the low end is more full and a tiny bit crisper. But it can be done with a slight EQ adjustment in any audio software... so the cheaper should be the wisest choice.
All depends on your voice, setup and usage. For me tbe ntg3 would be too much bottom end.
the 416 just sounds so nice and clear
Sounds bad for your ears, 416 it's the worst mic.
It’s the worst sounding. People are just stuck with the brand idea. Who am I to give a constructive opinion? A professional Sound Engineer 😊
On your voice, I prefer the NTG-3 ! Super super smooth ! Thanks a lot for this review :)
I dont, especailly when he said "rounded" it sounds so fake, so bass boosted.
I had to listen to this on headphones and I like the sound of the NTG3 the best. Thanks for making this video.
Z, another video of supreme quality and excellence! Your comparison setup is just beautiful, and gives copious comparison. Absolutely marvelous and smartly done.
Cheers brother! Xièxiè (my wife is Chinese).
i don't know who need to know this but i was there when the video was filmed haha
Hey peopleeeee~
would u ask that they increase the distance to at least 5 meters
FWIW, being that close to the mics will certainly introduce proximity effect and accentuate the bottom end. I suspect the NTG3 would sound quite a bit thinner moved up 10-12" out of the frame.
Extremely important point
I use the 416 and have for over 10 years as a professional voice artist it's nice to hear how similar it is to other excellent mics. As a side note, I'm actually using that 416 microphone with my speech to text program to make this comment :-)
Same here, the 416 is used on 90 percent of what I record for broadcast voiceovers.
The MKH 416 even makes your speech-to-text sound better when I read it. 😆
@@lennybalistreri7474 LOL!! Thank you, Lenny :-)
Nice video. I think the NTG5 sounds a bit cleaner and crisper. The NTG3 has some bass but also muffles the lower tones.
Wow, I really like the sound of the NTG-3
NTG 5 looks like a winner for me for it's price and good noise+sensitivity combo.
Thank u so much for helping me with this decision
I have the NTG5 and I love it, the self noise is so low that, that in itself makes it worth it.
Awesome comparison between the three very helpful
Prefer 5 over 3. 3 has a bit too steep decline into the low end IMO, crushing the low-mid details, and sounds sorta unnaturally overhyped for that reason. 5 has smoother and less crushed transition to lows, and more transparency mid-highs. Just sounds more natural.
The NTG-3 seems to be the more balanced and pleasant to listen to of the three.
NTG5 is clearly the all arounder, can do voice, sounds, music, good but not great in any. The 416 is similar but at a higher level than the NTG5. The NTG3 is the best for voice with very clean roll offs and seems tuned for that purpose. Great video as always!
The 416 is actually the perfect allrounder, fantastic for acoustic instruments, great with voice over if you place it right and has this lovely transparent sound that does have a lot of warmth if you need it. It's no wonder it has been a favourite for 40 years.
Just ordered my NTG5 thanks to this review -- thanks so much!
Great comparison! I have been very pleased with the NTG5!
Excellent video, thank you for your work.
They all sound good. The price, weight, length and accessories of the NTG5 are REALLY impressive though.
1991ClarkJames Totally agree with you, everything else that comes with the mic adds a ton of value to the kit!
Thank you for doing this video, it really helped me decide.
This video has made me obsessed with the NTG3. I must have watched this 50 times. I would love to offset my squeaky voice with it.
WOW the NTG5 feels like a middle ground between the NTG3 and MKH416
The NTG3 really suits your voice. The MKH416 actually sounds like an NTG3 but with the brighter high end of the NTG5 lol
I have an NTG3 and I’m always going back and forth on whether to replace it with an MKH416 or Schoeps
At 4:03 you can actually see the MKH416 slowly coming down. That must have been really annoying to constantly re-adjust.
I prefer the NTG5 honestly. 416 really has a bit too much boosted high end, the NTG3 has too much low end and the NTG5 is more of an in between. Great review btw
My new favorite UA-cam channel.
MKH 416 continues to be the best and worth every penny you ask for it 🤑
That ntg3 sound amazing
The 416 and the NTG-5 sound identical to me, out of Jamo bookshelf speakers. The NTG-3 suited your voice, but I can see why someone capturing mixed voices would prefer the 5.
Strongly prefer the NTG 3. Helpful video. Thanks
HI! I have had the Rode NTG3 for more than 10 years and I always had the following question, when I turn up the gain on the recorder the recorded signal has a noise floor in the high frequencies, it is not so noticeable but noticeable when I see it in programs like izotope rx, when I do the same test with the 416 from sennheiser it does it but at a higher point of the recording. is it like that with all the rodes or will it be mine in particular? Thanks
I own the NTG3 and not trying to be biased still prefer it. I'm 45 and naturally lost my top end. I can only hear up to around 14kHz and thats if I strain, yet I still find the 416 and NTG5 irritating, so god knows how they sound to young ears. The 416 was designed in a time to compensate for the sound of analogue and tape, so to me it hasn't aged well in the digital era.
thanks so so much. NTG-3 for me
Great comparison video. Can you please tell me which boom mic stand do you use?
Really helpful, thank you man.
Thank you!
One year later, what would you say about the ntg5? Did you actually use it in various situations?
I personally like the sound of the ntg3. Although my voice isn’t as deep as yours, so I wonder if that would make a difference.
NTG-3 is very very slightly better than NTG-5
Which is better for recording music?
NTG 3 sounds like the winner to me
For male / deeper voices, the ntg-3 sounds better. The ntg-5 sounds a little narrow but it's usually fine for female / higher voices.
Really? Really?
I thought the NTG-3 would balance high voices frequencies pretty nicely but boost the low-ends too much on bassy voices. I'm surprised to read this comment, I wish I could test these microphones myself on different people :)
@@Enliamusic I agree with you, I used to have a ntg3 and I really liked it (probably my favorite) but I have a relatively low voice and it was less clear, I now use a mkh 416 which is better suited for me. I use it for voice over.
@@Enliamusic All of them picks up good sound details on having different sensitivity to various frequencies. This means all of them will be very flexible on post production and can actually match each other on EQ. I have choose NTG3 and it doesn't sound as harsh as other mics and by pulling back the low end and boosting the high end on EQ, it actually sounds flat and softer which is really nice. By out of the box flatter sounding mics you should look at more expensive ones like DPA 4017B which is around $1,800 or CMIT mics.
Often for really deep voices, you want to roll off some of the bass so it doesn't sound too boomy and the NTG3 has a bit more low end than the others. I have the NTG3 and MKH-416 and the 416 usually sounds better on deeper voices since it's not accentuating the already strong bass. NTG3 can give a little more warmth to a voice that isn't that deep. They are both fabulous mics.
Personally own the NTG3 and never looked back!
can you put this on top of a DSLR hotshoe?
So whats difference
Which amplifier are you using for this test?
I thought the NTG-5 was the best sounding on your voice, the 416 was a little too trebble-heavy and the NTG-3 sounded a little "mumbly"
You could EQ these to be identical
The MKH 416 sounds to crisp. Almos hurts the ears while listening.
Defenitely would go with the NTG 3
but they are all in frame, that doesn't count, you have to lift them out of frame to get the real sound
I am suprised that the 416 sounds so thin and almost cheap in your video. Not what i heard in other comparisons. Strange.
NTG-3 is the winner
NTG-3 ТОП
I tried closing my eyes to see if I can notice the change, and I can hardly tell the difference between the NTG-3 and NTG-5. But when the 416 came up, it was a pretty drastic change. Wow. I guess I need a second 416 then.
I didn't notice it
Burrito Bro's Videos It may not be noticeable depending on how good your headphones or studio monitors are
@@Nagrooven I have nice flat studio monitors. There was nothing to warrant spending double the money
I also noticed the 416 sounded very different. That's not been my experience in the studio with the 416 and the NTG3. The NTG3 has a little more bass, but my experience was not as drastic as sounded here. Perhaps different preamps or placement or something else. You can't go wrong with another 416. Just watch out for knock off 416's (they exist...had a friend get burned when he bought a fake one on ebay years ago).
Great, but how about comparison with something little cheaper, like boya mic? they are pretty solid when it comes to small microphones and have good reviews, plus they are cheap on ebay
I'd be interested to know if the 416 was T powered or P powered...
T powered are ancient, do they still exist?
Yay new video
Hmmm that backdrop looks rather familiar
NTG 3 ✅🙏🏼
I mean doesn't everyone hear sound differently to a degree? When they say flat bass, I do agree with the NTG-5 but definitely will be application-based for sure. I'm no audio engineer or in the filming industry but I'm drooling over the NTG-5 enough I'm thinking about it...
NTG-3 !!!
(brilliant video btw)
♡ Love it Very Sturdy.
I liked the NTG3 best then NTG5. I don't care for the 416 - to me it sounded a bit flat (and unflattering). I would go for the NTG3, but I would try them out with my voice to make sure that it works for me.
Que interfase estás usando ?
is this good for voice overs or should I get a blue yeti
A good shotgun mic is often better for voiceover, especially if your studio is not very well treated with sound absorption material. If you're serious about vo, then the MKH-416 is one of the best choices. I've used it for 20+ years in voiceover and it's my go to mic. The other being a Neumann U87.
Start with the NTG5 at half the cost of the 416 and see what you think. If you're also just starting out, you could also try the VideoMic NTG ($250). It would probably be a better choice than the blue yeti (which is also a good mic for $130)
Sean Caldwell I went with the VideoMic NTG. Not putting it into action until I get some blankets up for sound dampening, but on the podcast I’m on, I thibk I already sound the best now. Previously I was the worst. So wow. But apparently on the podcast I was never peaking no matter how close I got to the mic. Yet when recording, I was easily peaking. Maybe it’s their software.
Interesting. When you choose a mic, you need one that doesn't color your audio falsely a great deal. What may sound good raw may become a monster in the DAW or boards to correct and fit well into the mix. Too defined, undefined or poorly managed audio can ruin your take and day. In the end, your audio must FIT into a mix of other signals with the best possible outcome and the least required effort.
When I listen to a mic, I listen the the elements of the sound and not the overall tone. Does it manage highs, mids and lows well? How does it handle plosives and other nasties? How does it deal with off-axis sound? Never listen to the overall image because in the real world that isn't what will be heard after sound engineers compress, limit, process, slice and dice your signal. Make sure you're giving them the best possible signal to work with; they know how to make it sound amazing.
We use mics that have great acoustic representation within the entire audio spectrum they capture so we can become creative with them in production. The best mics may not always sound as good as others do raw, but are extremely forgiving in post or when mixed and mastered. Additionally, different mics manufacturers in production environments raise their own very real set of issues that will get you removed from your sound engineer's Christmas card list quickly.
Standardization is a good thing. Predictability and process ability is why the 416 is commonly spec'd in the film industry. That said, Rode is a serious contender with great products and price points. We use a few in more specialized recording environments with great success.
The 416 sounds way better than the NTG-5 and the NTG-3. The NTG-5 sounds thin on the low end. The NTG-3 is ok, but the 416 cuts through all external noise. There's a reason the 416 has been the industry standard for 50 years.
NTG3 vs MKH 416 @3:41
Who cared about the weight, people just wanna know about sound quality between the three! 🤷♂️
ntg3 still good..
i can't notice the difference idk if is my headphones :'v
IDK why when I recorded audio via MKH 416 with MixPre 3 Mark 2 the sound waves are really low when editing in post.
the answer: your gain while recording
3 sounds better.
Ntg5 doesn't even compare to the sound of ntg3. I don't understand those who write that ntg5 looks a lot like ntg3 at a price of -100$. Seriously? Guys, check your hearing, you have hearing problems.
Surprisingly there's a huge difference between the MKH416 and NTG5. Even though they're boosted in almost the same way (3 dB shelf boost starting from like 2KHz) the NTG5 sounds a lot more sibilant while also sounding boxy, probably because of the low end roll off and a bigger boost in the lower mids compared to the gentler rise in the MKH416.
I'm wearing Beyerdynamic 770 and honestly they sound almost identical to me.
@Dylan J I completely agree with your statement. I hear exactly the same. I think 416 has more detail and once you dress it up with Dead Cat and put it in Blimp that detail gets tamed down. 416 does sound a bit overhyped and sometimes that's needed. NTG-5 has this boxiness that I just don't like. NTG-3 sounds fat and that can potentially be muddy. I think that should be reasonably easy to eq out, but adding the 416 detail to the NTG-3 isn't that easy, but doable with good eq's.
@@itsjantore Try Sennheiser HD600 or cheap AT-M40X headphones, you must hear the difference between NTG-5 & 416. I might check later on my Beyer 770's as well
ntg5 is the best
OMG, MKH 416 is so sibilance.
The NTG3 sounds slightly Wooly up close.
The Sennheiser is overly toppy. So I’m preferring the more neutral sounding NTG5..
Je pense que dans ce test il aurait été bien aussi de nous faire écouté le noise gate de chacun des micros afin de ce donné une idée car la qualité d’un micro se fait aussi sur le noise gate qui me semble très important aussi lors de notre choix d’un micro
écouter cette video et vous comprendrez mieux que le mkh est meilleur a ce sujet ua-cam.com/video/EKeB8ZM4QHM/v-deo.html
Straight up if these mics weren't' labeled no one would be able to tell a difference
416 sounds warm and close. Im not a audio guy here, totally have no idea what a good sound looks like.
The NTG5 is in the Middle of the 3! Soundwise is the NTG3 i little bit dark!
どれもショットガンマイクなので１ｍくらい離して音質比較してください。 近すぎて参考になりません。
i see no difference, ill just get the cheaper one.
You're cute!!
NTG-5 sounds better than the 416 !
3rd viewers sir zy!
wtf, no outdoor test? this is useless and lazy
That's not realistic. It's too far from your mouth.
Aristotle_ yeah, it does seem like he’s just eating all of them.