Microphone for VO AND Music
 

Hi,

Right now I have an XL1 and a minidisc recorder. In the short films that I will be making, I will be doing a lot of voice-over work.

In addition to that, for most of the music of the short films, I will be finding local musicians or myself to play the music and be recording either directly into the camera or into the MD recorder.

On a side note, I also have the M-Audio 2496 sound card... Is it possible for me to record voice-over work directly into the computer?

My question now is, if I'm on a budget, what's a good microphone to get that could be good for recording instruments (esp. piano, guitar, violin), AND be good for voice-over (and also interviews in very controlled environments)? Just to note, this is NOT a microphone I will be using during shoots, it is purely for recording things in post production.

Thank you,
Dennis

Since you don't currently have a source for phantom power, and your M-Audio card needs a line-level input, I think you should also consider getting either a mixer or a preamp. This will give you a much greater choice of microphones that will be suitable for these situations and will let you also record into your computer cleanly.
You can get either a mixer or a preamp in either AC-powered or field configurations. I'd think ahead and decide which of those 4 categories will work the best with your future plans and your current budget.
If you don't go that route, then you'll need battery-powered mics. I'd say getting a pair of Rode NT3 mics would work for this wide variety of situations. I know you said one mic, but hey, do you really want to record your music in mono?

Hi Jay,

Thanks for the response. I think I better start researching with mixers and preamps.

Question (I'm a complete newbie when it comes to audio):

Would it be wiser to get a mixer in a field configuration because that would mean that I could use it to record audio into my camera AND use it to record audio into my computer, whereas if I get an AC-powered one I am stuck with using it somewhere near a power plug. Is that right?

I'm just not sure what I can do right now (with audio). I've been reading a lot of posts that talk about all these really highly priced shotgun mics and preamps and mixers, which all seems really desirable, but right now I'm on a pretty limited budget.

Apart from the microphone that is usually attached to the XL1 (that came with the camera), and a really cheap microphone that came with my minidisc recorder, I have no audio gear.

Let's say I have around $500 US to spend on audio gear. About 90% of the work I will be doing WILL be with a very small crew, we're primarily focussed on making drama based digital short films, and I have next to no experience in audio. These couple of months I'm really trying to up my level of knowledge by reading a lot of the useful websites on sound and reading books, but right now I just don't know what is the best combination of gear I can get with what I have. Has anyone been in this kind of situation before?

Thanks helping out,
Dennis

The majority of television sets in people's households effectively only get mono anyways so stereo may not be a big deal depending on your target audience.

I listen to music on headphones so stereo effects are actually detrimental to my enjoyment of music (since some stereo effects like panning L<-->R back and forth are designed for speakers and are really annoying on headphones).

Stereo can give you a nice sound stage (where you can head the placements of each instrument).

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for the response. Um... I'm wondering, so basically at this price-range, the Rode NT3 is the most versatile battery powered microphone?

I'm wondering, since two NT3's add up to the price of one NT4, would it be more useful and versatile having one stereo microphone or two mono microphones?

I have the MA-100 adapter, can I assume that I could plug these kinds of microphones straight into the XL1? Also, are there other similarly priced microphones that would be a better choice for me given my circumstances?

Dennis

Hey Dennis,

It may be helpful to let us know

(1) what your budget is, and
(2) what context will you be recording music?

Expanding on (2),

(a) will you be mic'ing a soloist (guitar, vocals, acoustic bass, cellist, trumpet, sax, etc.), or will you be recording a band (full power rock band, acoustic folk, big band jazz, etc.)

(a1) will you be close mic'ing if you're micing a soloist?
(a2) otherwise, will you be trying to capture music with one mic from far away (not advised if you can help it).

By venturing into the area of music recording, you gotta consider what you're recording it for (intended audience), what you're trying to achieve (are you planning to eventually charge for this service?), and what resources do you have at your disposal.

You've asked a very broad question that potentially has bookfuls of answers. Without more detail, I doubt there is anyone here at this forum that can give you a "one-size-fits-all" answer, since it doesn't exist... but then again, that depends on what you're trying to achieve.

A good place to start looking for answers is the DAT-heads Microphone FAQ:

http://www.josephson.com/mic-faq.html

The FAQ is old (1993) but much of the content is still relevant to location 2-ch. recording. It'll get you thinking in the right direction in exchange for a couple of mouse clicks.

Also, your mic'ing technique will have FAR more dramatic impact on the quality of your recording than trying to pick between mic A or mic B in the budget range of things. That being said, a pair of Schoeps omni's at $2,400/pair misused will sound worse than a pair of Guitar Center Oktava MC012's (less than $200/pair) used properly.

A couple of practical books to get yourself educated in this area that could save you lots of money down the road is Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Guide or (as recently mentioned by Glenn and others) Jay Rose's book "Producing Great Sound for DV".

What you don't want to do is go on a forum, ask a broad question, pick up a mic that poster xyz says is the bee's knees, and learn that you should have gotten a whole different setup for what you're doing, but are now stuck with a shiny, new budget mic that has devalued by half by the time you opened the box.

Remember, acquiring knowledge is cheap, given time, but bad investments in the wrong kit is not.

Good luck to ya! Hope those resources help some!

Hi Harris,

Thanks for the FAQ and book recommendations! I'm gonna check out those resources.

My budget (right now anway), is around $500-700 USD. I will NOT be charging for these recordings. Although I am a musician myself and would like to use any audio set up to potentially record myself, that is not the most important priority at the moment.

This audio set up will be used maybe 70% of the time for solo or at most VERY small set ups of instrumentalists (3-5 in chamber music set ups, classical OR a guitarist and singer set ups), and yes I will be able to control where and how far I am to the musicians, as almost 90% of the recordings will be specifically for the soundtracks of the short films I am making.

Right now I have next to no audio gear, and around $500-700 USD, however I CAN wait and keep saving. I do not know what is the best way to prioritise my purchases, the main problem is balancing between LOCATION SOUND and POST PRODUCTION SOUND - both are equally important to me. For location sound, almost 80% of the stuff I do will be involving small numbers of actors' dialogue, most of the time in controlled environments and with a very small crew.

In the mean time before I make the purchase I am going to educate myself more, it's always better to know more before a purchase than just rush into it. Once again thanks for the very helpful advice.

Dennis

Glad you find the info useful.

Recording musicians is a specialty field altogether, where I am constantly learning new things, better techniques, different approaches, etc. In order to give you a general direction, I'm going to make a few broad, sweeping assumptions, and allow your research (or someone else) to fill in the spaces in between:

A) You'll be recording in an acoustically decent room
B) The musicians you're recording can control dynamics well enough to provide a controlled, stable audio feed
C) The musicians are not inclined to grab the mike and jump all over the room
D) You'll be distributing your music on a format that can take advantage of high-quality sound recording -- like DVD as opposed to web.
E) You're in this for the long haul and are willing to invest in good equipment that will provide great results, provide a good return on resell, and build your kit a bit at a time.

} 1st: Get a good mic preamp

A decent mic pre will last you a long time while you play with different mics, learn better recording techniques, change venues and learn about acoustics.

For location recording, I'd go with a Sound Devices Mixpre ($665). You can do a search and read more about this. Excellent build quality, audio quality, flexible routing, built-in limiter, bright daylight-reading LED meter, (the list goes on and on...)

If you can't afford that and will usually have access to AC power (no need for battery-powered portable units), the FMR Really Nice Preamp (RNP) ($475-ish) is a great little 2-ch. preamp that provides solid performance quality at a budget price. There are lots of really nice sounding micpre's that marry well with certain mic's, but are all cosiderably more expensive than the RNP, esp. for 2 channels.

Both can output to an MD player, ADAT, or DAT if you're capturing sound with an outboard recording device.

} 2nd: Get a good omni microphone, or rent until you can afford one

It sounds like your focus in audio recording will be music for the most part, so I'll focus my rec's on that. (These mic's can be used for VO, too, but how well they perform depends on room and voice.) Focus on mono recordings until you get your technique down well enough to produce reasonably good sounding recordings consistently, then move on to stereo, since stereo mic'ing is a whole 'nuther playing field altogether to do well.

Within your budget are the Sound-Room's RTT/Oktava MC012's ($200 a piece) with the omni capsules. I've heard some very nice recordings done with them. Scour the web and you'll find lots of great comments. Are they Neumann's or Schoeps? No. Do they do a lot for the price? Yes!

If you're renting (it's pretty cheap to rent mic's for a day and you can learn the diff's between the high-end mics by doing this), try renting a Schoeps omni (CMC6/MK2). Properly used, these are beautiful sounding mics. Other well respected omni's can be found with Neumann (KM184) and Josephson (I haven't seen these available for rent, but maybe in your area).

I have heard good things about T.H.E. Audio's mic's, but I have no direct experience with them. The pricing is a bit more reasonable for purchase than the Schoeps, Neumann, etc. Maybe someone else can chime in on these.

Okay, that should be plenty to get you started. Remember a pop-shield and shock-mount for VO, and a shock-mount and windshield (softie) for outdoor use. Otherwise, all those other resources should do you more good than this little blurb here.

BTW, a decent book for getting your hands dirty with mic'ing techniques is "Practical Recording Techniques", 3rd ed., by Bruce Bartlett. It touches the essentials enough to keep you from making disastrous mistakes.

Best of luck!

Hi Harry,

Thanks for the recommendations! I've been browsing around audio forums these few days and it does seem that the MixPre and the Octavas are highly recommended for those on a budget.

First thing I am going to do is get myself more educated and read more books/internet sites to understand recording techniques and acoustics a bit more.

Second thing I am going to do is save up a bit more before I invest in this gear.

One question: I live in NZ, thus I have to buy the Octavas/microphones from overseas. I've checked out the offers from the Soundroom, and it seems like a good deal. However, if I'm getting a matched stereo pair, are they reliable? I've heard that Octavas can be hit and miss, can I assume that the Sound Room is a reputable retailer?

Dennis

vo mic
 

To have an appreciable difference in quality over an NT3 going straight into your XL1, you will need $500 US

RØDE NT1-A or Studio Projects C1 ($200)
into
ART Pro Channel ($300)
into your 2496.

This will be an enormous, audible jump. The next really doesn't come until $1,200, which opens up some options but seems to be beyond your budget.

The RØDE NT4 is a fantastic stereo mic, I have one, but definitely NOT for vocals/VO. It is also too extremely sensitive to handling noise for most field recording, unless you have a pretty controlled environment with a mic stand + shockmount.

You can do stereo recordings with a mono microphone by overdubbing and panning in a DAW of your choice, also adding stereo reverb and delays to widen the sound.

Ignore at your own risk ;)

oktavas
 

Oktavas from the Sound Room are 100% reliable, but expensive, and unless your focus will be stereo recording, not the route I would take. The whole point of ordering from them is to get a perfect pair, which runs about $500.

Their M1 mod is incredible, and highly recommended, but not cheap, and kind of a specialty, boutique item. It's a mic that can be very flattering in some cases, but not a "realistic" mic. Kind of the opposite of a "reference" microphone.

Also remember, getting a perfect pair means also investing in a two-channel preamp strip, which as you might imagine, is more expensive than a one-channel preamp strip.

Hi Scott,

Thanks a lot for the advice and recommendations. I find myself lacking in this kind of knowledge, so what I'm gonna do is not purchase ANYTHING for now, and actually learn more about audio recording, then deciding for myself what I need the most in my situation. This will also give me a chance to save up more and hopefully jump in at a higher level to begin with. With that in mind I will probably eventually check out the Rode offerings and perhaps AT microphones. I'm trying to find the balance between music and location recording (as in my current situation I have to do both myself).

Dennis

mics
 

sounds wise. fact is, there's no one mic that will do everything for you, so you're probably looking at having several mics (sorry to break it to ya).

Hey Dennis,

Good plan of attack you've got for yourself. Glad to hear it!

About the Sound Room Oktava's... I'd disagree here with Scott. The Sound Room RTT/Oktava's aren't just for stereo pair matching. They're for solid quality control and predictable response even if you buy one now, but decide to get another later. They won't be "matched" per se, but they'll be close enough for most applications. E-mail Sound Room and ask some questions. They're very customer friendly. The Oktava's you get at Guitar Center here in the States are the ones that have the reputation of being unreliable with wide variance between mics. People have opened the casing to find globs of flux still remaining, wide variance in resistor and capacitor values, cold solder joints, and a host of other manufacturing issues. The RTT/Oktava's get more closely scrutinized and screened before getting to your hands.

About the NT3's... a great mic for its purpose... easy coincident XY stereo recording... period. Quick to setup without much fuss, but VERY restrictive in versatility. It wouldn't be my first choice in mics to get as anyone's first mic, since you REALLY should be mastering MONO recording techniques before going to stereo (esp. for your applications)... believe me when I say they are fairly different recording techniques to do properly. If you absolutely must have stereo recording off the bat, go for a pair of Rode NT4's or RTT/Oktava's. They both do a reasonable job for the price they're at. Be forewarned that both these mics have very distinctively different sound characteristics, so TRY THEM OUT before you buy them (if you get the chance). The capsules used in the NT3's and NT4's (identical in design) gradually roll off above 10k, so if you ever need to, say, capture the delicate nuances of a fine classical guitar... you're SOL with the NT4's. Also, with the NT3's/4's, you're fixed with a cardioid polar pattern, while you're able to get omni's or hyper's with the RTT/Oktava's. Don't get me wrong, I have a pair of NT4's, so don't think I think they're bad mics. They are useful as long as you understand their limitations.

Either of these mics, properly setup can POTENTIALLY work well for VO *with the right voice*. You'll find as you get into this more, that matching the right mic to the voice is a skill learned through lots of trial and error. There's no set rule here. The ever popular Neumann TLM103's used in pop vocal recordings work great on some voices, while other vocalists have had horrible luck with them. In the end, you'll find (should you choose to delve so deeply) that it's matching the right components up and down the chain combined with the acoustic recording space and technique that yields the best quality -- the most important component being the talent and material. A good story to illustrate this is some of Joe Pass' early cafe recordings in Berkeley. Any jazz guitarist will be able to listen to those recordings and immediately recognize it's him and get into his performance, despite the recordings being mediocre at best.

Also, as with any studio mic, you'll need a good pop-filter, stand and shock-mount to keep them isolated while you try to keep people off your mics (they shouldn't have to be handled while you're recording... if they do, you need a whole different type of mic altogether).

As far as picking the right mic goes, while I realize that you're in NZ, you might try posting on rec.audio.pro or here to see if there are any other New Zealander's near you who are willing to do a mic shootout with you over a weekend. It should be fun and an enlightening learning experience.

As for preamps, now, I'm not a fan of ART equipment, but maybe that's 'cuz I've never been exposed to their higher quality stuff, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt... but I'm of the mind that if you're going to spend $300 on a preamp, you might as well go for the RNP, which is killer in build and output quality, while it will last you a LONG time. It's really the minimum I'd spend on a AC-powered preamp. Remember the Mixpre is a battery-powered field mixer.

You DO have the good fortune of starting out with a lot of right ideas and attitude before you spend a penny on equipment. You've got the right mindset about saving to purchase equipment that will stand the test of time. You'll find keeping those ideals in mind will do you well in the long-run.

Best of luck to ya, and drop us a line when you've sorted some of this out!

oktava + art
 

If I had $650 to spend, I might consider an MK012 with both hypercardioid and omni capsule, and add an M1 or M3 head.

http://sound-room.com/customer/product.php?productid=15&cat=2&page=1

Then you have an interesting microphone that I can use in diverse situations. In many, I personally feel the coloration would be too noticeable (piano and certain voice types come to mind). But it would be fun.

If I had $400 to spend on a small diaphragm mic, for strings and drum overheads, I'd definitely get the MK012 from the Sound Room. In fact, I did get an MK012, and tested and returned it myself until I found the best one, all for $99. But not everyone has the experience or patience to do that, so I can see paying a little more ($100 though?) for that. Moving on...

If I had $200 to get a mic for a one-mic studio, I would get the Studio Projects C1, or possibly the RØDE NT1-A. It wouldn't "flatter"in a few applications, but then again, it wouldn't mess with them. And they would be much more usable with a variety of voices (male, female, etc.).

If someone was telling me to get an MK012 for VO work... well, to each his or her own, I guess.

Re: Microphone for VO AND Music
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Dennis Liu : Hi,

Right now I have an XL1 and a minidisc recorder. In the short films that I will be making, I will be doing a lot of voice-over work.

In addition to that, for most of the music of the short films, I will be finding local musicians or myself to play the music and be recording either directly into the camera or into the MD recorder.

On a side note, I also have the M-Audio 2496 sound card... Is it possible for me to record voice-over work directly into the computer?

My question now is, if I'm on a budget, what's a good microphone to get that could be good for recording instruments (esp. piano, guitar, violin), AND be good for voice-over (and also interviews in very controlled environments)? Just to note, this is NOT a microphone I will be using during shoots, it is purely for recording things in post production.


Thank you,
Dennis -->>>


Dennis,

You're in NZ. Get a Rode NT2-A for studio work. I've heard it.

Regrards,

Ty Ford

art
 

Ty, do you mean the NT1-A ($200) or the NT2-A ($400)? Either way, I agree, but it outclasses the alternatives.

No amount of salt can restore the flavor of an ignorant opinion. You've never used it. Isn't that "end of story?" I have used the RNP, and agree that it's a good preamp.... however, you are comparing a $500 solid state preamp to a $300 tube channel strip, including preamp, compressor and EQ. Is that a good comparison?

At least read the review/description here:

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/052CE8CB2FAAC9818625687A00752A7B

As I mention elsewhere, the desktop ART gear is worthless. But their blackface rackmounted series is unbeatable at the pricepoint. If you replace the Chinese tubes with Telefunkens, you have yourself one steal of a deal.

I'm not choosing it over my Universal Audio + Manley's, but that's a $4,000 investment.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the suggestions. Now I have a few mics written down that I could consider, the next thing is trying them out. Also I guess you're all right in saying, if I have a good story and am really careful and methodical with what I have right now, I'm still going to get a quality result. For example dialogue, while audio people might immediately tell it's not a 'high quality' microphone, the audience will be engrossed in the content and emotion that is in the voices rather than focussed on these technical details.

I guess it's about improving production values until you're at a point when the equipment you're using does not hinder your storytelling progress or distract the audience from the actual story. Any more/higher quality would be for those who had the financial resources. However, all these options are certainly interesting.

Problem with New Zealand I guess is that it's hard to have a good selection to try out, however, I think right now with the NZ dollar quite high, it'd be a good couple of months to buy from overseas. I'll report back when I've sorted it out.

Thanks everyone,
Dennis

Harris had his Rode model numbers a little scrambled. Just for clarification, the NT3 is a single hypercardioid mic with a mid-sized diaphragm (3/4-inch). It can run on battery or phantom power.
The NT4 shares the same BODY with the NT3 but it shares the CAPSULE design with the NT5's.
The NT4 is a single-point X-Y stereo mic. Each capsule is a cardioid and they are mounted at 90 degrees to each other.
The NT5, which requires phantom power, is sold in stereo pairs. They are two mics which you can mount any way you want.
If you don't add any more equipment that can supply phantom power, and the Rode mics are still in your consideration, I'd recommend two NT3's over a single NT4. You'd have more flexibility in how you record, and the NT3 will work for VO even though it's not specifically intended for that role.
As I originally said though, you should also look at adding a preamp or mixer, like those that have since been suggested.

Hi Jay,

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I'm DEFINITELY looking at phantom-powered microphones for the future and a field mixer soon when I can afford it, as this will give me a bigger range of microphones to choose from (over just battery powered).

Dennis

woah there...
 

Woah, there. Gonna disagree with you on that.

While audio people might immediately tell it's not a "high quality" microphone, the audience will simply think "meh, it was okay. Seemed kinda cheap, and the acting could have been better. And you know, it really seemed to meander after the first 20 minutes. Pretty good for an independent, I guess."

That's generally how audiences react to poor audio.

"Wow, that was so much better than I was expecting. Honestly, it's a hell of a lot better than most of the stuff you see from Hollywood. Good acting, great story."

That's generally how audiences react to good audio.

I think you misunderstood what you meant Scot.

What I mean is that beyond an 'acceptable' level of audio quality, the rest is for those who can afford it financially. For example if I was to make two recordings of the same conversation with two microphones, and if in both recordings, the content of the dialogue came out very clearly, it would have achieved what I call its 'base purpose'. Obviously, filmmaking is a lot more than just achieving the lowest common denominator, and a higher quality microphone may give you a more accurate reproduction of a voices' tonal character, etc. and so on, and this would obviously contribute to making a better movie. However I think when discussing the differences in microphones is merely between what is 'acceptable' to 'very good' to 'outstanding' for a particular application, for none of us would be looking to buy a microphone that offered 'poor audio'.

Dennis

mistunderstanding
 

Either a typo, or one of the more creative insults I've come across. I might just have use that one in the future. ;)

Let me try to make my point another way.

Have you ever been in an apartment when suddenly a loud refridgerator turns off? The feeling is one of surprised relaxation, not even realizing that the noise was there, and annoying you.

That is the only way I can explain the world of non-audio people, who are complete mysteries to me (as I'm sure I am to them). We hear and emotionally/psychically respond to the exact same things, but for non-audio people, it is entirely unrecognized, and usually displaced. Hence my examples of people reacting to audio - sound quality is never, ever mentioned, even if it's what they're reacting to.

Ever been to an Indian restaurant where they ask "mild" or "spicy?" Why can't there be a universal system of measurement for spice!?! Like celsius or Kelvin. "I would like mine between 43 and 56 Kelvin, please."

Unfortunately, we are stuck with relativist terms for things. Maybe what you call 'poor audio' is what I call 'the eleventh circle of hell," or something. But I'm hardly a snob - I've recommended a $500 system that I think is better than any other mentioned, and I mean it's really, damn good, but one that audio snobs would laugh me off the street for mentioning.

You can afford it - you have an XL1. This means you have allocated significant resources to video image quality. I actually use a PDX-10 (the cheapest 3-CCD camera with phantom powered XLR's when I purchased it), because I probably had the same video budget as you, only I wanted to allocate more to audio quality, because that's my focus, and it tends to be as important to the viewer's experience as video quality. (I am being generous here, audio is MORE important by a factor of 2). So let's leave money out of it.

I agree with others that you are approaching this the right way. I actually think you should pull the trigger ASAP - slow and steady is great until you factor in the opportunity cost of not recording decent sound for however long.

You happened to say something that I disagree with. But I misunderstand what I mean all the time. :o)

My apologies Scot, I meant "I" not "you"... ;o)

Yeah, I agree that it's hard to quantify 'audio quality' as everyone has had different experience and standards (like a poor musician would think they were great only until they've heard better), plus the addition factor that each person would be looking for something different when it comes to sound, video, food, television programs, books, drinks, etc. It's all about what your preferences are. However I believe there is somewhat of an 'objective' standard for 'audio quality', but I wouldn't know what that is yet because of my very limited experience (complete newbie? :D).

In the case of Slow and Steady vs. ASAP, after these few weeks of research and thinking, I've decided to reach a compromise between the two. Here's my plan so far:

1) I am definitely getting a mixer/preamp before I begin production for my next short, either a MixPre or 302.
2) I am definitely getting a phantom powered pair of microphones before I begin production/post for my next short, e.g. Oktavas.

My plan is to start with this base set and get a bit more experience with using these, then add microphones of different characteristics to this set as time goes on to give me more versatility.

Now that I think about it, this beginning 'set-up'/kit (two Octavas and a MixPre) should give me significantly better audio than the built-in XL1 microphone PLUS give me the opportunity to learn how to work with a boom and various recording techniques. What do you guys think?

Thanks Scot, sorry 'bout the typo lol...
Dennis

Hey Jay,

Thanks for the correction. I did scramble up the model numbers. I've been half-awake this week as I've attempted to help Dennis out since I've been getting up at o-dark-thirty and working 'til late on a project that's rapidly spinning to a deadline that looks like an oncoming Mack truck. That state includes what I'm writing now. Again, thanks for the clarification.

Scot,

I apologize as I mixed up your recommendation with the NT3's and NT4's, as I have the NT5's. You're also right about not having used the blackface Art equipment, so I really can't say one way or the other. So Dennis, you're doing the right thing in trying stuff out.

You're making some good points that are well taken and some good recommendations on budget equipment. On the Rodes, I do agree they're great products at the price-point, so no argument from me here.

okay, last email on this
 

Sounds good.

Let me help clarify your decision, as far as I understand it:

Configuration:
- MixPre $680
- Oktavas MK012 (pair) $400
- Total $1080, base

- PRIORITIZES Room sound, ambience, environmental noises, acoustic music, strings, acoustic guitar. Field recording. Portability.
- SACRIFICES Voiceover

NOTE: You must get decent shockmounts and foam windscreens for the MK012's for any field use. They are sensitive and designed for use in the studio.

Remember, the MK012's are not better than the XL1 microphone. They have different uses, and you will want to know when to use that XL1. The MK12 do NOT reject off-axis noise, for example!

EDIT: Are people really suggesting an MK012 for Boom operation here?

Hi Scot,

Umm... I think the reason people recommended the Oktavas was because part of my original 'criteria' was that I'd be using the microphones heavily to record music (esp. from acoustic instruments). Can you explain to me why the Oktavas are not good for voice-overs?

I've just found a local retailer who stocks Oktavas (New Zealand, they're out of stock now, but he says they're coming soon). I'll have to try them out to REALLY know how sensitive they are to handling noise, and also check out some shockmount/boom options. In addition I'm gonna make some comparisons with the Rodes too...

As for the Oktavas not rejecting off axis noise, hmm... I guess my next purchase would have to be a decent shotgun (?).

Dennis

Dennis,
Regarding the 2496, you can record directly into your laptop with that, no sweat. You'll have great sound as well. Better than the camera or minidisk sound.

I'd echo the Rode' recommendation. Great mic overall. If you had a bigger budget, I'd recommend the AT 40 series; even though they are small diaphragm, they are excellent for field work and excellent for most studio work unless you're dealing with very high SPL. They are also costly.

I suppose they are fine, though not my preference, for voiceover work. Your configuration is not geared towards VO. Not just the mic choice - having a decent large-diaphragm mic, preamp and compressor will help improve and control the sound of a variety of vocals going in to your 2496.

The reason we like small diaphragm mics is that they pick up a wide field of sound, and they flatter most acoustic instruments with subtle coloration. The best Oktavas definitely "color" the input signal, in a way that is flattering (relatively speaking for a low-priced mic) to drums as overheads, or up close guitars and medium-close strings. There are *some* voices that it can flatter too, but I don't have that down to a science - much easier for me to reach for other mics that are more flexible with vocals.

The reason we like the mixpre is that it is portable - not necessary for VO.

For what you are doing, I would recommend having the following mics:

RØDE NT4 *or* 2 matched Oktava MK012's
- for live recording of ambient sound in somewhat controlled settings.
- $400-500

Studio Projects C1 *or* NT1-A
ART Pro Channel
- for Vocals, VO
- $500

Audio Technica 4073a
- for boom work where directionality is needed.
- $825 incl. shockmount, windsock, pistol grip
- too much? Either stick with the XL1, or look at the Schribers at zotzdigital.com, or the Azdens, and make your own boom with their included shockmounts and some pvc pipe. Cheap but they do the job.

There is simply no way to have it all in one, so pick the configuration that meets your current needs the most.

Hi,

Yeah, I guess I'm gonna have to go with making my own DIY shockmounts for now, as I'm also making my own dolly system etc. It'll be practical at least, a good alternative.

As for the Rodes, what about the NT5's? This would give me the same as the NT4's but the ability of two separate bodies... I wonder how they compare to the Oktavas?

Dennis

Not counting sonic differences (which among fairly flat small-diaphragm condensers can be very hard to quantify) the Oktava's can be had with omni, cardioid, hypercardioid, or large diaphragm cardioid heads. The NT5's are cardioid only.
I have an Oktava from the Sound Room with the cardioid and hypercardioid capsules. My cardioid sounds very open, airy and detailed but without sounding overly bright or harsh.
My NT5 pair sounds more sterile, and seem to have a tighter pickup pattern.
I generally prefer my AT3031's over the NT5's. Mine are a little quieter and sound more open, but still have a tighter pattern than the Oktava cardioid.
None of them would be my primary choice for VO. They don't give the pleasant warmth of a larger diaphragm mic that's intended for that type of work.

I see... so I guess it's the Oktavas then...

So how about a pair of AT3031's? (from B&H)... These seem to be cheaper than the Oktavas but are cardoid too.... better than NT5's tho huh?

Dennis

Hmmmmm... what Jay said. ;-)

Seriously, my experiences comparing the MC012's (Sound Room) and the NT5's are in the same vein as Jay's comments.

The reason none of us recommend SDC's for VO is because they rarely flatter a voice - sterility comes to mind. Though I said that they are an option for VO earlier, my own personal experience is that on most voices, LDC's do flatter more, thus they sound better to most people's ears. As I posted in an earlier thread about mics for VO, I've never settled on an SDC for final VO takes (meaning, on occasion, I try them, ALWAYS end up with an LDC), but I have spoken to a few people who have and like the results. It's like Scot says, it's just easier to reach for a mic that you know can do the job instead of burning precious time finding the "perfect" mic (of course, there are engineers that do that, and may they have much more time/budget/intelligence than I). In the end, try, try, TRY to get your hands on a few different mics and do some test runs with whoever will be predominately doing your VO work. Check out the earlier thread on Microphones for VO for the rhyme and reason about the VO side of things. Variance in voice is far more dramatic than the variance between a MC012 and NT5. Your chain starts with the talent as being the first link.

Scot's question about the MC012 on a boom reminded me of a poster a few months back who was putting together a low-low-no-budget audio rig using a MC012 on a homemade boom (light pole from Home Depot) with a DIY fuzzy windshield to be hooked up to his laptop in his backpack. Never heard what came of that...