Bought a RODE videomic! - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > All Things Audio

All Things Audio
Everything Audio, from acquisition to postproduction.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 22nd, 2005, 07:29 AM   #31
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Posts: 2,323
Welcome to the Wall Of Science!

Rode makes a mini to XLR adapter that works with the VideoMic. I can't guarantee that the one you may have will work. Theirs will. (In earlier models, the was a problem pluggin into an XLR input with Phantom Power turned on.

They straightened that out very quickly, but ONLY had the problem IF the Phantom Supply was on.

Ty Ford
Ty Ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2005, 07:34 AM   #32
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ty Ford
Welcome to the Wall Of Science!

Rode makes a mini to XLR adapter that works with the VideoMic. I can't guarantee that the one you may have will work. Theirs will. (In earlier models, the was a problem pluggin into an XLR input with Phantom Power turned on.

They straightened that out very quickly, but ONLY had the problem IF the Phantom Supply was on.

Ty Ford
Well, I have the DXA-6 and it only has power on one channel, and that can even be switched off. My small 3 foot cable that is a mini to XLR works with my Beachtek, so I figure if I just attached a longer cable cable to it and ran it up a pole, then it shouldn't have a problem.
Thanks for the reply.
Brett Whited is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2005, 09:00 AM   #33
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 916
Is there any advantage at all in hooking up an unbalanced mic via a passive XLR adapter at the mic end? My understanding is that the voltage difference between the two (opposite polarity) balanced lines is where your signal comes from. If the mic is not an XLR mic, I'd assume that the necessary electronics are not there to provide balanced inputs. If the advantage is in the twisted pair configuration of xlr cables, one wonders if a lenth of CAT5 network cable wouldn't work just as well for unbalanced extensions? On my jib, I have a 12 foot CAT5 carrying video and audio back to the monitor. This works well.
Dennis Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2005, 09:10 AM   #34
DVCreators.Net
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 888
I have tested the RODE Videomic via the RODE accessory called the "VXLR", a mini to XLR adapter and ran 20' XLR cables no problem.

I have also tried a 10' Radio Snak 1/8" extension cable and had interference. RODE makes a 10' 1/8" to 1/8" extension cable that sounds perfect - oh wait, that is unless you have a cell phone. I have heard cell phones causing interference on a few different mics. Test your cell phone by turning it off and then on with a pair of cans (headphones) while recording. Play it back and see if there is any audible interference.
__________________
Guy Cochran
DVinfo Sponsor, Cool Gear - DVeStore!
Guy Cochran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2005, 09:57 AM   #35
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Posts: 2,323
[QUOTE=Dennis Wood]Is there any advantage at all in hooking up an unbalanced mic via a passive XLR adapter at the mic end?

**Yes and the sooner (shorter) the better as long as you are plugging it into a balanced input.


My understanding is that the voltage difference between the two (opposite polarity) balanced lines is where your signal comes from.

**Pretty Much

If the mic is not an XLR mic, I'd assume that the necessary electronics are not there to provide balanced inputs.

**Well yes, but you can balance an unbalanced source with a transformer. That's what direct boxes do.

If the advantage is in the twisted pair configuration of xlr cables, one wonders if a lenth of CAT5 network cable wouldn't work just as well for unbalanced extensions? On my jib, I have a 12 foot CAT5 carrying video and audio back to the monitor. This works well.

**Twisting is part of the benefit because it is part of the phenomenon known as common mode rejection. Increased level due to having two wires carry the signal instead of just one also helps and the shield around those two wires also helps.


Regards,

Ty Ford
Ty Ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2005, 09:37 AM   #36
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PAL Zone
Posts: 188
How much better is this then the FX1 standard built in one?
Jim Rog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2005, 11:09 AM   #37
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
It's a little better, but the mike in the FX 1 is pretty good for an on-camera mic. The Rode is mono, shock mounted, and will provide a slightly better pickup of close sources than the on-camera mic. The bigger advantage to any off-camera mic is just that; it's off-camera, meaning it can be closer to the source.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2005, 01:28 PM   #38
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 33
Here is my question... I come from a lighting background (mostly) usually with concert lighting/theatrical lighting and such, but wouldnt it be a good idea to run the mic into a DI box or something to up the voltage to a higher *Gain* (if thats the right word that i am looking for ... not sure.. ) so that when the signal transmits through the cable you will still pick up interference, but then the mixer, or whatever wont have to up the volume AFTER the interference has been added?

I learned while working with I&MT (the video UWM guys) department that wireless microphones are at a RF frequency and when it comes into the receiver that is is at LINE level, and many times when you come out of the receiver you are bringing back down to MIC level only to bring it back up again in the mixer. Luckily all of our receivers have a switch on the back which allows us to select line, and it really helps eliminate hiss or anything associated with unwanted noise.

SO is this a feasable solution, or is my brain (which is intended for lighting) just looking at this all wrong?

Thanks,
Max
Max Liptack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2005, 02:05 PM   #39
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,259
[QUOTE=Max Liptack]...wouldnt it be a good idea to run the mic into a DI box or something to up the voltage to a higher *Gain* ...
******************
A typical DI is a passive device and does not provide any gain, on the contrary at best it is a "unity gain" device and frequently decreases gain (or voltage - not exactly the same thing).

If you look inside a passive DI you'll find only a transformer, used to modify a high-impedance unbalanced source to a low-impedance balanced output.

There are two benefits:
1) Low-impedance signals can be sent over hundreds of feed of high-quality cable without appreciable degradation.
2) Balanced circuitry is MUCH more resistant to radio-frequency interference and 60-cycle hum from power sources.

At least that's true for a good-quality passive DI. There are also active DIs which are essentially a preamp and transformer, some of which provide gain, they are usually powered by phantom, some by batteries. But it's still a preamp, whether the preamp is in an active DI, a separate device, a mixer, or in the camcorder.

Use the best quality preamp you can manage, usually this will be in the mixer for field work.

Although there are some incredible stand-alone preamps they are used more often in the audio studio or music recording than in typical field video.

***********
[QUOTE=Max Liptack] ...I learned... that wireless microphones are at a RF frequency and when it comes into the receiver that is is at LINE level, and many times when you come out of the receiver you are bringing back down to MIC level only to bring it back up again in the mixer. Luckily all of our receivers have a switch on the back which allows us to select line, and it really helps eliminate hiss or anything associated with unwanted noise.
***********
There is no hard and fast rule here - what sounds good IS good. If your wireless receivers sound better at line level out then by all means use it. But the next receiver you use might sound better at mic level - go figure. Best to test each piece of new gear you use to establish how it sounds best. There there are many, many options in setting up the right gain structure.
Seth Bloombaum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2011, 04:12 PM   #40
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 138
Re: Bought a RODE videomic!

hmmm.. interesting thread! All these years later im reading it?!!! If any of you guys still around.. im using xm2... i think the onboard mic is fantastic.. BUT.. the usual camera noise problem!
Now on reading this thread im now a little confused! Will the Rode mic here be the boy or am i gonna find the sound range limited.. to a meter or 2 in front? ! Im gonna be doing weddings.. the ones i have done so far the audio has been great in terms of clarity.. and level.. it picks up everything.. shame about screaming kiddies etc..and the camera noise which is only really audible during quiet parts of the service.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RODE-Videomic-...item5d2dc96a72

or am i best suited to something like this? money is tight!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Audio-Technica...item519526b17c
__________________
StMichael
Michael Connor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 8th, 2011, 08:20 PM   #41
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arcata, Ca
Posts: 750
Re: Bought a RODE videomic!

Michael Any mic you use is limited to about 3 feet for dialogue. You're not supposed to be picking up people n a wedding from 10 feet away. You need to get a lav on them. A rode VideoMic is a decent beginner mic, but even with a 1,000.00 mic you will get bad results if you are not right up on them. A shotgun mic is to be used more like within 12" - 18" from the mouth ideally. The further away you get, the more ambient sound you pick up. It's just physics. If there is someone between you and your subject, you will pck up that person louder than your subject. For weddings you need a couple of lavs, a mic on every camera, and possibly a feed from the PA to get what the officiant is saying. I usually put a lavon the groom, lav on the officiant, and get a board feed. then I'm covered.

Sorry money is tight but there is no fix for too few mics other than buying more mics. You gotta pay to play...
__________________
My Work: http://www.youtube.com/ChadWork1
Sony FS5 :: Panasonic GH4 :: Sony PMW-EX1 :: FCPx :: AT4053b :: Rode NTG-3,
Chad Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2011, 04:15 AM   #42
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 138
Re: Bought a RODE videomic!

Thanks for that.
I aim to be unobtruseive! I am a beginner really.. done 4 weddings only one paid but at mates rates lol! Ive got a 2nd xm2 on its way so with 2 cameras i wanna make some cash. (i wouldnt dare charge people good money with one cam!)
Folks round here are charging min 650 and using one camera! I really gont get it! With one cam your gonna have to cut it up so much whereas with.. ideally 3 cameras you can do full length and not go dull....
However audio... in 2 of the weddings i was happy with onboard audio (minus motor noise in quiet moments) ... and picking up everything. I managed to hide away behind a pillow... and even a baby cry fitted in so well.. as the speaker was reading from bible about a voice crying at the same time!
But.. on one of them.. yea many coughs and multiple children screams people yawning and picking noses... it was horrible.
The idea of sticking a mic on groom does not appeal to me i want minimum fuss.. and the twice ive asked hot a hook up to the mixing dest (minidisk) the priest and organ player looked terrified!

Im thinkin maybe a shotgun mic plugged into a mini disk and put on a stand next to the mic stand in the bride/ groom area... And a good quality stereo mic that will fit on the front camera that is not so directional? Just to get rid of motor hum?
As for the rear camera maybe ill just leave it with onboard sound... as back up for things going wrong at front?
I did not realise that shotgun mics had to be so close to the subject i thought 6 to 15 feet would be fine.
__________________
StMichael
Michael Connor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2011, 07:20 AM   #43
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Walworth, NY
Posts: 291
Re: Bought a RODE videomic!

If your budget allows, look into a wireless setup. I know you said you want to be unobtrusive but going with the set up you described with a stand mic will result in voices that trail away or become inaudible as the bride and groom turn back and forth or just turn their head to talk.

As a general rule the groom tends to be taller and clipping a mic on his sternum area will have the bride talking right at it when they are facing each other and capturing their voices during the vows to me is paramount. Not hearing the vows in the final product can be quite.......uncomfortable.

As far as leaving the onboard mic running on the second camera at the rear, all you will capture is the ambient noise you are trying to eliminate and will be little to no help "filling in" where the front mic you described was lacking.

I own the Rode SVM (Stereo video Mic) and feel it is a great value. I like the sound and it would be a better "front" mic in your set up, and handles off-axis sound better, but you would still be at the whim of the changing levels. Good luck!
__________________
Dave Chilson
www.loc.org
David Chilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2011, 01:07 PM   #44
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,359
Re: Bought a RODE videomic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Wood View Post
If the advantage is in the twisted pair configuration of xlr cables, one wonders if a lenth of CAT5 network cable wouldn't work just as well for unbalanced extensions?
Low-Z mic cable is twisted pair and it is shielded. Cat 5 cable is not shielded.

You can pick up two kinds of electrical noise: electromagnetically induced (typically hum) and electrostatically induced (typically buzz, clicks, pops, RF noise). Shielding helps against both noise types, especially if the circuit is not perfectly balanced, and especially at higher frequencies (such as RF), and especially at low levels such as mic level. The physical dimension of the cable is a very small fraction of a wavelength at low hum frequencies like 60 Hz, but becomes closer to a wavelength as the frequency goes up. By the time you're at high audio frequencies, or low RF range, the twist will provide less and less immunity against noise pickup; therefore shielding becomes more important.

For example, telephone landlines use twisted pair unshielded wire, that can run for many miles without significant hum problems. (Of course telephones don't reproduce much below 300 Hz, so hum would be rolled off by the telephone electronics.) Broadcasters used to use wire pairs in the same telephone cables, to transport analog audio from the studio to the transmitter site. Those broadcast circuits were sharply bandpassed at 15kHz or lower, and transformer balanced at both ends. Also, those broadcast lines were run at a fairly high level (more or less 0 dBm). At those levels, and with the phone company having control over line balance, noise was not a terrible problem. (Still, making S/N of -60dB was sometimes a challenge.)

Running mic level, which will be many dB lower in level, without any shielding, will likely be plagued with noise pickup... especially with longer cable runs, or with direct op-amp inputs that don't have a transformer to protect against high-frequency common-mode noise.

Also, good mic line, like Belden 8412, is typically 20ga. Cat 5 is a much smaller wire size, so the electrical resistance is much higher. That means Cat 5 will have more signal loss with really long cable runs.
Greg Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2011, 04:47 AM   #45
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 138
Re: Bought a RODE videomic!

(david)
Thanks mate.. after spending hours reading etc i too have come to conclusion that the rode stereo mic might be best option for the front camera.
To be fair ive never missed any speech at a wedding. The fact that they come through a tannoy helps.. and if it werent for motor noise the xm2 onboard mic would be crackin! I have used audio from rear camera once due to a problem with tape ravel on my other tape.. i got away with it okay using a fade and there was not any echo or anything.. i thought there was at one point but only as audio had gone out of sync!
I mean i wanna step up the quality of my audio if im gonna start charging people but i notice as you do this there are more technical elements to worry about! Rather than hitting auto sound level and worrying more about being in right place at the right time!

So yea i think ill keep an eye on the rhode stereo mike and await for a bargain.
I think i had this fantasy that i could stick a shotgun mic on and zoom it to where i want 15 to 25 foot away and just kinda fade between other 'pick up everything' audio sources at opportune moments.. ie i want to hear everything if theres a laugh or a hand clap or cheer.. ner mind plod on!
__________________
StMichael
Michael Connor is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > All Things Audio

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:51 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network