Audio for Documentary - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Documentary Techniques

Documentary Techniques
-- Discuss issues facing documentary production.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 4th, 2006, 02:17 AM   #31
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 595
Thanks for the link Douglas! That's a really interesting article! Concidering you got usable audio in a very loud environment with quite some distance between the person speaking and the microphone, it makes me wonder if maybe the
AT4053 would be a good option to have on-camera use?

Sorry Jarrod, I've worded a lot of things in this thread badly. When I said backup/atmos, I was thinking more along the lines of capturing EVERYTHING (dialog and background noise) just incase the lav audio was of poor quality.
Chris Hocking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2006, 09:54 AM   #32
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
Chris, I'd probably choose my 4051 for on-camera over a 4053, but the end result would be similar.
I dunno if you've ever been in a twin engine turbine with no door, but trust me when I tell you it's one of the loudest, constantly noisy environments there is, at all frequency ranges. It took me 10-12 jumpruns to figure out a good mic configuration. Lavs don't work on skydivers for obvious reasons.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2006, 11:58 AM   #33
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle
...It took me 10-12 jumpruns to figure out a good mic configuration...
And there's another piece of good advice - after your first bus ride listen very carefully to the results!

Regarding use of a lav in a noisy environment, be aware that most lavs, wired or wireless, are omni-directional. Cardoids may be had, too, but the Senn 100G2 will come stock with an omni. So, it will be very sensitive to all environmental sound, and depends on proximity to the speaker. If it's close, the speaker is louder than the environment.

Be aware also - this is a terrible environment for auto-gain on most camcorders. Auto-gain will tend to increase the recording volume of the noisy background sounds between people speaking. You don't want that, a manual constant recording volume will keep background sounds at background levels.
Seth Bloombaum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2006, 07:13 PM   #34
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 595
Thanks Douglas. I will see if I can hunt down a 4051 for a test drive. Just to clarify, do you honestly think it could pick up "useable" audio if it were mounted on a camera, say 1.5m away?

Trouble is Seth, this project is very much going to be "play it by ear". I have a rough idea of the shooting environments, but they are VERY likely to change. I've been doing a lot of planning, although at the end of the day I'm going to have to just "make it happen" in a lot of cases. That's why I want to get a very verstile set of equipment ready.

Yes, you're right the Sennheiser ew 112-p G2 Wireless Kit comes with an omni mic. If I do end up purchasing this kit (which I think I will), I may purchase a ME4 cardiod lapel mic as well.

I never use the cameras auto-gain feature, so that's not an issue.
Chris Hocking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2006, 08:33 PM   #35
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 595
Has anyone used a ME67 before? The info sheet says "microphone must be placed at a distance from the sound source". Would this kind of microphone be more appropriate for placing on-camera?

I've also been investigating microphones that have been designed for on-camera use such as the Sennheiser MKE300 Video Camera Mic and the Rode VideoMic. Has anyone had any experience with these kinds of products? I guess I'd have to get an adapter to convert the mini-jack to XLR. A lot of people have complained about the MKE300 on this forum, but I'm just wondering in a more general sense if these kinds of products are more appropriate?

And, if the Rode Video Mic would be the better option, then what about the other Rode options such as the RODE NTG-1/2? They use XLR which means no need for silly little adapters.

For anyone who's interested, this is also a really interesting post. Dean uses a AT4051 on-camera with good results.

While I'm just throwing mics out there, how about the Sony ECM-678 Shotgun or the Panasonic AG-MC100G Microphone?

At this stage, I'm concidering the wireless kit (with a cardiod lapel), and possibly a 4051. What's the best method to attach the 4051 to a Z1P? Will it fix nicely in the standard mic holder? Is the standard mic holder "shock proof" enough? Is there a better option?

Sorry for all the questions! But, better to be safe than sorry! Knowledge is power!
Chris Hocking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2006, 06:45 AM   #36
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hocking
Thanks Douglas. I will see if I can hunt down a 4051 for a test drive. Just to clarify, do you honestly think it could pick up "useable" audio if it were mounted on a camera, say 1.5m away?

Trouble is Seth, this project is very much going to be "play it by ear". I have a rough idea of the shooting environments, but they are VERY likely to change. I've been doing a lot of planning, although at the end of the day I'm going to have to just "make it happen" in a lot of cases. That's why I want to get a very verstile set of equipment ready.

Yes, you're right the Sennheiser ew 112-p G2 Wireless Kit comes with an omni mic. If I do end up purchasing this kit (which I think I will), I may purchase a ME4 cardiod lapel mic as well.

I never use the cameras auto-gain feature, so that's not an issue.

IMHO 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the subject for a mic is borderline for good audio but in most cases it seems to me it would still be an awfully close camera position unless you're shooting something like an ECU of a violinist playing or a jeweler's hands as he works on a piece etc. With a still camera you'd never shoot a portrait from that distance, for example. From MS down to CU of people with dialog I'd expect to be 3 to 5 metres away, or even farther, so you can compose your framing with a short telephoto focal length setting on the lens and avoid the wide-angle distortion effects to the image you get with closer camera positions and "normal" focal length settings.
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams!
Steve House is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2006, 10:04 AM   #37
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Media, PA
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hocking
Tim, slightly off topic, but anyway: how does the MKH50 indoors compare to a high quality lapel? From what I've read and to some extent experienced, a [hyper]cardiod would sound superior to a boom in, say a bathroom.
I think it's a fabulous sounding mic. I have used it to record piano several times and think it sounds great. It sound equally as good on voice to me. I think by now everybody has said a piece about hypers vs. shotguns vs. lavs, so I won't go into that. I will say that sometimes a lav might give you better isolation which is what a situation might call for, but the hyper always sounds more natural to me. And no scratchy noises from clothing or tummy noises.
Tim Gray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2006, 12:21 AM   #38
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,483
I was just working with an NT3 and an Audio Technica
U873R, both hypers. Jay turned me on to the
873.

I used them both side-by-side for voice over, about
one foot distance from the talent.
What I was actually doing was recording with
them at the same time in order to make
comparisons of their sensitivities, to
help with levels settings down the
road.

When I listened to the recordings, while I
was really only doing this test for levels settings,
I did notice that the the U873R voice over
sounded a LOT better than what I got
with the NT3. It was fuller and had more
presence, as compared to the NT3 which
sounded thin. For this test the mics were held
right next to each other so the distance
fromt the talent was identical.

Now, I will say that the mic's went through
different pre's (iRiver/minidisc) and were recorded
with different encodings (MP3/Atrac). I hope
to try them again with matching setups.
Dave Largent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2006, 02:35 AM   #39
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
I think you'll find that no matter what identical formats/settings you record to, the 873 will be more robust, and a tad hotter.
I really like the sound of it for what it's designed for.
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2006, 02:54 AM   #40
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle
I think you'll find that no matter what identical formats/settings you record to, the 873 will be more robust, and a tad hotter.
I really like the sound of it for what it's designed for.

I figure the results would be the same but
thought I'd add in those technicalities in
case anyone was curious.

There was a LOT of difference in the
sound of those two mics. The 873 was
more pleasant sounding and WAY more
like a typical studio VO. I tried the
873 once on a female singer and nothing
really stood out to me in that usage
as showing the 873 for being all that great
for singing.
Dave Largent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2006, 08:56 AM   #41
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Burlington
Posts: 1,961
And remember that there is considerable difference between the older AT873r and the new U873r. The new version (which I still have no personal experience with) is much lower noise but also much lower sensitivity versus the AT873r, which I've used extensively. They both have greater sensitivity in the bass region than the NT3, which is probably contributing to sounding better in VO but didn't add much to the female singer.
The new U873r and all the other new Unipoint line from Audio-Technica is supposed to be immune to cell-phone interference. Certainly the older version was "great" at picking up any nearby phone/e-mail communicator.
Have you used the U873r on a boom yet for dialogue? If it has enough sensitivity it could be a great low-cost solution. I feel like it would need a preamp or mixer though to be most successful.
Jay Massengill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2006, 02:50 PM   #42
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,483
[QUOTE=JThe new U873r and all the other new Unipoint line from Audio-Technica is supposed to be immune to cell-phone interference. Certainly the older version was "great" at picking up any nearby phone/e-mail communicator.
Have you used the U873r on a boom yet for dialogue?[/QUOTE]


What would happen when the older AT873 would pick
up a nearby phone? You'd hear peoples' conversations
on your mic?

Haven't tried the newer U873 on a boom yet. Have
used the NT3 a bit on boom instead, but now after
hearing the comparison at 1' distance I'd like
to compare the two mic's at 2' to 4'!
When I get around to it I'll post back what I
find out.

One area I'd be interested in, besides
tone of the mic's, would be ambiant rejection.
I just did some sit-down one-person interviews
where I used a handheld reporter's mic. Sound was
okay but visually it would have been better to
have the mic off-camera. I'm thinkinga about
trying a mic placed on a short table-top
mic stand in front of the interviewee. I'm thinking
the 873 might work out well here. One thing
I'm wondering about is if it would be effective
to use a small enclosure for the mic such as
the one that Spot showed on the Vasst site,
where you carry the 4 pieces and assemble that
on location. I'm wondering if this would help to
cut out ambiant noise. I could cut out the mic enclosure
with a tight talking-head shot.
Does anyone know if the video for the construction
of this portable sound booth is still posted?
Dave Largent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2006, 04:20 PM   #43
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Burlington
Posts: 1,961
No conversations, just digital beeping, clicking and buzzing.
I have no idea how that enclosure would affect them when used at a distance from the talent. When shooting down at a typical booming angle, about 45-degrees, I've never had a significant problem with ambience with either the AT873r or the NT3.
Jay Massengill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 26th, 2006, 06:17 AM   #44
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Posts: 2,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve House
Hypers are preferred to shotguns for almost all interiors, not just highly reverberent spaces like bathrooms.

Before making your final choices, visit fellow DVInfo member Ty Ford's website, www.tyford.com. He has extensive sample files of various mics posted and in the video section of his download library there is a tutoruial comparing the results obtained inside a typical living room with a shotgun, a hyper, and a lav. Absolutely a "must see" for everyone purchasing mics for a gig.
Thank you, Steve. The OPs later post that speaks in favor of the wireless lav is a good idea. The counter post of being aware that different countries use different parts of the RF spectrum for different things and you could well be violating the law by using US wireless gear is quite valid.

SOME MORE THOUGHTS
1. I love a good boom mic. You're a one man band forget the boom mic idea.

2. Last week I was combo micing boom and lav split on a IT guy in a computer room. In that case, even with our attempts at lessening the noise, there were moments when the lav won because it was a few inches closer than the schoeps cmc641. Write this down...THE CLOSER THE BETTER....I can guarantee that humping a mic and stand so you can set it up several feet from the person talking will be underwhelming to downright nasty.

3. FOR YOUR GIG, in addition to your on-camera mic, get a hard wired lav. Let your ears decide. I like a Countryman B6 and EMW lavs. I DO like a mixer with a good limiter because it protects you from overs and lets you record a hotter signal. The Sound Devices MixPre is such a mixer if your camera has line level inputs. The more expensive 302 (more channels, and other useful stuff) has line or mic level outputs.

I don't like Beachtek boxes. Sorry. It's an inconvenient truth, but you need more if you want to take your audio to the next level.

Regards,

Ty Ford

PS. I have a Rode SVM clip up in my public folder. (Not the mic for this gig unless you have no on camera mic and need one.)
Ty Ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27th, 2006, 04:31 AM   #45
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,483
It seems like the U873R has more
proximity effect than the NT3.
Dave Largent 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 > Special Interest Areas > Documentary Techniques

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:11 AM.


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