Mic + preamp choice for narrative audio
 

Hi all,

Reading through the discussions in this forum, I see that there are some serious audio fiends here. :)

I'm trying to determine what I would need audio-wise if I were to undertake a feature project... There are a lot of interior dialog scenes. I have an inexpensive pre-amp and a Sennheiser ME66 short shotgun. It's a good combination, but I don't know -- it's a little noisy.

I also have a very cheap powered lav (thanks, Radio Shack!) and two large diaphragm condenser microphones. I once heard from the Chicago audio engineer James Bond that he'd prefer a large diaphragm condenser to a shotgun for interiors, but at more than about two feet, mine aren't picking up very much...

A lot of people recommend the Schoeps CMC641 set, but that would easily outclass my M-Audio preamp. I guess my questions are:

- Would a Sound Devices MP-1 be a good investment? Or is there a quieter portable mic preamp that you guys like?

- Do I need a new mic for interiors? I'm either going to shoot with the mics I have or jump all the way to the CMC641 -- there's no point in spending money on some other mic that only partially solves my problem when I know that $1600 would solve it once and for all.

Thanks!

get the best you can afford or you'll end up buying things again. go for the schoeps. you may want a sound dept onboard in order to get the best out of it though.

Narrative audio as in a Voice over ? So the mic won't be in shot? or dialogue with talent on screen?

For the dialogue on screen I really don't know enough about shotguns etc to be able to help. However, if it's off screen get a large (2") diaphragm mic, Neumann are about the best for the cash. Also if you want a decent preamp I'd suggest Focusrite, TLAudio or something similar. They're expensive but worth the money. If you go Focusrite get the green or red range, not the cheap platinum jobbies.

Remember large diaphragm Mics are designed for close micing techniques and won't work over a distance of more than around 24" like you mention, I tend to use mine as follows. Mic - 6-8" - Pop Shield - 6-8" Source.

The SD MP1 is a good choice but you also might want to consider the MM-1 to get both a preamp and a headphone monitor for your boom operator. Or kick it up a notch or two and go with the MixPre or 302 mixers.

The Schoeps CMC641 would certainly be a very worthwhile investment if you can manage it and will be a piece of kit you can use for years to come. If you've got the budget by all means go for it. But if its price is a little rich for your blood right now, hypercardioids from Audio-Technica or AKG can also serve very well. Don't forget you'll need a boom pole, shock mount, etc to get the mic close to the talent - 1.5 to 2 feet is a normal working distance for hypers, 2 to 3 feet for short guns.

The new mic(s) that looks interesting is Sennheiser's MKH 8000 series. Basically very similar in design and usefulness to the Scheops CCM/MK series line. According to one mixer in LA I know who has tested it, it's a winner for people who want to use one body and multiple capsules. In the end, this could be something people here might want to look into. Unfortunately, the pricing is similar to the CCM/MK pricing (high), and rumour has it, that it will increase in January because of the Euro vs. Dollar. Still something people here might want to look at.

Wayne

Just last month, I used the MM-1 on a TV pilot where we went totally wireless and I'm not sold on the MM-1. For starters, you have to get use to hearing your boom in one ear and the mix in the other (if you are using a comtex to monitor the mix), or you have to simply use MM-1 as your source. The problem is SD placed the dip switches underneath the belt clip, and there is no easy access to them. I also didn't like that the gain adjustment affected the headphone volume. With some microphones, the gain on the unit had to be reduced to the point where the boom op couldn't hear very well because the gain on the unit had to be reduced to the point where it made the headphone gain pretty useless. The quality of the amplifier was top notch (as you would expect from SD), but I found it's usefulness for a boom op just so-so.

Wayne

Thanks for all your input!

What do you all think about the Sennheiser ME64 module, since I already have the K6? I know it's not on the level of the Schoeps, but would this be an improvement over the echoey ME66 indoors?

I just looked at the Oktava MK-012 mentioned in another thread... Just to add another variable to the mix, :) what am I looking at when comparing the Sennheiser ME64, Oktava MK012 and Schoeps CMC64?

I know that little selection covers roughly one order of magnitude pricewise, but what's the spread quality-wise?

Thanks again!

Ok, not to make this into an extended conversation with myself, but after doing a lot of searching and reading, it seems like just about everyone who has ever owned an ME66 has had this same dilemma (ie "why did I buy this thing again?").

The Oktava from sound-room.com sounds promising, and from what most people report, it has a significant edge over the ME-64 module. I'll probably wind up picking up an Oktava.

I am a little curious about the ME-65 however, even though it's listed as a handheld module. I wonder how it would fare on a boom 3 feet away from an actor...

--Yuck!

The difference between them and the CMC641 is like the difference between VHS and betacam.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ha, okay :)

I guess it's time to start saving my pennies...

Mics
 

Other mics you should consider that are way better than the Oktava.

Shure SM81
AKG C480 (modular, you can get different capsules)
AKG C451 (modular" "" ")
Neumann KM185 (super cardioid)

these are cardioid but will have a much better tonality. if you look at the patterns the frontal lobe of the pick up is not that much different except for the holes at roughly 45 degree of center from the back.

Thanks Gerry! I was excited momentarily about the prospect of paying $150 or $200 to get something "good enough," but if I'm going to put down $1000 on a mic, I think I might as well spend a tad more and spring for the CMC641...

Really, it's funny. The CMC641 seems expensive at $1600, but imagine going into one of the camera forums and saying "Hey, I'm hoping to buy a Hollywood-level camera that will last a few decades. My budget is $1600."

My main concern now is figuring out a mic preamp to feed into a digital recorder... I take it the SD MP1 is mostly good for monitoring but not recording?

Ben,

Congratulations!!! You passed the test!

Gerry tried to push a lot of mics in your face and you did not flinch.

Good for you.

Please tell us what camera you now have.

Regards,

Ty Ford

A good mic will outlast at least 3 good cameras, I think the Schoeps has been in use at least 20 years.

Mics
 

I wasn't trying to push any mics. I was just giving alternatives that are more affordable and arguably as good sonically as the Shoeps. if budget was any consideration a 600 dollar km185 will stand up to the Shoeps. and their fore-fathers (KM84 family) have been in use for over 35 years in the studio world. at this point youre choosing between lobster or fillet mignon. not a Bigmac like the Oktava. and it would leave you enough money to buy a much better preamp/interface than the Maudio (perhaps an Apogee). I was just looking at the context of the gear and not trying to be elitist. there are alot of great mics out there that will do the job just as good, and sometimes even better. but lets be real, read the original post(Radio Shack Lavs)... if you have a 1600 budget , youre better off getting a less expensive "great" mic and a "killer" pre or interface. than a great mic thru a crapy interface.

Come on Gerry. Schoeps mics are not elite, they are industry standard. That's what's real. I'm guessing you don't own any Schoeps.

I have talked many folks over the transition. To date, every one of them has thanked me.

For a mixer/preamp, look at the Sound Devices MixPre. If your camera only has mic level inputs, you'll need the Sound Devices connverter cables that knock the line level down to mic level.

Welcome to the pros. Once you hear the difference, you will understand.

Regards,

Ty Ford

First of all, thank you VERY much to both Ty and Gerry. Gerry, I appreciate what you're saying, but the reality is that whether I get CMC641 or a different high end mic, I'll want a really great pre-amp. The choice of mic is unlikely to affect that choice -- it doesn't make much sense to get a high end mic and then skimp on the pre, right?

Heh -- I'll tell you my camera, but because my choice may cast doubt on my credibility, I have to preface it by saying that I'm also an image processing engineer. I am very picky when it comes to image quality.

The reality is that this is a golden age camera-wise. Yet a lot of people are sinking $25k on Red setups, which seems to me like a terrible allocation of resources unless you can make the camera MORE than pay for itself in under 2 years. The sweet spot right now for fiction filmmaking cameras is, bizarrely, in the consumer range. Not prosumer, consumer! It's as if it's the 1970s, and instead of the pro, semi-pro and consumer formats being 35mm, 16mm and 8mm, they are 35mm, 28mm and 25mm.

I'd been waiting for a camera with a reasonable chip size, a real 24fps mode, and a decent level of resolution. I figured I should budget $4000 or so -- so I was totally blown away when Canon introduced the HV20. I picked mine up for $600 used. (!)

Now, obviously this camera will record more first birthdays than first features... But as Stu Maschwitz says, you can get great footage "if you hop on one foot and wave the rubber chicken just right." You have to light as if the camera is ISO ~100 (I rate it at 120), and do some hoop-jumping to manually set the exposure. The 1/8" mic jack essentially forces you to do double system sound (a good thing, actually). But it's tiny and packs great resolution, so it's a perfect candidate for 35mm DOF adapters. And in two years, I can upgrade again without taking out a home equity loan.

The prosumer 3-chip HD cameras cost 3 or 4 times as much, but only deliver slightly more resolution. They're also much larger and heavier... If I'm going to spend $3000 more on my setup, I'll spend it on the lighting, sound and actors. Those will have a far, far larger impact on my final product than a marginal 25-50% increase in my already-great resolution. (I would not hesitate to proudly project the HDV output from the HV20 on a large screen.)

The cinema-level camera has never been so accessible. Hopefully over the next few years we'll see more and more emphasis placed on filmmaking (sound, lighting, writing, directing and acting) instead of resolution charts!

You said: (after making me wade through a huge waddle or words)

"The 1/8" mic jack essentially forces you to do double system sound (a good thing, actually)."

OK, you may or may not need to double record. Get a Sound Devices 302. Get a regular XLR/headphone return snake. At the camera end, get two XLR female to RCA male adapter cables and wire-tie them together, one for each input. They get a combiner -- that's the opposite of a splitter -- that has two female RCA jacks coming together to one 1/8" TRS.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I've researched the KM185 a little more now, and it looks interesting. However, I haven't been able to find many references on the web about it being used in film production. Looking at the specs, it stacks up favorably to the Schoeps, but I have a built-in skepticism of spec sheets.

So, does anyone have experience with both mics and an opinion?

Km185
 

Ben.

Neumann is considered to be the Rolls Royce of microphones especially in the recording studio world, (the world that I'm from), every time you see some one doing ADR, 9 out of 10 they are using a Neumann U-87, that IS the industry standard for that application. Schoeps is also considered to be the Bentley of mics, if you watch the new documentary on Bob Dylan , you'll notice most of the time he was being recorded was with the omni version of this series Neumann (well the sub 100 versions) which is the equivalent to the 180 series of today. most orchestral recordings use Neumann. Before I retired from the recording industry I was lucky enough to own alot of Neumanns (8xU87, 12x 184, 2x 49's, 1 x86, 2x 89) among many other more esoteric ones, when I sold my Microphone locker I netted close to $90k, Even though I never owned any Schoeps I have used them countless times for choir recordings (so I do know what the Pro's use), and yes they are phenomenal, but like I said in a previous post its like choosing between lobster and filet mignon, they both are great examples of excellent microphones, Neumann is the work horse of the recording industry since the 40's, its is almost guaranteed that 9.9 out of 10 major label sound recordings have included Neumann microphones as a large part of the quality of the sound. and perhaps in this industry people tend to latch on to a certain piece of gear that works well, and like they say , if its not broken , dont fix it. But in the recording business we were constantly trying out different solutions and experimenting and perhaps being more open minded to different solutions because we had the latitude and time to do so. something a film crew would probably never do is to re-take just so they can hear what a different microphone would sound like in this room, where as a recording session for music this happening is quite normal, so we get to experiment and find nice ear candy goodies that perhaps other fields don't get to mess with, because they prefer to use "industry standards" because they with out a doubt know its a safe choice. The thing I was getting at is that for the price of the Schoeps you can have your recorder, cables, and the Neumann, and I would challenge any one to tell the difference between the 2 mics when blind folded, you will hear a slight difference but you will not be able to identify which is which.

Ben,

We seem to have jumped the track from audio for video to studio recording. Two related, but decidedly diffferent animals.

Don't get me started.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Neumann KM185
 

I was trying to qualify the validity of the Neumann, since it seems that perhaps Ben was not familiar with the brand. and ultimately the last sentence of my statement is the core of my point.

Thanks Gerry -- and know that I'm not trying to start a holy war, just want to hear a bunch of opinions. I was definitely not aware of the Neumann studio heritage, so that was interesting...

The KM185 and Schoeps look similar on paper -- my main concern is being able to boom from 1.5 - 4 feet (hopefully not this far too often) reliably, so sensitivity and low self-noise are obviously crucial. I know the character of the sound will be different between the Neumann and Schoeps, but will I get a similar amount of usable signal from either, when I'm, say, 3 feet away?

On paper is one thing. In the field is another. If the 185 was practically the same, you'd see more of them out there. Thing is, you don't.

It's not just me jawing on about Schoeps. The users are pros, not sheep. This is not just momentum. They care very much about their sound. You see cmc641, even cmc541. You just don't see 185s much. The 185a have been around a long time. If they were equivalent or better, they would have caught on by now.

I am curious about the new 8000 mics, I'm not sure they're shipping yet.


Regards,

Ty Ford

Wise, wise words. One thing you might try is rent (or borrow) the mics you are considering and record with them and listen to the results. There is no substitute for using and listening to microphones. Also, it's often good to own something you can easily borrow or rent, for if you need a second, it's nice to be able to match. That's why I like the MKH60 so much, good value, performance, and I can rent it from two places in town.

Hi Ben,

You might also want to check out M-Audio's Sputnik microphone. Some compare it favorably to the CMC641 but I'll refrain from that argument:

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Sputnik-main.html

Certainly the Schoeps or other recommendations are good investments and will hold their value when you decide to upgrade/downgrade.

Warm Regards, Michael

Excellent points, one and all. Off to Fletcher Chicago to rent some mics!

Gerry, over the last 30 years I have done more than my share of voice work in many studios, including a ton of ADR.
And 99.9% of the time I do ADR, the mic in front of me is not a U87.

I would think ADR would utilize a lot of large diaphragm condensers -- but what do I know!

Most of my ADR work is with a 416, but really depends on what mic the A2 boomed with originally.

The U87 is a great mic, but it sounds out of place when you are trying to match loops with the pre-recorded stage sound.

Don't confuse ADR with voice-over and narration. The objectives are quite different. ADR attempts to duplicate the sound qualities of the original location (or what the audience believes would have been the location's sound qualities). It is part of the story, somewhat removed and distant from the viewer. VO and narration is more intimate, the speaker is talking directly to the viewer and is not part of the story space. Imagine you are in a theatre watching the film - ADR is dialog on the screen while VO is your friend sitting next to you commenting on the movie. For VO studio mics are the norm but for ADR mics that will give a similar 'feel' to dialog recorded on set are preferred.