Next logical step toward better audio?
 

• We are positioning ourselves as a premium video production shop and I want to deliver on that promise. My question is - what’s our next logical step toward better audio?
• Mostly we shoot 1 person sit down interviews in corporate office environments although shooting outside or in less quiet environments happens.
• The end product is a 3 min corp branding video with reasonably high production values (HD, motion via Jibs or dollies, nice lighting, etc).
• These videos live on corporate websites and will most likely be played on a desktop or lap top computers or I Pad type device where sound reproduction / quality may not be the best.
• We also shoot a few TV spots, again when clients are willing to pay for decent production values. These are viewed / heard on nicer TV / home theater settings.
• Currently using an Oktava mk012 in the typical boomed position; from above and just in front of the talent, in as close as we can get. Would like more reach though and a mic that would work outdoors well and indoors when there is a bit of background noise or we can’t get as close as we might like.
• Currently we do not use pre amp / mixer. I run audio directly into my Sony EX1 or into a Zoom H4n when shooting with the Canon 5dm2. I should also note that I don’t much like the look of Lavs and would rent vs buy them if needed.
• Having only one type of mic with its set strengths and weaknesses and not having a backup mic both seem like a poor idea and have me reaching for the credit card. The question is what to buy.
• I have read positive reviews on the Sanken cs3e and it seems applicable to my intended use. The NTG-3 has a strong following as well as do many others. But maybe a pre amp / mixer would be a better next step?
• Anyway, hopefully I have provided enough information on my situation to get your feedback and advice.
• As always – thanks so much!

There is no mic designed for both indoor and outdoor use. The Rode NTG-3 is a great shotgun, and will do you well indoors. It's a MKH-416 clone at half the price. Your oktiva is decent for indoor dialogue. The NTG-3 can deal OK indoors, but the Oktiva is designed for it.

Shotguns = Outside
Hypercardioid = Inside

The CS-3e is a bit unique. While it's really intended for outdoor use, it rejects low frequencies off axis very, very well. I compared the CS-3e to a 416 at NAB last year, and there was no comparison. The 416 played back the crowd noise as a constant, loud, bass drone. The CS-3e sounded amazing by comparison. The crowd noise was there, but it was at a low level and had a natural tone.

Another difference is the rear lobe. Most shotguns have a strong lobe 180 degrees from the target. This can give a loud reflection from the ceiling. The CS-3e has a tiny rear lobe.

Now, if you really want a great indoor mic, the Schoeps 641 has won many hearts and minds. But if the only choices are a 416, NTG-3, or CS-3e, the CS-3e wins hands down.

I'm also biased toward the Sanken sound. I have access to a couple of COS-11Ds, and I simply love the results. They have a depth along with some bite that makes everybody sound great. I did a project where I recorded 70 different people saying their names in an interview hot seat, and I was happy with the results on everybody I recorded.

Hi Greg,

I used to do quite a bit of teaching at Meramec in St. Louis and met up with Matt Gettemeier. He's here on the dvi forums. I would recommend hiring him to run audio on your next shoot, then watch what he does and what he uses, as well as just ask questions and pick his brain - super cool guy and known in STL as a boom op/mixer/recordist. He's the guy in YouTube - ‪Sound for Film and Television Instructional DVD from Barry Green and WBS‬‎

and YouTube - ‪Sennheiser MKH 416 vs. RODE NTG-3‬‎

Just out of curiosity, if the videos will only be viewed on websites or tv, would upgrading the microphones really make that big a difference? When my computer speakers play website videos, I honestly can't tell the difference in sound quality between a $30 Radio Shack mic and a $2500 Shoeps. At what point does equipment become overkill for website videos?

Hire an audio professional who is versed in both field & studio settings as well as audio post.

Thanks guys - much respect.

Warren, good question and mine as well. Whats the limiting factor or choke point in my audio process. Maybe computer speakers are it. We do tv too. My thought is that as more people watch content online and as the two merge that audio will get better and thus better sound will actually sound better.

Given our goals i try to error on the side of having nicer gear than i may need right now. I have gotten burned a few times by the "buy nice or buy twice" rule, going low end and then having to re buy at a higher price point. One of the things that interests me about the CS-3e is that it seems to have some unique qualities that defy the curve per Jon and others. The NTG-3 is half the cost but maybe lacks the magic i loud spaces...

Hey Guy, thanks for the heads up / local knowledge. I will track down Matt for sure - would glady hire him and learn a few things along the way :)

Or better put... hire THE RIGHT audio professional. I facilitated a shoot recently with a local pro audio guy who used a 416 as his indoor mic and put it on a stand for an interview situation. When I mentioned other options, he whined about his budget. Thankfully, he also used a lav. His real magic might have been in the mixing, but I wasn't able to experience that, since I didn't have headphones.

But for many of us, it's more economical to buy some equipment and record with our "free" crew.

In addition to Schoeps, Sanken and lavs, mid-priced indoor options are the AKG Blue LIne with the 93 capsule, or the AT853b. I've not used an Oktava, but in the small number of head-to-head recordings I've heard, it sounded pretty thin.

For outdoor use, even if occasional, the best bang for the buck may be in wind protection, if you don't already have it.

A good preamp might be a good investment, if you are having problems with hiss when boosting levels. For instance, if you were recording "24", you'd want a clean chain, since those actors are always whispering their lines!

Probably the best approach to your budget is to consider your problem areas. Is there hiss? Is the overall sound dull? Do you have handling noise problems? And then there is wind. It might not have been a problem on your previous shoot, but it might be on the next.

I think that makes it EVEN MORE IMPORTANT to start with the best sound you can get. The farther it gets dumbed down, the better it had better be to start with, or it's really going to sound like trash in the end product. So while, yes, it may not be necessary to spend the money that you would for audio on a feature, you shouldn't cheap out either.

I think Jon's suggestions are spot on. The AKG SE300B with the CK93 hypercardioid capsule is a very nice step up from the Oktava. The Audio-Technica 4053 is also reportedly a nice step up (I haven't used that one). I also think that having a separate mixer (both the hardware and the person) makes a big difference. Mixers generally have much better preamps than cameras. They also offer easier control over levels and usually control over EQ, limiting, etc. And it keeps it away from the camera - especially if there's a second person to actually operate it.

Have fun!

Rob

To use a bad mic just because you are putting your stuff on the web makes no sense. It's like saying that because the sound will be lower quality on the web, you want to make it even worse with a bad mic. It's all relative. No matter what the final resolution of the audio, a better mic still sounds better. Don't talk yourself into cheaping out on the most important thing about video, which is audio.

Mentioning a different angle on things, don't forget you can use green-screen shooting in a quiet studio to greatly improve corporate interview audio.

Right on, a good mic it is vs cheaping out because its likely web bound.

Jon, your comment sums it up about things that may not have been a problem so far but may be next time. Mostly quiet and not very lively locations thus far, all indoors. But what happens when its not that pretty? Shooting many interviews next week, in schools, hospitals and restaurants. Even with the restaurants being closed there will still be staff. The other two may be in big open areas / atriums similar to outdoors.

My fear is that I will spend 700-1000 and get a step up from my Oktava but miss the "magic" many testers report on the $1400 CS-3e.

The CS-3e is the only mic I've heard about being used instead of a Schoeps. The things people say about this mic seem to indicate it is possibly the only "do everything" mic in existence (no, it doesn't really do everything). A single decent lens for my camera costs the same as this mic. I know what I'm saving up to get after reading so many rave reviews. I think I've also decided to never buy equipment that doesn't have rave reviews. Every piece of gear I get that is top-notch pays for itself quickly and lasts forever while average gear causes post production headaches.

Many thanks to all - really appreciate the feedback here. Thanks also to Guy at DV creators dot net for his call and lots of very helpful info & perspective (not to mention the 5% dvinfo discount).

Waiting on the Fedex truck now - shooting tons of interviews next week and will circle back with a CS-3e review :)

cheers,

Define bad mic.

Out of all the mics listed, the 'lowest end' one is NTG-3. While I agree, most shotgun mics shouldn't be used indoors for interviews, put the NTG-3 in a blimp, roll off the bottom frequencies at 80hz on the H4N (to stave off rumble) and you have yourself a decent indoor mic. Granted... having a mic in a blimp w/o a 2nd person on hand makes for an awkward situation.

"Define bad mic."

I was responding to Warren when he said,

"if the videos will only be viewed on websites or tv, would upgrading the microphones really make that big a difference? When my computer speakers play website videos, I honestly can't tell the difference in sound quality between a $30 Radio Shack mic and a $2500 Shoeps. At what point does equipment become overkill for website videos? "

So a $30.00 Radio Shack mic is my definition of a bad mic.

The NTG-3 isn't the lowest end mic listed either. That is a high quality piece of equipment equal to the MKH416 in quality but cheaper in price, and IMO more high end then the Oktiva, and the AKGCK93 - though they are apples and oranges. I don't know why you would put a shotgun in blimp and roll off the lows for indoor use. The NTG-3 actually does quite well indoors. My point is that a good sound person should have the correct tools, rather than hoping they will get away with using a shotgun indoors. You may get away with you may not, but if you don't have the right tool you risk not being prepared. Really it shouldn't be too hard to ask a professional to have at least 2 mics.

A $30 Radio Shack mic is indistinguishable from a $3000 mic if used properly. I have already done the experiment in case anyone wishes to dispute the statement. Now a $3000 mic may be more flexible in what it can do effectively. You will have to decide if the $2970 difference is worth it for your particular application.

Furthermore, the notion that you must start with better quality material if the delivery channel is low grade is absurd on its face and doesn't hold up to being taken to its logical conclusion.

My point wasn't that one needs better mics when recording something for the web. My point was that if you have 2 mics varying in quality enough to hear the difference on uncompressed audio, you will likely still hear the difference on the web. And we must remember that "The Web" doesn't automatically mean audio coming through it is bad. 128kbps MP3 quality is decent enough to enjoy music, and is where youtube delivers it's audio when the video is displayed at 480p or above. And just because some people use small computer monitors doesn't mean that there aren't also people with nice speakers.I have 1,500.00 computer speakers! The web is on it's way to becoming the main place for all media. So basically I say don't use "the web" as an excuse to cheap out on audio. It's always better to get the better equipment unless you just don't want to spend the money.

But hey, the bar is low on a lot of projects out there too. There are plenty of people who also use inferior gear and cut a little corner here, and just don't worry about something there. It all adds up.

Rather I should say, "It all subtracts down..."

This entire thread demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding of audio fundamentals.

Recording equipment contributes to the quality of a recording pretty much in exactly the same way that BRUSHES, PAINTS and TURPENTINE contribute to the quality of a painting.

The EQUIPMENT doesn't make a recording. The BRAIN behind the equipment does.

You need to do one of two things. Spend significant time learning the TECHNIQUES of audio recording. (Personally, I spent the first FIVE years of my career doing that and I consider myself a decent mid-range working pro - not in any case an expert or a major movie set quality practitioner.

OR - you need to hire that expertise.

Anything less and you're consigning your audio to being an afterthought - and that's VERY poor decision making considering that the soundtrack typically carries the MAJORITY of the communications load in a typical video project.

End of story.

Though what you say is true about equipment not making the recording Bill, not all equipment is equal. I thought were talking about equipment in this particular thread, not techniques. I operate under the assumption that we already know how to make a recording. All technical skill being equal we are left again with the quality of the equipment having some bearing on the sound quality I dare say.

I agree that the brain behind the equipment is what really makes the art, but the tools do have an effect. The quality of the tools becomes more important when scheduling is tight and there is less manpower to get things right. A good tool can help a single skilled worker get the job done efficiently while an inferior tool will require more time and manpower. Once a person is skilled, he or she can save time and money by using better tools.

When recording indoors...

The BRAIN says, I should use a Schoeps hyper. If not, I could go with an AKG or AT hyper, if not a lav. I know how to place the mic perfectly for this scene.

The BUDGET says, all I have is this danged Azden shotgun on a painter's pole feeding a Microtrack II.

The AUDIENCE says, why did it sound so echoey and wimpy with all that hiss?

The MORAL is: you need adequate equipment for the conditions. Inadequate equipment won't deliver good results (unless you are in a position to change the shooting conditions to suit your gear.) Adequate equipment and skill can deliver very good results. The world's greatest equipment will only improve things slightly - but don't underestimate the value of top equipment for winning paid jobs. :)

I guess equipment is important too!

End of story...

The OP suggested that he wanted a mic that hase "more throw" so he can use it from farther away. Now, while I'm not an audio expert, but one thing I've learned from this forum, and experience, is the easiest way to improve SQ is to get the mic closer to the source.

Therefore, while you may not like the look of lavs, if there's a lot of background noise, a lav might be the best choice, as well as the least expensive.

There are some very small lavs available that are inconspicuous, easy to hide and produce great sound. And because the talent is between the mic and the background noise, a lav effectively reduces ambient noise.

The poor lav just doesn't get the respect it deserves. :)

Or not.

You take a Schoeps catalog and pick a proper boom mic.

I'll take the Radio Shack catalog and pick a lav mic.

We'll both record UNDER THE CONDITIONS POSTED BY THE OP. (moderately noisy environment where the critical task is separation of voice from the environment so that the voice will POP out of the resulting mix)

If your presumption is correct, the multi thousand dollar Schoeps will smoke the couple of hundred dollar lav, right? But it won't.

I bet you $1000 that I can get a track that TRASHES yours in the critical category of signal to noise ratio - which is precisely what the OP was asking about.

THIS is why nobody who is responsible for sound results for a LIVING has only a boom mic in their kit. NOBODY. It's a fine tool FOR SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. Which can be broadly defined as recording in decent sounding spaces where the perception of LIVE room acoustics will add to the authenticity of the recorded sound. That is often useful in narrative work. And typically almost USELESS in many other situations, one of the cheif being work like the OP mentioned where a VO has to be separated and reinforced in a mix. In that circumstance a boom mic is a TERRIBLE choice for the precise reason it's a fine one in other situations.

What the OP was asking for - even if they did not understand exactly what it was that they WERE asking for - was SEPARATION of the voice from the environment such that the voice could be further processed in order to be made to STAND OUT from the mix.

That presumes MAXIMUM S/N separation. And a boom mic - ANY boom mic - is an extremely POOR choice to achieve that result.

(Well, I suppose you could gaffers tape a boom mic to someone's chest and if they held really, REALLY steady you could get a similar S/N recording, but ONLY with specific types of boom mics and ONLY if you understood that mic's technology and didn't put the gaff in places where it might interfere with the mics performance such as taping up the vents in an interference tube mic design)

I might politely suggest that if you're NOT a qualified sound professional - you should feel free to take whatever advice is in this thread with some grains of salt.

YES, professional equipment is important. Often the extra money does buy improved performance - and certainly improved reliability and residual market value. But to say that there's a direct relationship between the cost of a piece of equipment and it's performance in all situations is EXACTLY like saying that there's a direct relationship between the cost of a PIANO and the satisfaction of listening to someone playing it. The chief property is NOT the quality of the Piano - but the quality of the Piano PLAYER.

Highly qualified people WILL maximize the capabilities of any tool. But like the piano wizzard sitting down at a modest priced studio console rather than a Steinway - the ability to PLAY always matters more than the quality of the instrument.

That's my 2 cents. But what do I know. I've just been producing audio and video content for a few decades now. And as we all know - here in the digital era - the ability to afford shiny new tools is REALLY what makes someone a great practitioner in anything, right?

I didn't presume anything if you were referring to me.

Bill I only said "End of story" because you did. Obviously there is never an end to the story with you. Especially when you assume that you are the top pro and the rest of us on the thread are "demonstrating a woeful lack of understanding of audio fundamentals."

I do production & post sound for a living too with 25 years experience, and I do use Sanken COS11d lavs when it is appropriate. Believe it or not there are times when a full sized shotgun/hyper (there's no such mic as a 'boom' mic) of a high quality can actually sound better than a lav. Call me crazy. You know you can place a shotgun on a boom and put it under the frame aiming up to the mouth, still utilizing the speaker's body to block ambient sound - just like with a lav. There are no absolutes, as it all depends on the actual situation. I just think you should cut the insulting talk. When the audio person IS using the right type of tool for the situation, then again the quality of that tool varies by which model you purchase.

I think it is safe to say that any audio kit for video production should have the basic 3 mics for starters. Shotgun, hyper, lav. Then branch out from there. My original point was that a shotgun isn't the best choice for indoor dialogue. A hyper is better suited usually. But when neither mic will work a lav is indeed the next choice. Or if you have no boom op, the lav could be your first choice. With every mic there are models that are of higher ad lower quality, and that quality usually corresponds to price. Trash me all you want with your Radio Shack kit Bill. I never said to use one type of mic when another was more appropriate. I think your cantankerous rant that rails against bad mic choice may be true in the right situation, but nobody was saying not to use a lav. The mic quality digression started when the idea that one shouldn't worry about quality when delivering for "the web".

Double end of story.

My presumption was that I was in a discussion with Greg, the OP.
He noted quite clearly that he was booming interviews.
He had "read positive reviews of Cs3d and the NTG3." and was also considering "a pre-amp/mixer."

From there the discussion devolved to typical mic suggestions and arguments.

NOBODY at that point made the point that NONE OF THESE approaches would help.

I get tired of strings of posts that seek to demonstrate knowledge of gear - when the solution to the problem has little to do with gear choice and everything to do with technique.

It's like guys arguing about tractors when their goal is to run the fastest quarter mile. Sure one may beat another, but neither can beat any family sedan.

I made the error when I replied to the last message - incidently yours, Chad - when I was speaking generally to the group and specifically to the OP. Sorry.

My points stand.

In a situation where S/N in a moderatly noisy environment is the critical factor - a Lav - even a modest Rat Shack lav - will outperform even a fine hypercardiod - simply because of the inverse square principal and positioning geometry. And physics is one thing we can likely all agree is a trumping, unavoidable factor in sound recording.

I just watched a CNN snippit of a reporter doing a piece from inside a flying attack helicopter. Her mic? Coles 4104. (Hadn't seen one on-camera in a long time) - but obviously there was a sound person somewhere who understands that knowing when and how to use which mic is the ONLY path to consistent, quality results - even if you have to reach for a mic designed 50 years ago and still working better than anything else in a particular set of conditions.

That's the REAL end of the story.
Always.

I believe that your next logical steps toward better audio are...

1) SD 302 Mixer
2) Quality lav / wired version that can also work in a wireless system (Sanken COS11)
3) Upgrade Boom mic

Adding quality tools and experience w/ those tools will allow you to record better audio.

A mixer will give you better control over the signal and quality limiters protect from unexpected peaks and also allow you to deliver a line level recording to camera. Using a Lav to double mic is an added insurance to getting a better recording.

wow, this thread just got knee deep.

From my understanding, the OP said "Mostly we shoot 1 person sit down interviews in corporate office environments"

Corporate office environments will probably mean either a conference room or an office, I'm unsure how that has translated into he's in noisy environments with the need of highest s/n ratio recording.

Lavs are great, but there are pitfalls with lavs that most people don't explain or prepare one for. Such as shirt / ruffle noise. A single scratch/ruffle noise can kill a lav recording in a sec, vs a boom mic might have not the perfect s/n ratio of a LAV, but it's recording won't be trashed by noises mentioned above. I've seen lav recordings get trashed during weddings as well due to nervous grooms.

Has anyone asked the OP a sample of video that he believes needs better audio? I think to analyze the ACTUAL problem vs theorizing what it is would probably be most beneficial.

The Senn 416 is used indoors and outdoors. It's a workhorse. There might be better mics but no one ever got fired for using one. Lotta pre-owned units out there too.

Inexpensive Mikes Can Give Quality Sound
 

The caveat here is the mike must be carefully selected & tested first. At Weva I teched Douglas Spotted Eagles audio for video presentation. When discussing lavaliere mikes he pulled out a lavaliere from Radio Shack, the same mike I have been using for the past 10 years.

What qualifies it as a candidate for quality audio for video is A. It is made by Audio Technica & is the same mike as their small omni lavaliere. B. I have 2 sets of stereo lav's sold briefly by R.S.7 years ago. I use these not for video but attached to the ear piece on my glasses & feeding either a mini disc recorder or marantz PMD 620. I have recorded several symphonic orchestral concerts & they produce great sounding binaural recordings. Even did a stealth recording of the London Symphony last year. Most that have heard them think they are commercial recordings until someone in the audience coughs, etc.
I would put them up against a $400- lavaliere in a shoot out & expect them to be as good as the more expensive mike.

My point being you do not need to use sankens, shoeps or neuman to get good quality sound! It is more important to know how the devices you are using work & how to apply them to the specific situation.

I have been involved in professional audio recording for 50 yrs. Save your money for a good quality mixer, headphones, etc.

Bill Davis & I are in the same camp; spend your money wisely.

I believe the proper spelling is "mic".

well guys, how about a REAL example ? try this one I just did with a ME2 lav and COS-11x. you can clearly hear the difference, even on a web video :)

Video Review of the Sennheiser G3 Wireless Mic


there is a difference between a cheap mic and a good one, even for the web.

Granted. But perhaps using an inexpensive mic like ME2 is equivalent to stretching black mesh over an expensive lens to reduce its capabilities. In fact, both are examples of "low pass" (optically and acoustically). Nice illustration of the differences, and your equipment setup, but it comes back down to what can do the job, what is your budget, what is available, etc. Thanks for producing and sharing your video.

Great video Steve. Thank you for taking the time to create and share your example.

I can agree that an inexpensive mic well positioned and in a good audio chain will get you 90% there.

It's that additional 10% of detailed clarity that you have a choice of paying double, triple, quadruple+ the price for.

I found it to be the same case when I got into high-end home audio (thank god I'm done with that...and my pursuit of the perfect single malt scotch craze, but I digress....). Name brands in the big box stores such as Sony, Onkyo, Denon etc. get you 90% there of what a typical person would say "Sounds Amazing!" However, a true audiophile with a trained ear would be able to distinguish the nuances and say it sounds horrid. Same with high-end glass on an HD camera - it's the little details that count, and some are willing to go the extra mile to get that clarity. Our HPX500 had a lens that cost more than the camera. And that's not at all uncommon on high-end broadcast cameras- then again, these are guys that (usually!) have a tried and true business model where the equipment pays for itself, or they rent.

At the end of the day, it boils down to your audience. Will they notice? Will they care? Does it add to or detract? Would the money be better spent on other aspects of the production? The title of the thread is "Next logical step toward better audio." I think we're all in agreement that there are 4 parts of the audio chain:

Mic >>Cable >> Pre-amp/Mixer >> Recorder. Pick which one that is not performing to your expectations and search for a replacement within your budget.

Should we factor in skill and experience?.. Oh, sorry, I forgot, that no longer matters with 'affordable digital' gear...

Skill and experience should go without saying when talking about gear comparisons because for one particular person, their skill will be the same with whatever they buy. So the quality of the gear will be the only factor that changes in the equation.

But I suppose if an idiot will make a horrible recording with a Sanken COS11D, he may as well stick with the ME-2, or sell it and get the Radio Shack lav and get that same horrible recording for much less money. In skilled hands/ears using gear correctly, the superior sound of higher quality gear will be noticeable. So to be nice I think we all assume that the gear is being used correctly, which then allows us to compare mic, mixer or camera qualities without having to keep saying, "But if you don't know how to record it won't sound good!" Better gear is better gear and some of us like to know which thing does the job better so we can make an informed choice.

Wow, just read through this whole thread and it's better than a novel! I expect Greg wonders just what can of worms he's opened here but that what's so great about this forum ... and no-one's even mentioned content yet which trumps equipment, technical quality, technique, experience, the lot.

Thanks to all for contributing. A fascinating half hour but I need a drink now.

I suppose the title of the thread leaves it open to all of us audio nerds waxing philosophical about everything under the sun concerning audio.

By the 'look of Lavs' I assume you mean on screen? Have you tried the Countryman b6? It's incredibly tiny and very easy to hide so that you don't see it onscreen - I'll typically poke it through a button hole or tape it under a collar. Sound is great and it seems to impress clients because it's so tiny.