PD170 microphone
 

What's a good general-purpose replacement microphone for the Sony PD170? Or should I be satisfied with the one that comes with the camera?

I mounted an AT-4051a atop my PD170. It provides wider coverage, if that's something you want (I did) and the frequency response and tonal characteristics is much better than the stock Sony mic.

The mic also has a Mic Muff on it to cut wind noise. A rubber band wrapped around the mic, just back of the capsule, helps keep the Mic Muff from sliding off.

Let's see. there's the 4051A Dean mentioned, the 4073A, the 897, the Sennheiser Me64, 66, 416, there are Neumanns and Schoeps. Really depends on what you plan to do with it AND your budget. Some are as little as $300 and some go up to over $1500.

Personally, I like the AT897 so much I sold my Senn ME66 but I also use a Hypercaroid for some work (AKG300 with the 93 capsule)
Lots of choices and it can drive you crazy and broke ;-)

Don

NEVER trust the on camera mic (that is with the prosumer cams). I would recommend a good handheld before any stick-type (shotgun or hyper). Not necessarily mounted on the camera (although possible) but just...ready at hand. The EV 635 has been a starter-standard or you can move up to the RE50 - which has become the standard for newsgathering and field production groups. If you choose to mount these on the camera, they will pic up sound from the camera - they are omnidirectional. If you want something with a little direction, try the Shure SM58 (stage standard) or lower level PG58.

Then again, if you don't expect to be doing anything requiring a handheld mic, go with a nice shotgun mounted on camera. I just did a contract gig, which required purchasing 24 PD170's and I selected all Sennheiser K66 shotguns, with Rycote windsceens. Nice bang for the buck, and also look good as a handheld in a flash, although need to be properly aimed.

1. on-camera mics are useless at any level.
2. You can't recommend ANY kind of mic until you know the application. Putting an SM58 on a boom is a waste of energy and quality. Putting a small diaphragm hyper in a handheld situation is the same.

Specific applications call for specific types of mics. Handhelds in a cardioid pattern, are all but useless for anything except VERY close mic situations in interviews, and for dialogix or dramatic work, can't be used at all.

The Shure 58 is a great mic, but as Douglas said, it's really for close mic'ing situations, like interviews. The nice thing about this and other dynamics are that they are relatively insensitive to outside noises and room echo.

If you're doing ADR or a voiceover in an untreated room, consider a dynamic mic, and get right on top of it. The lower quality of the mic is offset by avoiding the sound of a low quality room.

People expect studio vocalists to use large diaphagms with a spit screen and headphones. It's the classic "Entertainment Tonight" shot. In an exception to that rule, Bono sometimes uses a Shure 58 - and he uses it without headphones. He sings along with open monitors! Sure, there's bleed, but it's low enough, and he's got a strong enough pair of lungs that it works in the mix. It won't catch small subtleties, but hey, it's rock and roll.

But if the speaker isn't within a foot of the mic - and hopefully less - leave the dynamic mic in its case.

True, anything a built in mic can do, the right external mic can do better (except to operate as conveniently). But there are some applications where any improvement over the built in may be marginal.

When I tape a stage production with two or three cams, I take my primary audio from the house mixer. I used to set up an AT3031 cardioid mic at the back for ambience. Besides picking up the audience sounds, a low level of the ambience mic's signal in post brings life to the mixer sound wihich, although intimate and clear, is very dry. However, I always found myself using a built in stereo mic track from one of the cams for the ambience track instead. It just plain sounds good--better than the AT cardioid for this purpose. I'm sure that a good external stereo mic would capture better audio, but in this role in the mix I don't think it would matter much.

One thing I'd caution;
Bear in mind that even at a foot, an SM58 has lost it's proximity effect, and will be very thin.
Hopefully among these three responses, and whatever others are to come, you'll get the idea about mics in a toolkit, much like a carpenter carries a framing hammer and a finishing hammer, in addition to nail sets and other unique tools for whatever job arises.

So what do you intend to capture with the mic and what's your budget range?

Exactly. Three inches or so is about right for off camera. Maybe six for a more confortable on camera presence.

And hopefully your talent will hold the mic consistently. If they move it in/out/left/right at those close distances, you'll really need to ride the faders and/or smash it with compression in post.

Hmm...
 

since he hasn't answered with what to use as what his applications are...

For handheld I would suggest the SM58 for vocal, it's not a field microphone but will stand up to it. A step up is the EV RE50, and then a Sennheiser MD46.

If it's going to be mounted on camera, the one of the AudioTechnica's aforementioned, or a Sennheiser K6 base Hyper or shotgun (44 & 66 respectively) - Sorry, I'm a big fan of Sennheiser. A step up would probably be a Sennheiser 416 (in my mind), and then the Neumann KMR81i or KMR81 based on your desirable length, if not the Neumann KM140 Hyper is small enough. If you're not a Neumann (and that is noy-mann pronounced... now if I could only pronounce Sachtler) fan, go with Schoeps.

Just on adaptability, I would go with the Sennheiser K6 line, you can go with the Sennheiser ME Lapels (which by the way, seem to be indestructable compared to the Sony ECM66's or a Tram), or a Hyper or shotgun or even a handheld (but has anyone tried the K6 handheld?)

Best of luck and keep your ears on.

Hmm...
 

since he hasn't answered with what to use as what his applications are...

For handheld I would suggest the SM58 for vocal, it's not a field microphone but will stand up to it. A step up is the EV RE50, and then a Sennheiser MD46.

If it's going to be mounted on camera, the one of the AudioTechnica's aforementioned, or a Sennheiser K6 base Hyper or shotgun (44 & 66 respectively) - Sorry, I'm a big fan of Sennheiser. A step up would probably be a Sennheiser 416 (in my mind), and then the Neumann KMR81i or KMR81 based on your desirable length, if not the Neumann KM140 Hyper is small enough. If you're not a Neumann (and that is noy-mann pronounced... now if I could only pronounce Sachtler) fan, go with Schoeps.

Just on adaptability, I would go with the Sennheiser K6 line, you can go with the Sennheiser ME Lapels (which by the way, seem to be indestructable compared to the Sony ECM66's or a Tram), or a Hyper or shotgun or even a handheld (but has anyone tried the K6 handheld?)

Best of luck and keep your ears on.

PD170 microphone
 

I'm looking to switch the mic on my pd170 also. I have been looking at the sennheiser me64/k6. My intent is to use it for weddings and receptions. Would the me64 be a wise choise? I'm worried about the abient sound changing during receptions as I pan toward or away from the dj's pa system. I'm also looking for more bass sound. The sony mic has no bass at all.

Thanks,
Troy

I have a sony pd170 and have thought about changing the mic.

I borrowed a AT835b and did a test with the two mics.

Although the stock mic was quieter, in post I was able to make it sound exactly like the AT835b.

At receptions my sound is good and better depending on where I stand. It was the ceremony that had me concerned and wanting to change mics.

In the end I settled for an iriver and a giant squid. This way I can have my wireless on the groom, the iriver on the podium or near a speaker, and the stock mic on the camera.

Right now with the stock mic I never clip. I was afraid if I tried a hot mic like the M66 that my receptions would be screwed up.

My mic kit is the pd170 stock mic, wireless and wireless handheld mic, the iriver/giant squid, and AT825 stereo mic.

Not for receptions. Sound will change a lot as you pan and
also 64 is light on the bass. The 64 really doesn't sound
very well for use around DJ speakers.

Dynamic mics are not necessarily lower quality mics. Arguably the standard studio mics in radio broadcasting in North America are the ElectroVoice RE20 and RE27 dynamics and it's the rare radio station that doesn't own a handfull. Rush Limbaugh's "Golden Microphone" is a gold-plated RE20, FWIW. Cardioid dynamics like the EVs don't suffer from the "proximity effect" of increased bass emphasis with close working distances that are characterisitc of condensor mics. They're also very rugged and can be a good choice for applications like close-micing a kick-drum.

I have had to play with the sound in post on both weddings and receptions that I have done with the pd170. I need to find an onboard mic that doesn't sound like we're in a car. Something with much more ambient bass.

Any other suggestions?

You have the physics of acoustics working against you when you use any on-board mic and the result is that hollow, "in a closet," sound. You're going to have that with virtually any mic located on the camera itself because the camera location is rarely close enough for proper sound pickup. You need a mic that's OFF the camera and within a couple of feet of the sound source - that probably means lavs on the participants for the ceremony and other mics on the podium and handheld during the reception.

I am going use a PD170 for a wedding soon and just want some basic audio settings advice.

I read a lot of information and what channels to use and what settings to have on, but its bit confusion as I am not so clued up on the audio side of things.

I am only going to use one microphone on the camera and just want to know which channel to connect it to, and what settings to have on or off.

Any help would be much appreciated
Thanks

Are you using a wireless mic and the stock mic? Or just the stock mic?

just the stock Mic...

A good way to set up the pd170 for recording with the stock mic is to send the audio to 1st and 2nd channel. The 1st channel should use the AGC and the 2nd channel should not use AGC. The level should be set by you. This way you can have two different channels of audio at different levels one level is controlled by the camera automatically and the other is set by you. Then in editing you can use the better sounding audio for the output.

Go into the menus to set the AGC settings. Channel 1 is on. Channel 2 is off. Then plug the mic into channel 1 and the 1st switch on the box to channel 1 & 2. Set the next switch to mic, the 3rd switch to 48V on, the 4th to mic (doesn't matter), and the 5th to off.

Turn off NR and wind.

Set the audio level for channel 2 with the silver audio level button.

However, the stock mic sounds bad when far away from the sound source. So if you want good sound be near a speaker or close to the bride and groom. It is important to hear the vows and miking the groom or the officiant with a wireless is a good way to achieve this.

Good luck.

If i want to fit the groom with a wireless mic I guess need to purchase another mic and a receiver to plug in the camera, right? Sounds expensive...

It is well worth the purchase. Vows are important and sometimes if not most of the time the emotion the couple is feeling makes it impossible for anyone to hear the vows. A wireless on the groom fixes this problem.

Thanks for the help so far...

What do i actaully need to purchase for the wireless system?? clip-on mic, receiver, transmitter?

What about the option of recording on a MiniDisc fitted on the groom?

Yes. Here is a link showing some good wireless systems.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...rch&Q=&ci=9450

A MiniDisc is a good idea too and cheaper. The only disadvantage is the MiniDisc audio level's can't be monitored or adjusted as easily.

I use the iriver 895 with a giant squid mic.

The wireless I use for the groom. The iriver I use for the readers or sometimes near a church speaker.

Sometimes the pd170 stock mic sounds ok in a small wooden church with the right sound system. Often the stock mix sounds horrible especially in a giant stone church. Sometimes the camera location in the church is ideal for the shot but not for sound. Since the stock mic is on the camera there isn't too many options for it.

Let us know how it turns out.

hmm, I think i am going top have to stick with minidisc for that extra recording for now, as Im still a student.

I know the minidisc has to have "Mic in" on as an input, but what are the other features it needs for it to be suitible and able to transfer to PC?


Thanks

Here's a sample of what a 4051a sounds like atop a PD-170.

A Mic Muff was used for some wind protection. The boat is running slowly so there's not a lot of engine noise.

I was perhaps 4 to 5 feet from the host and guest.

http://www.hawaiigoesfishing.com/vid...51a_sample.mp4

Here's another:

http://www.hawaiigoesfishing.com/videos/4051sample.aif

This was a string quartet playing outside of an art gallery, shot strictly for B-roll from about 7 feet away. The overall quality caught me by surprise as I wasn't shooting for sound but just for the sake of getting visuals. Again, the mic was mounted atop the PD-170.

Dean, the fishing stuff sounded nice.
Does the Mike Muff slip over the top of the
4051 foam windscreen? Is there elastic on the
base of the Mic Muff?

Dave...

Yes, the Mic Muff slips over the existing foam windscreen or you can get one from them.

However, it's not that effective once the wind starts getting brisk. I just ordered a Lightwave windscreen that provides some dead air space between the wind fur and the mic. I've been told it's very effective in windy conditions.

This mic consistently surprises me with its performance as an on-camera mic. I've shot several situations where I actually selected this mic over the lav that was rigged for production, and the on-camera mic was supposed to be the backup.

Dean, is there elastic around the bottom of the
Mike Muff?

You should let us know how the Lightwaves compares
to the Mike Muff in its effectiveness.

i thought I heard Lightwaves was out of
business. Are they still making their
furries?

I remember Jay M. saying that his 4051 seemed a bit
bass heavy, even with the rolloff applied. Have
you noticed anything like that with yours?

Dave...

There's some elastic and velcro at the opening of the Mic Muff. But to ensure it stays on the mic, I wrap a rubber band a bit behind the mic capsule, and the Mic Muff grips that and stays in place.

In the application I'm using it, the mic can sometimes have just a little bit too much midrange. Also, if I don't roll off the bass and there's a bit of wind, there's a very low-frequency rumble that has to be rolled off in post.

Lightwave still sells a few products. Not sure if it's what's left of their inventory but it seems the company went through some sort of transition phase. Their products seem to work pretty good.

I was going to modify my shotgun windscreen to fit the AT-4051 but there was no simple way of shortening the wind fur to fit a shorter windscreen. So I went ahead and ordered a new one.

I would think that, in theory, the Lightwaves furries
should be more effective than the Rycote
ones because the Rycotes (to my understanding)
do not have the dead airspace. I think the
Rycotes have the fur over the foam and then
the foam is in direct contact with the mic.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong about
the construction of the Rycotes.

I wrote earlier that at825b sounds like the stock pd 170 mic which it did with near by voice miking.

But at a wedding reception, they are worlds apart.

I did a reception and compared the two mics and the at835b sounded much more full compared to the stock mic. It had more bass and was clear. I also compared it to the at825 stereo mic which sounded more muddy but also better than the stock mic.

All in all, at825b sounded the best out of the three.

I wonder how at897 would compare to the at825b in the same situation?