Comparative Demonstration of the Sennheiser ME66 and MKH416 Shotgun Microphones
 

For anyone who is concidering purchasing either a ME66 or a 416, this is a must see article!

Comparative Demonstration of the Sennheiser ME66 and MKH416 Shotgun Microphones
Author: Ken Tanaka

If you're like me, you always forget about the DV Info Articles! They're a great resource!

Thanks for the test!
 

I'm trying to get interview recording techniques together for fixed location (sit down) interviews and was trying to figure out which shotgun mike to get. I was also wondering if I should actually get two mikes one angled down at interviewee and the other angled down at the interviewer about 4 feet away. I won't have a grip running around positioning the mike over the appropriate subject.

Have you concidered a hypercardiod microphone on a stand (either a traditional microphone stand, or a boom pole resting on another stand)? If you haven't already, have a listen/watch of Ty Ford's Microphone Tutorial. Another option could be two wired lapels (as there static interviews, there's no need for wireless).

If you have a look around these pages the general consensus is that hypercardiod microphones are better than shotgun microphones for indoor use. That said, some people do use microphones, such as the MKH416 indoors and claim to achieve great results.

I appreciate the response. I was thinking about mikes on booms just not regular hypercardiod mikes. Mainly because I wanted the mikes always off camera and out of the way to facilitate moving one interviewee after another into position (the hot seat). We wanted an obstruction free path to move people through. Nevertheless I'll read Ty Fords tutorial and see what he has to say about it.

For indoors I would go with a hyper.
The NT3 hyper doesn't need phantom
power and has good reach. Somewhere
here there was posted a sample video
of it in use. For phantom usage, I've
been impressed with another video
I've seen here of the AT4053 hyper
in use, outdoors on a boat.
I've got an AT4073 shotgun that I almost
never use indoors because of it
being "a shotgun indoors", it sounds hollow.

You can still put the hyper in exactly the same position as you were going to put the shortgun. You can still put a hyper on a boom pole. You can also still have the microphone out of shot (regardless of whether its a hyper or a shotgun). From the knowledge this forum has given me (plus personal experience), a shotgun microphone has to be just as close to the source as a hyper does. This post sums it up really well.

From first hand, an NT3 will sound HEAPS better indoors than a ME66 will.

Chris, I used the NT3 on a stand, about 4-5
feet from a singer (because the mic
had to be out of shot) and the first thing
that stood out to me when I put on the
headphones to monitor it was how good
a reach the NT3 has.

I also just used it indoors, about 25 feet
from a good-sized oscillating fan, and every time
the fan blew toward the mic, it
wrecked the audio. The NT3 is VERY
sensitive to air movement. I had on
the (thin) foam that comes with the mic, which
does basically nothing to help.

NT3 for indoor interviews
 

I'm convinced now Hypercardiod on boom pole sounds great! Phantom power isn't a problem my mixer provides that. B&H has the NT3 and stand mount for a good price well within my budget, so I'll probably order that Mic today. since I'm using it indoors there certainly isn't any reason for a windscreen.

Interesting stuff Dave - good feedback. I would advise perhaps using a Rode DEadcat on the NT3 and i think that will solve the air-movement problem.
I know its not purpose made for use on NT3, but it does a fairly good job with a Videomic which is also very sensitive to wind and air movement. Worth a try i think - the Deadcat isn't much dollars at B&H.

I am going to get an NT3 later this year i am sure. I've heard many good things about it and as a non-phantom powered hyper, it will be a for sure a very useful mic IMO.

I've had a 416 for over ten years, it has followed me through many transitions in the way I work - when I first bought it I was shooting exclusively film and editing on a Moviola 6 plate - I paid more for it than it costs now, actually and amazingly (I think it was $1600)...

I am about to buy another one, not because anything's wrong with the one I have, but because I use it so much I can't do without it, and since I'm recording double system often (with an HD P2) I can have on on the nose and one with my soundman..

Good mike, industry standard...I also use an AT alot (don't recall the #, short shotgun) - it's a little less money, maybe a little more rugged, and matches the Sennheiser pretty well...

Stu, I've heard (but haven't confirmed) that
the head size of the NT3 is the same as
a Shure SM-57, so accessories (such as wind
protection) for the 57 should fit on the NT3.
The question would be: What accessories
are offered for the 57?

I don't imagine Shure would offer much in the way of wind protection for the 57, as its mainly used in live environments on stage.

However, I think the Rode DeadCat is a great suggestion, and I think, judging by the picture/specs, it would fit onto the NT3 quite well...

Steve, just out of interest, if you had a choice between a 416 and a high quality hyper-cardiod mic for an indoor shot, which would you pick?

Chris.. several years ago I did an audio recording with Jack Lemmon (sadly, several months before he died) at a major sound studio in LA.. I was surprised that they miked him with a 416 in the studio... they felt it was the best mike because it eliminates off-axis well and allows a comfortable distance from the talent (makes popping and esses less of a problem).. I figured, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me...

Steve, what kind of recording was it? Voice overs?
How far off did they place the 416?

416's are also preferred for studio work by some V/O artists. But remember, these applications are almost always in an acoustically treated environment - sound stage, announce booth, etc - and the shotgun's characteristic colouration of the sound in a normally reflective untreated room due to the frequency dependency of its directional properties doesn't apply. Hard to have distorted tonality from the reflections when the acoustic treatment eliminates the reflections in the first place.