I've been reading lately on some other video forums some very conflicting stuff about choosing microphones for video. What really got me was the suggestion that cheap always means rubbish, and expensive always guarantees excellence. A few people had bought budget microphones and were treated pretty curtly for suggesting they thought they were good. Sometimes people had recorded a few examples of bad - middle and good, but after listening to the files, they didn't sit quite right with my own viewpoint. So I figured it would be useful to do the tests myself, and put the video up for viewing - and make the audio files themselves available. The project was far more time consuming than I first thought, and the finished video and files are by no means perfect. I've detailed all the errors and snags on the download page, so people can assess for themselves. Watching the video this morning on this laptop means I can't even hear some differences, so there's plenty of room for thought here. Have a look at microphones for video (http://www.earsmedia.co.uk/microphones.htm) and you can view the video and download the files. The video is also available for download from Microphone Comparisons - price v quality on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/4598866) so you can investigate a bit further.

Out of all the microphones I tested, only one cheap one stood out for being a bit 'unpleasant' - but it's not much different to some of the camera built in mics I have tried over the years.

My guess is that plenty of people will have different opinions - that's good. Others will moan about the technical flaws (I know most of them - but frankly only spotted them too late and re-rendering was the only option!). So comment is great, but don't shoot the messenger for trying to give people the chance to make their own minds up.

My own thoughts are pretty much that cheap mics can produce good results - but expensive ones don't automatically guarantee good results either.

I haven't yet read or viewed your links but I can easily say two things:

Yes, when you buy a more expensive mic, you will get better sound quality. However, the more quality you want, you have to pay extremely large amounts of money. My $300 stereo mic sounds pretty darn good to me. But I have no illusions that a much more expensive mic will sound better but I can't hear the difference and am not willing to pay for a difference I can't hear.


More importantly I think, when you pay more for a microphone, you'll get a better build quality. My Sennheiser MKE300 worked great. But it was made of plastic. I've seen metal shotguns that had been bent and straightened with no apparent impact on sound quality.

Paul:

A lot of what you have heard is true but you have to look at what your needs are, in which kinds of situations you will be recording in, who your audience is and what their expectations are for quality. In audio, there is a law of diminishing returns at work. This means that as you spend more money, the differences between mics, for instance, become smaller and finer. The differences are legitimate and are there but can you or your audience tell the difference?

Audio is much more dependent on skill than gear. Any sound mixer on this board will tell you that a close mic'd $200.00 hyper is going to create a better recording than a $2,000.00 hyper from ten feet away, you cannot refute the laws of physics. Skill and technique are what make good sound, better mics are just a tool that sounds slightly better until your ears and audio palate are "tuned in". The best audio is the audio that works well in the project, moves the audience emotionally and is essentially, transparent. You don't notice great audio (unless you do it for a living), but you do notice that the show/project just works.

For most neophytes, the smartest investment you can make is to hire a professional sound mixer. Almost all low budget projects have terrible sound because the producer thought they could "handle the audio themselves". No matter how you study and which gear you buy, you aren't going to make as good of a recording as someone with twenty or thirty years of experience in doing it. You won't know which tools to use in which situations, how to use the tools correctly, etc. Sound recording is an art and science, it's not a "thing" that you just pick up and start doing well. It's no different than throwing a grip and lighting truck at someone who doesn't have experience at lighting. They will not become a DP just because they have a grip and lighting truck at their disposal. Audio is the same way. Do it yourself usually equals bad sound.

That said, I would advise you to do some reading.

Here is an article I wrote quite a few years ago that should be required reading for beginners Location Sound: The Basics and Beyond (http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/location_sound.html)

Here is a microphone shootout so you can listen to the differences between $200.00 and $2,000.00 microphones. I recorded the samples myself and while you should be able to hear the differences, you can make great recordings with cheap mics IF you know what you are doing. If not, doesn't really matter which mic you buy As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Microphone (http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/right_mic_brockett.html)

Oh yeah, you are going to need lavalier microphones as well Audio In Close Up - Which Lavalier Should I Use?" (http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/lavs_brockett.html)

But seriously, if you care about your audio, hire a pro. If you are a hobbyist or intend to become a professional location sound mixer, at least the articles above will give you a clue as to what is involved.

Best of luck,

Dan

Thanks Dan - you missed the point a little. I'm quite aware how important sound is, on it's own, or for moving image - but it does seem that audio experts on video forums seem to work on the premise that expensive is good, and cheap is not. While I also see where that comes from, the picture people don't seem to have the same hang-ups. My real issue is that it's the right tool for the job that really matters. My first sound job was a long time ago, and was a Nagra with cystal sync. I'd like to think I do know a bit about audio matters after all these years. I totally agree with you about the physics, and the law of diminsihing returns. My real complaint is in slavish sticking to a forumla without trying new things. I've been using B3 lavs for a long time, and only tried DPAs two years ago - and only because B3s weren't available. Now, I use them all the time. I was just resistant to even trying new stuff. In the studio, I've always listened to a voice first, and then chosen a microphone that flatters it. I've never been one of these people who always uses a U87 on the vocals automatically. with a limited inventory available, and often no extra budget to hire in extras, the matching exercise is critical. I've got a pair of decent ears, but often can't detect differences on some material between the expensive and the cheap. Of course there are rubbish mics, but there are also some gems.

Forgive me - but I spend quite a bit of time travelling around studios here in the UK and am seeing more and more unusual kit. This years new tool seems to be ribbons in all shapes and sizes. They sound different, and not automatically better.

I've not read the article you linked to yet - but I will, even though at 50, I'm not a beginner. Theatre and TV sound have paid the bills for quite a while - on and off

My beef is simply the attitude that money makes quality - with no exceptions.

There are some expensive mics that I think are really grim - and many of the precious ones found in older studios have an amazingly coloured sound, and yet they are seen as the jewel in the crown. Stick them on an unsuitable sound source and they sound horrible. SM57s are still so common on snare drums, but there are far better ones around - as long as you don't want the classic Shure snare sound. If you do, then what's wrong with using them. For a while, I did theatre in unusual venues - musicals in a circus ring - and I lost an 816 on the first night when it got jumped on. I replaced them with Audio Technicas, and lost a further two. The difference in quality between them was noticeable to me, but with a bit of subtle eq, it went away - and worked.

I guess I'm like most people, and the best mics get used the most - BUT - sometimes the number twos are actually very good - and this is what I'm trying unsuccessfully to get across.

I've got video kit with 2/3", 1/2" and soon 1/3" sensors - and rarely find the same attitude from the video people. People on forums like this ask what's the best $6000 camera and nobody says they are all rubbish, you need to spend $15000! In the audio sections that's exactly what happens, and anyone who suggests using the cheaper ones gets savaged.

I don't understand this. The point of my video is simply to let people see if they can hear the differences - some are obvious, some much more subtle, and at least 3 people have told me that they like the sound of the Samson C01 which is dirt cheap.

I already own a Samson C01 and have done for some time. It's a beautiful mic and have recorded some beautiful vocals on it. Also, we have an SM58, which has recently been downgraded for use by the harmonica player. Why? Because we found these brilliant Yoga dynamic mics at Maplin. They don't have as much gain or tone as the SM58 straight out of the box, but EQing the vocals produces brilliant results every time.

I don't see why video production is so far away from radio or music production in terms of its attitudes towards audio equipment. The results are more important in those medium but they will use anything as long as it gives them the sound they want.

Paul:

I understood. If you explore my microphone review article, you will see that the best value microphone I discovered is the AudioTechnica AT875R, which retails for under U.S. $200.00. I believe that so much that even though I own a couple of Sennheiser high end mics, the AT875R has been my main travel mic for the past year and I have recorded programming for A&E, Paramount and a bunch of corporate programs with it alone. Great mic and very cheap.

While I love the way the Schoeps sound, with their new upcoming price increases, they are becoming impractical for anyone other than a professional sound mixer to own.

I don't subscribe to the belief that cheap = lousy and expensive = good.

Dan

Thanks Dan - you missed the point a little. I'm quite aware how important sound is, on it's own, or for moving image - but it does seem that audio experts on video forums seem to work on the premise that expensive is good, and cheap is not. While I also see where that comes from, the picture people don't seem to have the same hang-ups.

Paul:

I don't think that's true at all. However, what you'll find a lot of the "experts" recommend are tried and true products that will provide you with excellent audio and last you a life-time. To put this another way, you could walk into Harbor Freight here in the US and purchase a drill for around $29 US, or walk into a Home Depot and pick up drill for $79. Both are made in with one thing in mind, cost. Will they work? Yes. Will they last you more than one or two projects? Doubtful. On the other hand, spend an additional few dollars at Home Depot, pick up a better drill at $130-150 dollars, and chances are that product will last you a lifetime. Which is the better bargain in the end?

The same goes for audio. Are we 'hung up' on gear? In some ways yes, but that's because we know what works and what doesn't work. To use your example, the picture people are just that. People who see things, expect to see things. Sound is ALWAYS the last thing 99% think about, I'm not pulling that out of the air, I'm using experience here. When I get hired, I the eyes of the producer start glazing over when I start talking audio, they don't give a hoot about sound until they don't have it. All they care about is "can you get me sound?" In some cases, I have to explain why it won't sound good, but in most cases they don't care because they have the visual look they want. That's where pulling out the exotic mic, might give me an edge and give me the tool I need to try to get some sound that can be useful later. Dig through these forums, look at how many threads by picture people are "how can I fix this sound?", these are almost always done with equipment that is akin to the $39-79 drill but more importantly not only done with the tools designed for limited use, but in the hands of inexperienced people. Give a carpenter the $39 drill, he'll do his best to make that drill work to its full potential, he'll know the limitations of it, and not push it beyond what it is capable of doing. The inexperienced person pushes the unit (usually without knowing it) and burns up the motor. The same is true with audio equipment. You give a pro some the less expensive equipment and experience will still get you better sound than quality equipment in the hands of inexperienced people.

Dan has provided some wonderful guides to equipment of all price ranges and quality. But it's not all about gear, it's about knowing when to use certain types of equipment and when to use something else. Picture people tend not to know when that is... go to any of the 48 hour film festivals, watch the results. The visuals are usually great, the audio usually suspect. Why? Because picture people are passionate about pictures, not sound. On the other hand, many people including myself are passionate about sound and that's why we're in this field. Do I have exotic gear? Sure, but only because I've been able to buy it from doing jobs over the years. You don't start out with a full kit, and unless you have money to blow, you don't buy every $39 drill, you examine your budget and needs, knowing you'll do this more than once and make your decision based on that. Picture people I don't think do that enough.

I'm not a snob when it comes to gear recommendations, but I do try to steer people towards equipment that will last them a lifetime vs. the limited 'one-time' use. The links Dan provide I think take that one step further and provide you the ability to see and hear the results of various equipment at all price levels.

Wayne

I would use an expensive mic if I could justify the cost, in my pro life I have been lucky to use a 416 and other fine mics.

But as for my home set-up a rode ntg-1 or the sony camera mic that is on my S270 is fine for most of my applications.

As said I know their limitations and as I am an expert in audio post I know what I can use from location sound and what will be beyond the recovery limitations of my pro tools set-up. I also have two G2 radio mics and if used correctly they can get some good results.

An old friend once said that all microphones sound the same, not true but the only way to tell is by doing an AB test.
Now who can tell me what mic's were used as vocal mics on all those classic records that we all have, OK most of them will be a neuman U87 but do we care, not really and at the end of the day it is all about the performance and the content rather than the gear used.

as has been said, better quality gear simply stacks the odds in your favor getting better results. mics are a lot like learning to play an instrument in terms of learning to place them and boom them on moving people.

on 1" computer speakers, mic PLACEMENT will be more audible then type, but in a theater, or even well setup home viewing room, you'll much more clearly hear the difference between the cheap and expensive mic. if your work never gets heard on speakers that will reveal the difference, thats one thing. I do know my material gets heard on everything from small speakers to theaters. therefore I made the investment over several years into really good mics because there really is a difference.

OTH, when you can't get ideal mic placement, thats when you'll REALLY appreciate the better mic's because they will do a better job. this is especially true with schoeps mics and off axis sound where they have more even attenuation across frequencies then other mics. in post simply bringing the level up may be all you need and it will be ok. with a cheaper mic it may have a more notched sound that will take more eq to try to match.... and thats were the better gear shines, when life isn't perfect.

If you go to the Trew Audio web site and look up the Mixer Links pages: Trew Audio: Sound Mixer Links (http://www.trewaudio.com/mixerlinks/) most all of the Pro Location Sound Mixers listed will have an equipment list. I find this very helpful on my audio equipment purchases.

I have a extensive background in Film Photography and I have said for years a used Nikon lens is far superior than a new Vivitar lens. I would rather buy a used Lectosonics Wireless mic (in good shape) than spend the same money on a new Audio Technica unit.

I've been reading lately on some other video forums some very conflicting stuff about choosing microphones for video. What really got me was the suggestion that cheap always means rubbish, and expensive always guarantees excellence. A few people had bought budget microphones and were treated pretty curtly for suggesting they thought they were good.

I think I know the website and thread you're talking about. It's interesting to note the threads, particulalry as I would say the conclusions are mirrored here. The start point, however, was slightly different. The question posed by the OP was whether a USB mic would work for a voiceover (and not a debate on the relative merits of cheap microphones). In his case, the cheap soluton was the most appropriate one. He was pleased with his results.

However, it was subsequently noted that the cheap solution, although fine for his needs, did not represent fantastic quality. This point was made to ensure that any misperceptions were cleared up. To summarise:

...if you want to raise your game, you should be "training" your ears and, when you do, you'll realise just what your USB really sounds like, compared to other microphones....

...The bottom line is... Yes, your USB mic will sound okay but don't assume that it's the dog's gonads and try to tell us that "a $60 mic can be just as good as a $500 mic". Only if the $500 mic is a $50 copy being sold as an original.

...... but that's exactly the problem - people's ears can be trained and many think that the usb type microphones do offer sound that works. I'm not trying to say that something like a U87 (there's one on eBay now for a grand, second hand) won't be better. It certainly could be, but maybe plugged into a 'quality' pre-amp or a channel strip on a premium analogue desk should be added into the story. A quality microphone plugged into a modern camera's analogue inputs might be pointless, as the signal chain isn't up to the same standard. If the A/D conversion is carried out in the mic, then the signal chain isn't going to downgrade the quality. My own experience of the preamps in various mixers is that they vary in quality far more than microphones. The reviews of the common usb microphones seem to indicate that people are pleasantly surprised by them. I don't think it's really good to talk on one forum about content on another, but in general terms, what really annoys me is that people buy products, use them and are very happy - yet others in audio, then tell them they are wrong, and then use the argument that if they can't hear the difference, it's their hearing, or aural acuity that is to blame.

With the decline in the large professional style recording studios and artistes of all statures recording in project studios, is it any wonder that choice has widened and people now are willing to try new products, and not stick to old favourites?

Whenever video sound people discover new audio products, it seems they just wish to dismiss them out of hand. Recording and theatre sound people are much more open to new products, and trends change on a year by year basis.

......Whenever video sound people discover new audio products, it seems they just wish to dismiss them out of hand. Recording and theatre sound people are much more open to new products, and trends change on a year by year basis.

Paul, really, you should stop smoking that stuff. I work in this business now for a long time and am fairly familiar with what's going on there and me thinks your crusade isn't exactly based on reality.

.
Whenever video sound people discover new audio products, it seems they just wish to dismiss them out of hand.
Dan Brockett, who I suppose you would call a video sound person, did a really thorough and useful job of reviewing many microphones. If anyone reading this thread hasn't been there I recommend visiting his reviews.
It was quite clear to me when I read his reviews months ago that he had very good things to say about a relatively cheap and unknown microphone, the AudioTechnica AT875R.

I agree 100% with the premise that the proximity of the mike is the key to better sound. Authors like Jay Rose agree with that premise as well as evidenced by his books and his posts over at DV.com

John

Ok - I know when I'm beaten. Holy is the 416, anything else is the spawn of the devil, and I'll keep my reality to myself.

not at all. I HATE the 416. I have had found this mic to generally be thin sounding, except when moved in too close. then it has proximity effect kick the bass in, making for lots of cussing when trying to level and match different takes together. maybe one might argue that the boom / mixer needs to be more consistent with placement, but that just isn't always practical between wide and CU shots. if you don't do the post side of things with this mic, you just may not be aware of it.... I am :(

The mic heretic

In the end analysis, Dan Brockett's intro to his online mic comparison (http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/right_mic_brockett.html) was about as well stated as I have seen the argument in this thread put.

In my limited experience, I have found that due to a need to save money, I have often purchased cheap mics, only to move up quickly as my appreciation and skill improved.

Still, I think it is fair to point out that top end mics will give excellent results. But what is not said is what kind of results will you get using something less? (with a hint the results are a significant compromise in quality) Stated another way, if you resort to using something like say, a modified Oktava MK-012 (hyper) and an AT875r (shotgun) and a SONY ECM-44b (lavalier) is your sound quality damned to h*ll, as a matter of course?

I think the answer may vary depending on who you ask, but in my mind, is that with proper care in use and capture, and in 90%+ of the circumstances, 98% of the people listening to your work will find it perfectly acceptable, if not downright good.

That said, if I had a financial ability to buy/use and pay for it, I'd probably want a Schoeps CMT641, A Schoeps shotgun, and a better lavalier (another great comparison piece Dan Brockett did on lavalier mics)

I don't see this as a black and white issue. Is Ford a better car company than GM? Can either make a car that is as good as a BMW or Volvo or Subaru? (I know THATwill invite some obvious comment about finances). The argument here is somewhat similar in tone.

I debated posting in this thread as it was heavily posted by folks whose experience dwarfs mine, but thought better as I realized that relative newbies would read this and I asked myself what they would take way from it, and how I might offer something of value for them. I hope this post did.

Chris Swanberg

ps. Paul's video on Vimeo is a good watch/listen. Thanks Paul.

Paul,

Nice comparison video. I ended up riding the levels to normalize them. Often, loud tends to win, so I tried to take that out of the equation. And I'd agree, only the AT55, with no bottom end at all, was useless.

One problem with mic evaluations is the people view mics as wines. If a wine is tart, it's just tart. You don't add sugar to balance it. But with mics, we can easily EQ down a peak and add a small amount of smooth boost to improve the overall balance. That said, you can't EQ in something that doesn't exist, and you don't want to add sharp, high-Q boosts.

So when people shop between two mics, and dislike one because it has a bit too much high end, they're missing the point. If the price or packaging are superior, it might be worth the few seconds to shelf the HFs - and with some dull voices that HF sensitivity might be the right medicine.

Things to avoid would be 1) holes in the response (like the AT55), 2) a sharp peak in the response (a resonance point can distort early), 3) a bumpy response (hard to tune out), and 4) crunchiness or distortion.

With directional mics, it's important to check that the off-axis response falls away smoothly. It's possible to get frequency or directional bumps that can cause resonances in the off-axis (and unwanted) sound.

As more of a post guy than a production guy, I'm concerned about 1) distortion, 2) noise, 3) missing information (where are the consonants?!), and 4) EQ - in that order. The first three items can ruin a take and/or cost hours in post work that never quite fixes the problems. EQ? That's part of the fun of mixing!

Paul,
So when people shop between two mics, and dislike one because it has a bit too much high end, they're missing the point. If the price or packaging are superior, it might be worth the few seconds to shelf the HFs - and with some dull voices that HF sensitivity might be the right medicine.

As more of a post guy than a production guy, I'm concerned about 1) distortion, 2) noise, 3) missing information (where are the consonants?!), and 4) EQ - in that order. The first three items can ruin a take and/or cost hours in post work that never quite fixes the problems. EQ? That's part of the fun of mixing!

Great post and reinforcement of the basics for an audio newbie like me. I don't think it is said enough that the audio capture you get from any mic is just the base audio. You still have to spend a lot of time in post to get it right. I spend at least as much time on the audio as the video in post. I have noticed for me that the better (or more appropriate) the mic, the easier the edit.

...I have noticed for me that the better (or more appropriate) the mic, the easier the edit.For me too. Also, the closer to the subject, the better the sound - assuming no clipping.

Things to avoid would be 1) holes in the response (like the AT55), 2) a sharp peak in the response (a resonance point can distort early), 3) a bumpy response (hard to tune out), and 4) crunchiness or distortion.

As more of a post guy than a production guy, I'm concerned about 1) distortion, 2) noise, 3) missing information (where are the consonants?!), and 4) EQ - in that order. The first three items can ruin a take and/or cost hours in post work that never quite fixes the problems. EQ? That's part of the fun of mixing!


Well stated, John. It will make a good hand-out for a class:-)

All too often, mics are selected based on myopic EQ - "I sound great with this mic!" When in reality, the mic is muddy on the bottom and lacks brilliance. But the mic sounds "right" because myopic EQ doesn't account for bone conduction of one's own voice or other acoustic instruments for that matter.

With a good mic, you sweeten the audio. With a bad mic, you only get to fix it.

With a good mic, you sweeten the audio. With a bad mic, you only get to fix it.Great quote!

Great quote!

A lucid moment. Maybe I should save it for my signature line;-)

not at all. I HATE the 416. I have had found this mic to generally be thin sounding, except when moved in too close. then it has proximity effect kick the bass in, making for lots of cussing when trying to level and match different takes together. maybe one might argue that the boom / mixer needs to be more consistent with placement, but that just isn't always practical between wide and CU shots. if you don't do the post side of things with this mic, you just may not be aware of it.... I am :(

The mic heretic

Steve,

If you think the 416 is thin what mic do you use?

Regards,

Ty Ford

At the risk of being hung, drawn and quartered I too must confess to being less than overwhelmed with the 416. maybe it's in my imagination but, to my ears, the 416 concentrates too much on the high tones and then very noticiable proximity effect with the bass colours.
Having said that, the MKH60 is simply luverly, okay it cost about 20% more but is well worth it in my (limited value but not so humble) opinion.

Sound recording seems to be a very delicate area when it comes to opinions. Some forums seem to be dominated by those who say that only those with Neumanns should be allowed anywhere near a recording deck, others dictate that a cheap chinese mic is just as good as a top marque. Both are too extreme for me and my opinion is that a Behringer is better than nothing (but only just).

There's nothing wrong with using cost-effective equipment but, even for my musically challenged ears, the difference between a cheap USB mic and a Neumann is so massive that to compare one with the other is just silly.

As for Doug's "With a good mic, you sweeten the audio. With a bad mic, you only get to fix it." - Quote of the year!

I don't think it is smart to judge an equipment by its price. There're certainly a lot of good microphones, and there're even more bad microphones. But the problems are: 1.) A lot of cases, good microphones were used for the wrong applications. 2.) Buyer don't know how to judge the quality of a microphone, so, bad microphones were ncouraged to be made. Not necessary to be low price, also some pricer products. Some focus on the exaggerate appearance.
Pick the right tool for the purpose, not the price. I'll certainly use my Schoeps for most applications, but I also use low price China made microphones for some instances where these miniature clip-on or dynamics are more appropriate.

At the risk of being hung, drawn and quartered I too must confess to being less than overwhelmed with the 416. maybe it's in my imagination but, to my ears, the 416 concentrates too much on the high tones and then very noticiable proximity effect with the bass colours.
Having said that, the MKH60 is simply luverly, okay it cost about 20% more but is well worth it in my (limited value but not so humble) opinion.

Robin,

The 416 survives today by doing the job well. Yes, it has a peak that captures dialog really well. Yes, most of the time unless used on a sound stage, you need to roll off the bottom some. It is also extremely rugged and very resistant to RF problems due to its design. And, yes, the MKH60 is a great piece of kit. Not as exaggerated on the top. Smoother.

I was just on a shoot to doing some additional footage for a project where the job was to shoot inside a small chapel. My job was to match the audio done by the previous sound professional. When I asked what he had used, I was shocked to find it was a 416. In a hard walled slappy environment, there's no way I would have used my 416. Regardless, that what I had to use to match the audio.

Regards,

Ty Ford

The 416 is probably the most used microphone for film productions, ever - and used to this day. It's competition in films are mostly the Neumann 81, and rather recently the Sanken CS3. There's also the Schoeps Cmit (or so) - manufactured after untold years of telling the public that Schoeps will never produce a 'shotgun mike - because they sound bad by design'. They painted theirs blue and put some funny LEDs on it to overcome their own scruples ;-)

I once heard, could never really confirm that though, that the 416 was tuned specifically to work with Nagra tape machines. Would make sense as it sounds awesome when used with one. On the other hand, Nagras being for so long the only game in town, Neumann too must have had some thinking in this direction.

I've used (and am using) the 416 daily. It really has this ability to pick up voices nicely. Folks who find it sounding 'thin' just don't know how many great sounding movies they're watching that were recorded mostly with a 416. Regarding the love of EQ: my experience with top Hollywood post houses is that they adhere to the notion: less is more and don't fix it if it ain't broken.

A year ago I was sitting in watching 'audio sweetening' (what a word) as well as final mix of all audio of a movie I was production sound mixer on. Again, besides using some light compression (nice Manley equipment there) and usage of a (hardware) CEDAR unit for background - mostly camera - noise, nothing was done to 'sweeten' the original tracks.

The final mix was done in quite a huge theater setup and hell, them 416 sounded anything but 'thin'.

The usual wisdoms: how to use a mike really is more important than which one is using. A tool one can depend on even if it's sounding 'thin' is worth gazillions more, than one that's temperamental. You strictly can't afford that on a movie set (or any other paid job). My 416s went through super super hot sets (talking about fahrenheits here) to extreme humidity, or cold outdoors. Never stopped working, never. For every Schoeps I use, I carry 2 (two!) backups.

Getting off shotguns for a moment to handhelds. Thinking of spending roughly $200 bucks on something decent, Showed my audio guy whos been in the biz for 10 years the different choices I had and said recommend me one. He flipped my Mics and showed me the work horse of our industry, that beautifully captures the voice of people. Without skipping a beat he said get the Shure SM58. Same Mic that Bono sings into and all the other stars. Best thing about this mic, cost me a whopping $70 new!

So with the spirit of what you're saying, buying something less can sometimes be possible. It's all about the art in which you use your product, that many members here continually mention.

Andy,

For your "other" vocal mic, try a Senneheiser 431, 441.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I do own a senn wireless kit i'm very happy with. But already bought the shure which i'm very happy with. A nice deep rich sound it produces for voices.

Andy,

I'm talking about live sound vocal mics of specific model numbers.

Most of the companies make a number of different mics in their lines to be competitive. Saying that you own a Sennheiser (or other brand) doesn't really tell us much.

Regards,

Ty Ford

It's the g2 kit - granted now I need to upgrade the lav, thats for another discussion.

Wow, those mics you mentioned were up there! i'd imagine those are more for studio sessions.

When I made my short film my friend worked in a recording studio, for my VO section, he brought out this $5000 mic, it sounded amazing. But then again, I wonder how many could tell the difference between that and my SM58 :)

Steve,
If you think the 416 is thin what mic do you use?
Regards,
Ty Ford

Hi Ty

CMC64 is my main boom mic these days. no its not a shotgun, but it does sound nice. since it is less directional, it does make you work a bit more to really get it into the right place. I still have a sony 672 for when I really need to be directional, but I only really use it when there is no other choice. can't say I like it, but for now.... not to say I don't plan to get a CMIT5 some time soon.

Steve,

If the cmc64 (not cmc641) is your reference, then I understand better. I don't think I'd call the MKH 416 thin, but it does have a peak that the cmc64 and cmc641 don't have. As regards the bottom of the MKH 416, I frequently need to roll it off a bit due to various ambient noises, that's why I was asking.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Hello everyone,
I poured myself over every message board to see what I could find out about which was the best microphone buy for my new X1-A1 (well, new to me, I bought it used on Craigslist). I was innitially looking to spend a small amount of money (200 US dollars). But after doing some research over the message boards I discovered a few themes that most experts seem to agree on.

1.) You normally get what you pay for and the law of diminishing returns generally applies. So the more money you spend, the better sound you get, but at a reduced rate.
2.) Placement of the microphone is more important to the sound than the quality of the actual microphone. A well place cheep microphone will sound better than a poorly placed expensive one.
3.) There is not one microphone that is suited for all situations.
4.) Because audio is so important, you should always spend up to your limit. Do not skimp on the audio.

After I doing some analysis of what my own needs were, I decided that it would be best if I got a Hyper-Cardioid and a Shotgun mic. This raised the price on what I was hoping to spend, but I considered every option I could. Since a Schoeps was clearly out of my budget I looked for everything that was under the $1000 range.

Here are the microphones that I compared:
AKG Blue Line SE300b with the ck93 and ck98 shotgun capsule
Audio-Technica AT4053a Hypercardioid Studio Condenser Microphone
Audio-Technica AT4073A Shotgun Condenser
Audio Technica AT-897
Sennheiser ME-66/K6 and ME-62
Sennheiser MKH-416
Rode NTG-2
Rode NTG-3
Oktava MK012

First I would like to thank Ty Ford and all the other kind audio experts that have shared their opinions and expertise with the on-line community. It was valuable for me to hear their comments to other people's questions. After hearing various microphone comparisons that were posted on the internet, and re-adjusted my price range, I decided on what to buy.

I bought the 4073a and the 4053a from Audio Technica. Now while I was reading reviews and peoples feedback, the AT had less than overwhelming support. There were a few vocal advocates of it though, but the majority of people had different favorites to recommend. I chose the 4073 and 4053 combo because I read that mics from the same manufacturer sound better as a combo than mixing two different brands. That seemed to make a lot of sense to me. I am planning to use both at the same time so that I can record each on a different channel. For this reason, I decided not buy the K6 or the Blue Line because of the interchangeable modules. It would be another expense to have to buy an extra power module to get the both microphones to work.

I also discovered that the majority of people that posted dissatisfaction with the 4073, were posted a long time ago, and the price of it has dropped considerably since then. Price always affects opinion. I bought both the 4073 and 4053 from B&H Photo. The 4073 came with a camera mounted shock mount and short xlr cable for $569.95. The 4053 didn't have any extras and was purchased for $400. In the end I paid for $970 for the pair.

In the end I went way over budget but I should have adequate audio for most situations for my small video productions. The bad news is I have no money left over to buy a Rycote Softie, Zeppelin, and Boom Pole. That purchase will have to wait for me to save up the cash. I am thinking broom handle and a modified fuzzy pet or childs toy. Any suggestions there?

Sorry for the long post but I hope this post might help others that are in the same boat I was. I empathize with any of you that maybe as confused as I got while trying to decipher the best bang for the buck.

For $200, get the NTG2 and be done with it. If you are like me and want more, then happy hunting and listen to the experts.

Thank you for reading this and best of luck capturing great sounding audio.

-Eric Vecchi

Eric,

Thanks for your kind words. Best of luck with your new acquisitions. I'm sure they'll serve you well.

Regards,

Ty Ford

...I am thinking broom handle and a modified fuzzy pet or childs toy. Any suggestions there? For $15 you can get a painter's pole. Get the orange one from Lowes. I went to Home Depot and all their poles look all sci-fi, cost $40 or more and rattle like an old Fiat.

BTW, a great first post here. I'd expect no less from somebody in Portland. :)

Cheers, from Camas...

For low cost boom pole, I've read someone from UK (??) suggest a pole for the fishing landing net. I bought a 18' carbon fiber pole for landing net at $40, and paid $10 for a custom made aluminum bolt that thread one end to the pole, and a 3/8" thread for the microphone shock mount.
This 18' pole is kind of too long, that I did not ever fully extend it. Another problem with this, is the pole will flex when extended. Something good and bad. Good thing is the microphone will come down at the end which is prefered, but difficult to control.

Eric,

What you're getting here is the nod to "go McGyver." It's from the TV show in which they had to improvise a lot to get the job done. While problem solving is certainly part of the fun, you do have to look at yourself the way others see you at some point. If you only work by yourself, there's less of a chance that others will see your creativity as some sort of Rube Goldberg behavior affliction gone horribly wrong.

Regards,

Ty Ford

PS: You'll probably get more slack for strange gear in Portland, Maine than in Portland, Oregon.

PS: You'll probably get more slack for strange gear in Portland, Maine than in Portland, Oregon.

Ty,

Portland doesn't seem to have high standards for audio. I called around the top video rental houses looking to rent some nice mics (Schoeps, 416...), and the ME66 is as high-end as it gets around here. If you were to paint the painters pole, few locals would notice the difference.

For sure, when people buy gear, they need to consider the client/customer/audience. If people you care about only see your work through the lens, you can get creative with your choices - only the end result matters. If your client works behind the lens, presentation, industry standards, reliability, and reputation are as important as the finished product.

I also discovered that the majority of people that posted dissatisfaction with the 4073, were posted a long time ago, and the price of it has dropped considerably since then. Price always affects opinion. I bought both the 4073 and 4053 from B&H Photo. The 4073 came with a camera mounted shock mount and short xlr cable for $569.95. The 4053 didn't have any extras and was purchased for $400. In the end I paid for $970 for the pair.

In the end I went way over budget but I should have adequate audio for most situations for my small video productions. The bad news is I have no money left over to buy a Rycote Softie, Zeppelin, and Boom Pole. That purchase will have to wait for me to save up the cash. I am thinking broom handle and a modified fuzzy pet or childs toy. Any suggestions there?
-Eric Vecchi

Eric:

That was such an amazing deal on the 4073a, that I got one too for my audio kit. It's a nice mic. The included foam windscreen is somewhat effective, you can live with it for now. Be sure to do some experimenting with the low cut switch. It cuts out a lot of wind rumble/handling noise you don't need. You can also use the EQ to cut back rumble in post. The 4073a is super sensitive, I have captured some really great stuff with it.

I would be interested in your thoughts on the 4053 when you get a chance to use it awhile.

Jeff

I would be interested in your thoughts on the 4053 when you get a chance to use it awhile.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,
I have a shoot lined up at the end of this month. I plan on posting to the web, audio clips of both the 4073 and 4053, from the shoot. I have not experimented too much with either of these mics yet. I will post my recordings of both in this forum. What will be interesting for me to compare to see how much the sound improves/falls off with distance and placement between the two.

The 4073 will be mounted to the camera and the 4053 will be out of frame on a mic stand (1.5 feet away).

I also have my old Fostex MR-8mkII, 2 - channel recorder that I may use as an external recording devise so that I can still record with the on board camera mic. The mkII can use Phantom Power which is nice/essential.

I also bought a Sony ECM-HW1 Wireless as an impulse buy after I heard the sound quality of one. It uses Blue Tooth and I guess it would be classified as a lavaliere but when I tried to use it while clipped to someone's body, there were way too many pops and body noise. If it is placed on a table or hidden in a prop, it sounds great and has a good transmission range back to the camera. Unfortunately, the ECM-HW1 doesn't work with my camera, as far as I can tell. When I looked up the documentation, it had specific, consumer camcorders that it works with. Bummer, but I think I can either buy an older model of one of those cameras pretty cheep and keep it handy to use in a pinch when I need to place a mic 40 feet away. Or just sell the thing and buy and actual wireless lavaliere system. It is not an immediate need at this point.

Sony ECM-HW1 - B&H - $95 w/shipping

Eric

PS
Thanks for everyone's thoughts and ideas on the make shift boom.