Thanks Steve, I understand. The problem is practical rather than an issue with storage space: a) having to sync in post and b) operating alone in remote (on foot only) locations means having to boom the mic in order to record it to my D-50 which could be problematic i.e. in just having to carry a mic stand along with everyhting else. I suppose I could still mount the mic on camera and get close and record it to the D-50 but that still leaves the syncing problem. I suppose it's often a trade-off between practicality and quality.

Thanks Steve, I understand. The problem is practical rather than an issue with storage space: a) having to sync in post and b) operating alone in remote (on foot only) locations means having to boom the mic in order to record it to my D-50 which could be problematic i.e. in just having to carry a mic stand along with everyhting else. I suppose I could still mount the mic on camera and get close and record it to the D-50 but that still leaves the syncing problem. I suppose it's often a trade-off between practicality and quality.

It may be moot anyway, if you're shooting with the mic on the camera. Even a top-shelf shotgun needs to be within about 18 to 24 inches from the subject's mouth and aimed within a relatively small circle, 8 inches in diameter or so centred on the subject's larynx, to pickup sound at its best. It's a rare shot where that would be a good position for the camera. Conversely, shooting from where the image looks its best is usually a very wrong place for the mic, so your sound is compromised before you ever even get to issues around how it's being recorded.

I have in the past used mikes on the camera, but only for tight shots or ambient shots, but generally not for important dialogue other than an establishing shot. etc.

Just an open question, how important are mikes such as the Rode Videomike, Nikon E11 and other units that are designed to be used on camera? I would like to know how other users are using these, or perhaps more to the point are they worth the money, given their limited use.

While on-camera mics do have limited performance because of their placement, it's a necessary evil to record the best audio possible to the camera no matter what else you're recording with.

So it does eventually pay dividends to have a good on-camera mic.

Whether it's run-and-gun, an unexpected moment, as a backup to a failed off-camera recording, as a good signal for syncing either manually or with software, or to simply not drive you crazy when logging footage because you can hear clearly.

I have found, as others have said elsewhere, that a wide angle lens really does help as you can get the camera pretty close without it looking like that on the image, close enough for the camera mounted mic to pick up a good signal. But I haven't tried this with a shotgun mic though where the positioning is more critical. I think the Videomic Pro looks like a good option for me perhaps given all the limitations of the working environment.

But I will try a dual method on the next interview shoot (which is with a friend so less critical when I'm trying to get everything sorted) also recording separately to a D-50 using a shotgun then compare the two and see if it's really worth it. I think, with the wide angle, I'll be able to position the shotgun below just out of shot but we'll see.

I have found, as others have said elsewhere, that a wide angle lens really does help as you can get the camera pretty close without it looking like that on the image, close enough for the camera mounted mic to pick up a good signal. But I haven't tried this with a shotgun mic though where the positioning is more critical. I think the Videomic Pro looks like a good option for me perhaps given all the limitations of the working environment.

But I will try a dual method on the next interview shoot (which is with a friend so less critical when I'm trying to get everything sorted) also recording separately to a D-50 using a shotgun then compare the two and see if it's really worth it. I think, with the wide angle, I'll be able to position the shotgun below just out of shot but we'll see.

Be careful. Faces shot up close with a wide angle tend to appear very distorted, with an unnatural emphasis on the nose, chin, etc. You often get what used to be call a "Wallace Berry Nose" from the actor who was famous for the size of his schnozz. That's why in still photography fashion and portraiture is often shot with a short telephoto in order to reduce distorting the features and giving a more pleasing overall rendering. An ECU of the face looks better through a telephoto lens from an increased camera-subject distance than it does shot with a wide-angle with a reduced camera-subject distance, even though the face is rendered exactly the same size in both images. Perspective, the relative rendering of the various objects within the frame and their relationship to each other, is governed completely by the film or sensor plane-subject distance, the size of the frame itself is determined by lens focal length. That implies that shooting interview closeups using a wide angle lens is not a strategy that will endear the filmmaker to the subject.

This is really weird. I got the two RCA to XLR adapters, and I short 3.5mm female to 2 RCA male cable to connect the Azden SMX10. The sound is better than the built in mic, with one big problem: it captures the noise from the camera writing onto the card, to the point where it's unusable. I'm not talking raise the volume of the home theater all the way up audible, I'm saying that at normal voice speech level, you can hear it. Not terribly so, but still to the point where it's a nuisance. It's like a high pitched noise that is one second long, every other second. And the weird thing is that this happens whether the microphone is sitting on the shoe, on the holder with the clamp, or even if I move it around as far as the cable will go.

It took me a while to realize where it was coming from, at first I thought it could have been something in that particular room, so I went around the house while recording, and also outside. This noise is noticeable even outdoors, along with the noise of all the critters typical of this time of the year. I even put my ear half an inch away from the compartment that holds the two memory cards and I can hear the high pitched noise coming from there.

Even weirder, the built in mic doesn't make this noise at all, even if I record in a silent room, with the levels on manual and the highest they will go.

Then, I put the SMX10 in the other camera I own, the Panasonic AG-HMC40, and this annoying noise is not present at all, even when raising the volume really loud.

So I'm puzzled. Is this a noise present because of the XLR adapters and extra cabling, or is it that the AX2000 has this terrible defect and even if I buy an expensive XLR mic for it it will still capture the noise of the card writing?

If the camera is electrically noisy when writing to the card, an unbalanced cable like you have with the Azden is inviting interference. That's why pros use balanced mics - the balanced wiring is less susceptible to such outside interference. Stacking the adapters adds to the risk, as you were warned.

If the camera is electrically noisy when writing to the card, an unbalanced cable like you have with the Azden is inviting interference. That's why pros use balanced mics - the balanced wiring is less susceptible to such outside interference. Stacking the adapters adds to the risk, as you were warned.

So what you're saying is that this is not an acoustic problem, such as the microphone capturing too much ambient noise, but an electronic interference, the kind that balanced mics are meant to deal with, right?

Still, it has to be design defect in the AX2000, right? Because the Panasonic HMC40 has a direct 3.5mm input and this noise is completely absent from it. I mean, it this was caused only by using unbalanced audio, then the HMC40 should also have this problem, and it doesn't.

So what you're saying is that this is not an acoustic problem, such as the microphone capturing too much ambient noise, but an electronic interference, the kind that balanced mics are meant to deal with, right?

Still, it has to be design defect in the AX2000, right? Because the Panasonic HMC40 has a direct 3.5mm input and this noise is completely absent from it. I mean, it this was caused only by using unbalanced audio, then the HMC40 should also have this problem, and it doesn't.

Are you saying you can hear the sound with your naked ear when you put your ear next to the camera? Can you still hear it when you put your ear close when the mic is not connected at all? When you said you hear it when the cable was at it's maximum I interpreted that to mean it was audible in the recording even when the mic was removed from the holder and held out several feet away from the camera body.

Are you saying you can hear the sound with your naked ear when you put your ear next to the camera? Can you still hear it when you put your ear close when the mic is not connected at all? When you said you hear it when the cable was at it's maximum I interpreted that to mean it was audible in the recording even when the mic was removed from the holder and held out several feet away from the camera body.

Right, that's what I meant. If I keep the Azden connected, and the inputs switched to use it, the noise is still there, even when I pull it away from the holder and extend it as far as the cable will go, and even then, the noise is still the same volume, which I think confirms that this is an electronic interference rather than the noise being picked up by the microphone acoustically, because if it was, then it would make sense that the farther I extend the mic, the less the noise is audible, but it remains audible even at about two feet away.

And to answer your first question, yes, if I put my ear really close to the camera's card compartment, I can hear the same noise. I haven't tried with the mic not connected, but I'm sure it would make no difference. At the same time I hear that noise, the green LED next to the card turns red.

Heap big mess bad voodoo.

Heap big mess bad voodoo.

The what now?

Then it does sound like electrical noise of some sort being picked up, probably related to connecting the unbalanced mic to balanced inputs via the adapters, most liekly a ground issue of some sort.. Exactly what is causing it would be hard to guess from a distance. It's likely it wouldn't happen with a balanced mic instead of the Azden - either one mic feeding one channel or a pro-grade stereo mic going into both - but you'll need to try it to know for sure.

It turns out it was the card causing the noise. It can be because the original card that made the noise was a class 4 and this one is class 6, or that the other was 32 GB and this one 16, or that the other one is a Kingston and this one a Trascend, who knows. To answer that for certain I would have to format all these cards one by one and make several recording tests.

Still, I'll probably order a mono XLR mic because even with the class 6 that doesn't make the annoying chirping noise, I can still hear this hum that while is not excessive and probably wouldn't even be audible when recording a room full of people, it's still there and the built in mic, while inferior in audio quality, doesn't have it. That's the kind of hum that seems to me might be caused by trying to use unbalanced audio with balanced inputs in the camera. I may be totally wrong, but well, I'll order the MXL FR-304 and see, at worst I will have to lose shipping back and forth if I don't like it.

What really sucks is that Sony makes a camera that is superb in almost every aspect but has an internal mic that is worthless. Because if the mic was the same quality as the rest of the camera, then having an external mono XLR mic would be all you need; you flip the two switches to switch to external when you have to record voice, and then flip back to the internal mic when you need stereo. But as it is, with this camera you need two external mics, one mono and one stereo depending on the type of event, but if it is an event where you will need both mono and stereo, you have to disconnect and connect XLR plugs, and if you're using a camera light, then you also have to remove one microphone and put the other in the holder. I couldn't really recommend this camera even though the picture quality is excellent, because the audio part in it is pretty bad.

Cameras in general are their weakest in the audio section, even those costing many times over your Sony. The earliest incarnations of the Red had audio so bad it was virtually unusable for anything beyond a scratch track, for example.

That MXL is kind of long (14.5 inches) for a ' short' shotgun mic and mounted on the camera you likely to have trouble keeping the end from intruding into the edge of the frame when you're zoomed wide. You can only pull it so far back into the holder - all the vents have to stay in front of the clamp. Something like the Rode NTG-1 or -2 at 10 inches long would be a far better choice. Even though it costs double the MXL, IMHO it is a far better value and will actually prove cheaper in the long run. Give some thought to your mount and wind protection. Note that any mic, no matter how directional, is still going to be susceptible to camera and handling noise - a directional mic is not completely deaf to sounds at its side and rear, just less sensitive to them than it is to sounds in the front. The whine of the camera's zoom motor 4 inches from the mic might still be louder than the voice of someone standing 6 feet away.

That MXL is kind of long (14.5 inches) for a ' short' shotgun mic and mounted on the camera you likely to have trouble keeping the end from intruding into the edge of the frame when you're zoomed wide.

Good observation. That made me measure this with a tape and it turns out up to 8 inches it's good, then it shows. If I were to put in on a holder on the shoe on top of the camera I have a lot more room until it shows, about 15" or so, but that shoe I want to save in case I need to put the light on it.

I'll probably end up getting the MXL FR-303 for now, which is even cheaper and it's 6" long. Later when I have money I'll look into something way better.

Hi Chad, your post has made me think. I have a Rode SVM and have been using to record interviews (alone). The scenario is always outdoors in the countryside, with the mic mounted on the camera (HV40).

I use a wide angle lens so am able to get pretty close to the interviewee, close enough indeed to pick up a good signal i.e. about 2 feet or so. It's important that I capture well the ambience of the natural environment we're in hence the stereo mic. The camera is static on a tripod.

So far I thought the sound was pretty decent, natural and pleasant and clear! Would you say I was wrong headed here?

Also if I combined the stereo signal to mono in post could that help focus the sound or is it too late for that?

Geoff

Voices work best in MONO. Ask any professional. I've already explained why. If one wants to get stereo ambient audio as well, that's perfectly fine, but if you only have one mic and have to choose between stereo and mono, you best go with mono, as the voice/dialog is the most important element. You don't sacrifice the most important element so you can hear the birds chirping better, or applause in true stereophonic sound. If stereo ambiance is so important, then make sure you have enough tracks/mics for it. But no, even a Rode SVM at 2 feet is not going to sound as focused as a Rode VM at 2 feet. Dialog is king, and should be preserved.

Remember that most of the Beatles albums were recorded in mono. Stuff sounds good in mono! If you guys want to go rogue and record vox in stereo - go for it. I'm just telling you the proper way to record voice. It's up to you to decide if the trees rustling and crickets and applause is more important. My suggestion is to get enough tracks / mics to do all elements of your sound-scape properly.

I find it quite amusing people always talk about mp3s being horrible and wavs being excellent,
Even 320kbps mp3s cut off some frequencies, and their lack of fidelity is more apparent when you start to process them with plugins and EQ. It's like low bitrate video not standing up to color correction. Sure it looks OK off the camera, but when you apply polish it breaks down. IMO wave files don't take up much space compared to video, and disk space is cheap. Don't intentionally use MP3 - there's no real up side to it.

Good observation. That made me measure this with a tape and it turns out up to 8 inches it's good, then it shows. If I were to put in on a holder on the shoe on top of the camera I have a lot more room until it shows, about 15" or so, but that shoe I want to save in case I need to put the light on it.

I'll probably end up getting the MXL FR-303 for now, which is even cheaper and it's 6" long. Later when I have money I'll look into something way better.

FR-303 from B&H $120. Rode NTG-1 from B&H $249 Difference = $129 Take PB&J sandwiches instead of visiting McD's for lunch the next two weeks and you've covered it. Buying cheap and later upgrading IS ALWAYS more expensive than figuring out how to get the right stuff with your first purchase.

Take PB&J sandwiches instead of visiting McD's for lunch the next two weeks and you've covered it
Well it might take a bit more than two weeks, but that's certainly the right direction to go. McD's lunch = $5.00; three soft drinks = $3.00; there's $8.00 per day = $40.00 per week, buy a better mic in three weeks, very conservatively.

Buying cheap and later upgrading IS ALWAYS more expensive than figuring out how to get the right stuff with your first purchase.
Another problem with buying cheap is that you eventually end up with a house full of old abandoned cheap stuff that didn't quite make the grade. Sure, you can sell it on eBay for 25% of what you paid (unless it's computer gear, in which case take it straight to the recycling dump). All that money down the drain.

Dang, I just figured out where all my money went!

Voices work best in MONO. Ask any professional. I've already explained why.

Chad, we already argued back and forth about this. Yes, voices sound better in mono, but I'm not willing to record a whole outdoor wedding in mono especially when I have the people talking with a mono lavalier on them recording to a digital recorder. Truth is, unless you are like four few feet away from the bride and groom, which is normally not the case, their voice is going to sound awful even with the best mono directional microphone. Sames goes for let's say, a corporate event with a stage and a speaker. Unless you are four feet away from the speaker all the time, which no company will allow, you gotta have a digital recorder plugged into the mixer and get audio from that.

So a mono microphone on the camera is only useful if you do interviews yourself without a journalist, or in the event that you are not allowed to plug your digital recorder into the mixer.

And most of The Beatles albums were not recorded in mono. They were all published in mono as well as stereo. I know because I have the full collection box set, the one that you could buy in either mono or stereo. Even the first album from 1963 is in stereo.

Take PB&J sandwiches instead of visiting McD's for lunch the next two weeks and you've covered it.

LOL, what makes you think that I go to McD's for lunch every day, or even once a week? And I eat sandwiches, just not PB&J. That's disgusting, at least to me.

I eat sandwiches, just not PB&J.
OK, just eat the bread, leave off the meat, cheese, lettuce, and condiments. It might take a few more weeks, that's all. ;-)

Seriously, here's another way to look at the issue.

For $500, you can get a $500 quality mono mic. Or you can get two $250 quality stereo mics. Would you rather record with $500 audio quality, or with $250 audio quality?

OK, just eat the bread, leave off the meat, cheese, lettuce, and condiments. It might take a few more weeks, that's all. ;-)

Seriously, here's another way to look at the issue.

For $500, you can get a $500 quality mono mic. Or you can get two $250 quality stereo mics. Would you rather record with $500 audio quality, or with $250 audio quality?

That's not really the issue here. I can barely afford to buy a $140 mic, more than that is out of the question. Sometimes it's not a matter of what you want, it's what you can buy that affects your purchases.

OK, would you rather have a recording with $140 quality audio, or a stereo recording with $70 quality audio?

I guess it depends on the intended use, and on the expectations of the audience. Some people use point-and-shoot cams, some use DSLRs. Depends on whether it's quickie vacation snapshots which will be glued in a scrapbook and never seen again, or professional quality photos with some potential market value.

I have to admit I often carry a DR-03 in my pocket, and get some "audio snapshots" if I hear an interesting street musician, or flock of geese, or passing train, or whatever. But I'd never expect to market something of that quality.

OK, would you rather have a recording with $140 quality audio, or a stereo recording with $70 quality audio?

Price and quality don't always go together. Like I said earlier in this thread, my consumer Canon HF100 has far better audio quality than the AX2000's internal mic. To give another example, my $100 Zoom H1 digital recorder has far better quality than the AX2000's internal mic. So the production cost of the H1 is what, $50? So why the hell can't Sony include audio circuitry that is at least the same quality as a $100 digital recorder in a camera that sells for 35 times that price? To me that's outrageous. One thing is for sure, I will seriously look at other brands when I have to purchase my next camera.

Hi the stereo mic that I use is the sony ECM MS957 which is a true M/S mic terminating with a five pin XLR, I then have extension cables to make it into two 3 pin XLR's for hook up to my mixer or camera.

It is mounted on a rode pistol grip with its windgag and a dead rat softie type cover, I use it as my general purpose stereo mic and for collecting stereo sound FX and wild tracks.

Hi the stereo mic that I use is the sony ECM MS957 which is a true M/S mic terminating with a five pin XLR, I then have extension cables to make it into two 3 pin XLR's for hook up to my mixer or camera.

Thanks, but after hearing the dreadful quality of the internal mic, I'd rather stay away from Sony.

That's not really the issue here. I can barely afford to buy a $140 mic, more than that is out of the question. Sometimes it's not a matter of what you want, it's what you can buy that affects your purchases.

Nope, as a professional you're buying the tools necessary to do your job. You have to find the money somewhere. You client doesn't care whether you can afford a Schoeps or only an Azden ... all he cares about is you delivering the same or better sound than he would get if he hired your competition. As I've quoted before, to get where you want to be, you have to look (and sound) like you're already there.

It's all relative. Not every videographer in the world has the same equipment. Some work with $2000 cameras, some with $5000 and some with $10000. The same goes for every other equipment a videographer has. You start small and you build up as you get more jobs and have the money to get better tools. "You have to find the money somewhere" means nothing to me. Money doesn't grow on trees. Now if you tell me I'm making $10,000 a month and I still don't want to buy a $500 mic, then you would have a point.

Hi the stereo mic that I use is the sony ECM MS957 which is a true M/S mic
Of course the nice thing about an MS mic is that the M element is cardioid to begin with. (In theory the S element is a figure-8 capsule of some sort.)

So if you mix down to mono, and the side channel disappears, you have a recording from a cardioid mic. Not a hyper-, not a short shot, but a cardioid. But at least it's one single element pointed straight ahead.

Thanks, but after hearing the dreadful quality of the internal mic, I'd rather stay away from Sony.

All internal mic's are hugely limited so it is not just sony, my canon HF11 has a dreadful internal mic, I have used the ECM MS957 on mainstream broadcasting work and also have the smaller ECM MS907 that I use as an M/S mic for gathering stereo sound effects in the field.

I recently sent the HF11 with the 957 on a job to shoot interviews and as said as it is an M/S mic I can be assured a good mono signal if I don't need stereo audio.

I have used these mics for over 15 years now and they are fantastic value for money even though at times I have access to the best kit available, good audio recording is about using the kit to its best capabilities and I have always used budget kit and to this day the sony's are in my kit bag along with two mini disc recorders and several budget AT875R shot shotgun mics. It is all used for mainstream broadcast and I never get anyone questioning the quality of the results.

Of course the nice thing about an MS mic is that the M element is cardioid to begin with. (In theory the S element is a figure-8 capsule of some sort.)

So if you mix down to mono, and the side channel disappears, you have a recording from a cardioid mic. Not a hyper-, not a short shot, but a cardioid. But at least it's one single element pointed straight ahead.

But a shot shotgun is just a cardioid mic with a phase cancellation tube bolted on the front to reduce background noise, the capsules will always be the same distance from any sound source, yes a hyper cardioid will give a more focussed sound due to the added side rejection but the laws of physics will remain the same and any mic that is too far away from the source you wish to record will have limitations.

At least with an M/S mics you have phase coherant stereo audio and if you wish you can adjust the stereo width in post prod( or on the sony mic), shotguns with phase cancellation tubes can also give problems indoors, I tend to use the AT875R as my general short shotguns these days as their pressure gradient design gives a more pleasing sound than phase cancellation tubes.

And most of The Beatles albums were not recorded in mono. They were all published in mono as well as stereo. I know because I have the full collection box set, the one that you could buy in either mono or stereo. Even the first album from 1963 is in stereo.

Yes and they were recorded mono but post produced into stereo, most of the early stereo versions are actually just the triple track machines panned in the stereo image and were never recorded with stereo in mind, that is why you get strange stereo images with drums panned far left etc.

In my 30 years in broadcast and film and have always shot most things in mono with certainly all dialogue and sync sound and then post produced it into stereo, that way you can concentrate on getting the dialogue nice a focussed in the centre of the stereo image and add stereo sound effects or a stereo ambience recorded at the same time to adjust the balance and width of the image.

I don't do weddings but if I did I would concentrate on getting all the sync sound and any important dialogue in mono but also run a stereo ambience track on a sep recorder such as my mini disc that I can add in post rather than try to record everything at source in stereo. One other advantage of this is that if you then edit you will not get the stereo image changing as you cut from shot to shot and adding an overall stereo ambience buzz track can also help to cover edit points and give continuity to a scene that may be time shifted due to the editing.

It's all relative. Not every videographer in the world has the same equipment. Some work with $2000 cameras, some with $5000 and some with $10000. The same goes for every other equipment a videographer has. You start small and you build up as you get more jobs and have the money to get better tools. "You have to find the money somewhere" means nothing to me. Money doesn't grow on trees. Now if you tell me I'm making $10,000 a month and I still don't want to buy a $500 mic, then you would have a point.

So why did you invest in a $3500 camera instead of saving the money and sticking with a $250 basic consumer camcorder from your local Big Box store? After all, either camera will work to record video. Don't you get that the same reasoning that led you to invest in a pro quality camera needs to be applied equally to your sound equipment, that having the right tools to do the job in a professional manner is just as important for sound as it is for picture, if not even more so?

Frankly, if you only had a total of $3500 to invest to begin with, you would have been better off with a $2500 camera and devoting the other $1000 to sound, or even a $1500 camera so you could devote two kilobucks to the sound kit. Especially if your goal is weddings where most clients would consider crystal-clear sound to be even more important than crisp images - realistically, they have a still photographer at the event to take the pictures and the images from a video camera will never be as good as those he gets. The most important part of what you're doing is the emotion of the event and that is carried more by the sounds than it is by picture. When wifey views this DVD, she going to want to hear her hubby's vows repeated just as clearly as she heard them when they were standing at the alter. You don't get that with a bargain basement shotgun mounted on the camera 25 feet away, the inescapable laws of physics dictate that it simply ain't gonna happen. For that matter, not even a $2500 Schoeps CMIT shotgun mounted on the camera 25 feet away will do that!

Totally agree with you there Steve and my HF11 or the HF100 is very capable of doing some really good pictures but the sound on a wedding would need my sennheiser radio mics and sony stereo mic to get it anywhere near right.

My main camera is a £10k panasonic HPX371 but I use the same sound kit on both cameras but I suppose my 30+ years in location audio and post comes into play a lot more than just the kit I use!

So why did you invest in a $3500 camera instead of saving the money and sticking with a $250 basic consumer camcorder from your local Big Box store? After all, either camera will work to record video. Don't you get that the same reasoning that led you to invest in a pro quality camera needs to be applied equally to your sound equipment, that having the right tools to do the job in a professional manner is just as important for sound as it is for picture, if not even more so?

Frankly, if you only had a total of $3500 to invest to begin with, you would have been better off with a $2500 camera and devoting the other $1000 to sound, or even a $1500 camera so you could devote two kilobucks to the sound kit.

It's the way life works, Steve. Sometimes you have a lot of money to spend, sometimes you don't. Besides, do you seriously think anybody would buy a $1500 camera to spend $2000 in the sound? You, maybe, but I doubt anybody else. With this I'm not saying sound is not important, but for most types of events the shotgun mic is not something worth spending huge amounts of money on. If I do a wedding, I put a lavalier mic on the groom connected to a digital recorder, and another digital recorder as close to them as possible, or with another lavalier on the officiant. If it's a corporate event, I connect one of those recorders to the mixer, where I will get a hundred times better sound than the best quality shotgun mic could give me from the back of the room. So unless I do news interviews on the street, which I don't, a shotgun mic is secondary to the lavaliers or the mixer feed. So it's not something I want to spend a lot of money on, even if I had money right now.

It's the way life works, Steve. Sometimes you have a lot of money to spend, sometimes you don't. Besides, do you seriously think anybody would buy a $1500 camera to spend $2000 in the sound? Just those that do a careful needs analysis looking at the big picture and assuming they are gearing up for both picture and sound instead of partnering with or hiring a sound person who provides his own kit. You, maybe, but I doubt anybody else. With this I'm not saying sound is not important, but for most types of events the shotgun mic is not something worth spending huge amounts of money on. If I do a wedding, I put a lavalier mic on the groom connected to a digital recorder, and another digital recorder as close to them as possible, or with another lavalier on the officiant. If it's a corporate event, I connect one of those recorders to the mixer, where I will get a hundred times better sound than the best quality shotgun mic could give me from the back of the room. So unless I do news interviews on the street, which I don't, a shotgun mic is secondary to the lavaliers or the mixer feed. So it's not something I want to spend a lot of money on, even if I had money right now.

Nope, I didn't suggest spend huge amounts on a shotgun but $250 to $500 for an entry level 'gun is not a huge amount. (Mainstream pro 'guns run from about $750 to about $1500, top-shelf models can run over 2 grand) But to expect to spend a couple of grand on the whole basic sound kit, not including wireless, would be very reasonable in order to get a kit that can cover most typical situations for event and ENG work. Possible components of such as kit ... A good entry level short 'gun boom mic such as the previously recommended NTG-2 that could do double duty on camera where appropriate, a decent entry level (such as AKGSE300B/CK93) hyper for interior booming, a fishpole somewhere around 8 to 12 feet long with shockmount and wind protection for both mics (Boom Buddy or Fisherman's Friend to mount the pole on a C-stand for stationary booming), a couple of hard-wired lavs (Tram?) for sit-down interviews, a hand-held (EV RE50?) stick mic for standups, a basic field mixer such as a Sound Devices MixPre or better, a SD302, plus cables, batteries, and a bag to carry it in and you're already well north of 2 grand and maybe north of 3 before you even look at recorders or wireless. Oh yes, since you've said you want to be able to get stereo ambo, add a good quality stereo mic (AT8022?, Rode NT4?) or a pair of small diaphram cardioids to that kit as well. That will give you the sound kit comparable to the camera you own and then you can start to add wireless and recorders as needed. It's not at all unusual for the cost of the sound gear to exceed the cost of the camera gear. In fact it's not even unusual for the total cost of the sound kit to be several times the total cost of the camera kit.

Steve, you're missing the point. You said "Frankly, if you only had a total of $3500 to invest to begin with, you would have been better off with a $2500 camera and devoting the other $1000 to sound, or even a $1500 camera so you could devote two kilobucks to the sound kit." What person in their right mind is going to buy a mediocre camera that can't even be called professional at $1500 and then add $2000 of state of the art professional audio equipment? A typical videographer that does weddings and corporate events would never do that. It's completely unbalanced. Top notch audio with mediocre video at best . I particularly prefer top notch video with decent audio, which is what I get with my digital recorders. All that equipment you mentioned is perfectly good for a large production company, but excessive for a single videographer, unless there is a specific project that requires it, in which case you rent it all, or if it's going to be a series of highly paid projects, then it makes sense to purchase it.

Steve, you're missing the point. You said "Frankly, if you only had a total of $3500 to invest to begin with, you would have been better off with a $2500 camera and devoting the other $1000 to sound, or even a $1500 camera so you could devote two kilobucks to the sound kit." What person in their right mind is going to buy a mediocre camera that can't even be called professional at $1500 and then add $2000 of state of the art professional audio equipment? A typical videographer that does weddings and corporate events would never do that. It's completely unbalanced. Top notch audio with mediocre video at best . I particularly prefer top notch video with decent audio, which is what I get with my digital recorders. All that equipment you mentioned is perfectly good for a large production company, but excessive for a single videographer, unless there is a specific project that requires it, in which case you rent it all, or if it's going to be a series of highly paid projects, then it makes sense to purchase it.

What I described is hardly a state of the art sound kit. What I described is an entry-level sound kit for professional work, covering the most common shooting situations an independent videographer might encounter. State of the art is going to multiply those numbers many times over. Try pricing an Aaton Cantaar or Deva recorder, mainstays of many studio and network episodic sets ... you're looking at between $15,000 and $20,000, perhaps a little more, just for the recorder. Or another example, I suggested an AKG Blueline hyper for interior booming ... that mic will run about $475. But the industry standard hyper in North America is arguably the Schoeps CMC641 which will set you back right about $2250.

Top notch audio with mediocre video will have better client acceptance than will top notch video with medicore audio. If you have to compromise somewhere because of budget limitations. you're better off compromising the images and concentrating on getting the sound right. Consider a typical corporate gig, a welcome to the company message for new employees from the CEO. What is more important, what he has to say or showing an image that looks like a portrait shot by Karsh or Avedon?

Top notch audio with mediocre video will have better client acceptance than will top notch video with medicore audio. If you have to compromise somewhere because of budget limitations. you're better off compromising the images and concentrating on getting the sound right.

That may be the way you see it, but most people would be put off my mediocre video more than by mediocre sound. Of course if you know how to adjust video settings properly you can get good looking video from a $500 consumer camera, but nobody will spend $1500 on the video camera and then $2000 on a sound kit unless the project calls for it and pays far more than that. In which case obviously the videographer would never get a $1500 camera for such a project.

But anyway, I heard samples of the different mics below $200 on different clips on You Tube and Vimeo and the Azdens sound muffled, so I I ended up ordering the Audio Technica AT875R, which sounds great to me, at least from those sample clips. Here's one example:

In the Studio on Vimeo

That may be the way you see it, but most people would be put off my mediocre video more than by mediocre sound. Of course if you know how to adjust video settings properly you can get good looking video from a $500 consumer camera, but nobody will spend $1500 on the video camera and then $2000 on a sound kit unless the project calls for it and pays far more than that. In which case obviously the videographer would never get a $1500 camera for such a project.

But anyway, I heard samples of the different mics below $200 on different clips on You Tube and Vimeo and the Azdens sound muffled, so I I ended up ordering the Audio Technica AT875R, which sounds great to me, at least from those sample clips. Here's one example:

In the Studio on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/11514961)

The AT875 is a decent entry-level microphone that a lot of people like. What makes you think the audio in that clip was recorded with one though .. didn't you see (what appears to be) the Sanken COS-11 lav she was wearing in the middle of her chest from about 00:28 onward? The first 30 seconds and most of her voice have WAY too much room reverb in them.

...but most people would be put off by mediocre video more than by mediocre sound.

That's not the case - at least not as we reach the lower limits. People put up with crummy video - postage stamp, big block noise, skipped frames - all the time. Degrade the audio to the point at which it is hard to understand or has a hiss, buzz, bad echo, or other distracting problem and people will turn it off. We can shut our eyes or turn our heads when we don't like what we see, but we can't close our ears.

As a kid, I remember watching stuff that was full of analog snow and ghosts - as long as the audio was okay. As long as I could kind of make out the picture, I'd watch. But if the sound was bad, click!

South Park is my favorite example. The visuals are virtually stick figures. Heck, the Terrance and Phillip characters ARE stick figures. By contrast, the sound is expertly done.

Of course, you said "mediocre". That gets harder to judge. One can use fairly cheap audio gear (as long as the preamp is good enough to avoid excess hiss) and apply good production and post techniques to get good sound. But this would be the case of mediocre gear, not mediocre sound. Similarly, great gear used poorly will produce poor audio. And poor audio should be avoided at all costs.

The AT875 is a decent entry-level microphone that a lot of people like. What makes you think the audio in that clip was recorded with one though .. didn't you see (what appears to be) the Sanken COS-11 lav she was wearing in the middle of her chest from about 00:28 onward? The first 30 seconds and most of her voice have WAY too much room reverb in them.

If you click on "Vimeo" in the video (I pasted the URL but this forum embedded the video directly) you can see this in the description: "For the techies: I shot it in 1080/30p and used an Audio-Technica AT875R for audio"

Sure, there's a lot of room reverb but that's not the microphone's fault, it's simply a matter of the surroundings.

That's not the case - at least not as we reach the lower limits. People put up with crummy video - postage stamp, big block noise, skipped frames - all the time. Degrade the audio to the point at which it is hard to understand or has a hiss, buzz, bad echo, or other distracting problem and people will turn it off.

We agree on that, but that's not the discussion we are having with Steve. He said I should've spent $1500 on a video camera and $2000 on the audio kit, which I seriously disagree with. That doesn't mean that a $100 microphone will give you audio that is hard to understand and is unusable. I'll give you an example if you go to this address and watch this sample video of a wedding I made: Samples - Anna & Paul (http://bit.ly/oYeASh)

Let it buffer and when it lets you, go to around 4:50 and listen to the voices. Those voices were captured with my Zoom H1 recorder ($100) placed behind the floral arrangement on top of them. The H1 is stereo but for that purpose I set it to mono since it was there just to record voices. Then I got the stereo ambient audio from the internal mic of the camera I had at that point, a Panasonic HMC80.

It may not be top notch audio, but it's very decent, and the groom has a very expensive home theater and is an audiophile, and he was very happy with the quality of the voices. I was like thirty feet away, so even if I would have had a $1500 shotgun mic on my camera, there was no way I was going to get the same voice quality I got with that $100 digital recorder.

Not bad on the vows .... could have had a bit more presence by putting a lav on either the groom, the officiant, or both but on the whole I'd consider it acceptable. Certainly far better than an on-camera mic would have done. Really lost it on the toast before the cutting of the cake though.

I'm never said you should have bought a $1500 camera in order to spend $2000 on the sound kit, just that that would be one possible approach unfder some circumstances. But to compromise on the camera, if that's what you have to do because of budget limitations, in order to invest in a basic pro-grade sound kit, up to a certain point, generally gives a better ROI of the long run. The point is that for the type of work you're positioning yourself to do - weddings, corporate events, etc and since you're not hiring a sound specialist who provides the kit - your sound kit and the selection of professional grade tools to go into it is of at least equal importance to your choice of camera kit. In an earlier post you complained about how terrible the camera's internal mics are and yet in your approach to the sound kit you're doing exactly what the camera designer's did, treating sound as an afterthought and not really all that important.

Not bad on the vows .... could have had a bit more presence by putting a lav on either the groom, the officiant, or both but on the whole I'd consider it acceptable. Certainly far better than an on-camera mic would have done. Really lost it on the toast before the cutting of the cake though.

I did have a lav on the groom, however, when comparing it to the Zoom H1 track, the H1 was ten times better, besides more balanced because it caught the three of them at around the same distance. Still, I obviously had to do a lot of keyframing on editing because their voices would have different volumes at different times.

The guy giving the toast doesn't sound too good, unfortunately they didn't tell me about it so I had to run to where he was and start recording with the internal camera mic, otherwise I would've put a lav on him as well.

I finally got the AT875R and it's quite an excellent microphone. What I don't understand is why Audio Technica offers very affordable stereo shotgun mics for 3.5mm inputs but the cheapest shotgun XLR stereo is $675 on B&H, the BP4029. There is a cheaper stereo XLR, the AT8022, but because of the shape it would look ridiculous on a camera, it's obviously meant for a microphone stand. And still, it's $500, not a lot cheaper. I don't understand why can't they make a stereo version of the AT875R, even if it's a little more expensive than the mono version.

I wonder, if I add a second AT875R, how different would that be from the stereo of a real stereo microphone? Because each mic would be recording to a separate channel, so it would be stereo in theory, but would it be as good as a directional stereo microphone? Would it make a big difference that they wouldn't be exactly side by side, but that one would be about one inch higher, about 45 degrees from the other one? I mean, the idea is that one will be on the holder, the other one on the shoe, and these are not at the same level.

BTW, does anybody know where to buy a 6 inch XLR female to male cable? I bought the shortest one they had at monoprice, 1.5 feet, but it's still too long and it goes all the way down to the handle. I googled trying to find this but most places don't even have one as short as 1.5 ft.

Two 875R's would not be a good idea as a stereo mic as they need to be crossed pair and the capsules are near the back of the mic, you are better getting what I recommended the sony ECM MS957 as it is a proper phase coherant M/S stereo mic. I have both and use them all the time with great results.

As for a short cable I have the .5m ones too but any shorter and you will have to make them or get them made up for you.