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.

After the horrible performance of this camera's microphone, I would never buy a Sony microphone. Everything I've had in my life branded Sony that was an audio product of any kind was subpar. Sony may be very good for visuals, but when it comes to audio they suck.

...
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.

....

Actually they wouldn't be stereo in theory. Stereo requires more than just the fact that two channels are being recorded - the channels need to be in certain relationships to each other for the playback to recreate the original soundfield. With the mic arrangement you describe, the problem is not that they are on different levels; it is that they are side by side. Here's a link to a page that summarizes some of the most common arrangements of microphones in a stereo setup ... http://www.schoeps.de/documents/stereo-recording-techniques-e.pdf

The problem with using shotguns is that their pattern is a narrow cone of sensitivity. When used singly, they help pick out the desired sound they're aimed at from the surrounding ambience. But when recording stereo, you don't want a narrow beam of pickup, you want to pickup all the sounds coming from straight ahead and left and right, all across from one side to the other of the imaginary stage in front of you. The "V" shape of the two narrow 'beams' of sensitivity coming from two shotguns mounted together at the apex doesn't really do that very evenly. That's why two cardioids is probably the most common arrangement.

After the horrible performance of this camera's microphone, I would never buy a Sony microphone. Everything I've had in my life branded Sony that was an audio product of any kind was subpar. Sony may be very good for visuals, but when it comes to audio they suck.

Sony's consumer lines of audio gear can be iffy - some of the gear is pretty good, some not so good. But their professional lines are generally quite acceptable. For instance, the standard monitoring headset found on just about every location set and soundstage in North America is the Sony MDR-7506 headphones. About 75% of all movies that you've ever seen in the theatres was originally recorded with the sound mixer listening through a pair of those. Personally I think of Sony as being more of an audio company than video when it comes to their professional equipment. Your experience with your camera's internal mic is more due to the fact that camera designers in general have treated sound as an afterthought. Although it has been getting better in recent years, even $100,000 broadcast and EFP cameras have suffered with relatively marginal sound capabilities.

As a point of interest, the term 'pro-sumer' supposedly arose as a description of gear that has professional-grade visual performance with consumer-grade audio circuits.

Sony's consumer lines of audio gear can be iffy - some of the gear is pretty good, some not so good. But their professional lines are generally quite acceptable.

Maybe, but my opinion from having many Sony audio products is that on average you have to pay a lot more for the same quality that you find on another brands. It's about the same as Apple computers. My computer, built by myself with components I chose, outperforms every Mac except for the Mac Pros, except that I put my computer together for about half of what I would have paid for a Mac Pro. In most cases Apple is nothing but cute looking grossly overpriced hardware, and Sony is about the same in many cases. The only reason I bought a Sony camera was that Panasonics have a horrible auto-iris and Canon, at least in November of last year, was still using HDV on their entry level professional cameras. Regardless of that, the video quality of the AX2000 is outstanding, and with the exception of film on Blu-ray, I haven't seen anything on 1080-60i video anywhere, Blu-ray or television, that surpasses its picture quality. Which makes the internal mic that much more of a disappointment, because you get superb picture quality and sound that is barely better than that of a cell phone.

My point is that, if I can avoid Sony, I will.

Actually they wouldn't be stereo in theory...

It's still stereo, but not a natural sounding stereo.

Remember some of the Beatles recordings where the singer would be panned hard to one side and bass or guitar to the other? The effect of two shotguns would be similar to that, depending on angles, isolation, etc.

There are many ways that we can record a stereo soundfield. None is perfect. They are all approximations. Two shotguns is still stereo, but a worse approximation than most. ;)

It's still stereo, but not a natural sounding stereo.

Remember some of the Beatles recordings where the singer would be panned hard to one side and bass or guitar to the other? The effect of two shotguns would be similar to that, depending on angles, isolation, etc.

There are many ways that we can record a stereo soundfield. None is perfect. They are all approximations. Two shotguns is still stereo, but a worse approximation than most. ;)

No it's not stereo is should be regarded as "Split Tracks" people seem to think that 2 tracks of audio is stereo.... its not.
Is a shot gun on track 1 and a Lav on track 2 stereo? Many times this goes to an edit studio and its claimed to be stereo, and it actually creates far more problems than it solves..

Is a shot gun on track 1 and a Lav on track 2 stereo?

If the two tracks are treated as separate tracks and mixed down (and possibly panned across a stereo stage) then no.

If the two tracks are played back simultaneously and in sync, with each track going to a separate speaker (or earphone) then I'd say yes, that's a stereo pair of tracks.

And remember, there's intensity stereo, phase stereo, a combination of the two, binaural, etc. etc. Multitracked pop music probably consists mostly of mono tracks, with the exception of the drum kit (and maybe a Leslie cab) which would probably be miced with at least a pair of mics (recorded onto at least two tracks)... but with everything eventually being mixed down to stereo.

After the horrible performance of this camera's microphone, I would never buy a Sony microphone. Everything I've had in my life branded Sony that was an audio product of any kind was subpar. Sony may be very good for visuals, but when it comes to audio they suck.

Well to dismiss something just because of that experience with sony shows a lack of ability to consider all options to get good results and I can add no more to this discussion, you wanted a cheap stereo mic and I have found that the sony is the best budget mic around! I have even used the ECM MS-907 for pro broadcast use and whilst I am no longer a fan of sony pro cameras after my Z7/S270 I would still consider them if I needed a solution to a future problem.

Sad to see you got a mono mic after all.

I agree with your first postings. Recording the applause in mono is a terrible sound experience.

People here argue that if you zoom, your sound will not zoom with a stereo mic. True and neither will it with a shotgun mic.Thats not the point with recording in stereo. The sound shound be as real as possible.
Yes the vocal from a single person is mono, but the person who is listening has two ears (stereo/). So if the talking person is moving the head to one side a mono shotgun will record same level or reduce the sound level.
A stereo mic will act like your ears and put a higher level to the one side and lower level to the other.
Therefore recording vocals in stereo makes meaning.

I got the AX2000 and yes sound isnt great. My Sony UX5 with 5+1 sound is 1000 times better, so I will also go for a better stereo mic.

I saw a lot of pros and cons on different mics. I think you will never find a mic that everyone says is good or perfect. The Rode NT4 is sensitive to shocks and wind. Then put a dead cat onto the mic if thats a problem. Who on earth will record outside and expect that a not protected mic wouldnt rumble?. Put the mic on a shockmount if its sensitive.

Some people believe that a shotgun will make recordings at 30 feet distance possible. No it will still record so much ambient noice that you dont want to listen to it. If you want to record on distance, then use a small mic mounted to the shirt with a transmitter. Shotguns are for interviews with less than 10 feet and lot of ambient noice, but mono isnt what your ears are ment to listen to. Even if you have a normal conversation with your wife, you will hear her voice in stereo even though the voice has mono output.

If you are to do a wedding recording, the stereo mic makes sence. Yes if not put next the bride and groom it will not record bride to right and groom to the left. But it will record the audience and the rest as your ears would hear it.

A stereo mic needs to be paired in order to make the sound, sound like stereo. If theres just a slightly delay between the two mics. your ears will feel its out of phase and sounds terrible. I can hear a lot of recordings on youtube is out of phase which destroy the whole stereo image.
A convinsing recording on the Rode NT4 is here:
Canon 60D with Rode NT4 Mic (Sound Test) - YouTube
Even the vocal is recorded perfect as your ear would hear it.

Another awesome recording with the Rode NT4 mic used outside:
Nåttarö, Stockholms skärgård. Field recording, stereo. Rode NT4 + Tascam DR-40. - YouTube

And try listen to the recordings using headphones. Then you get the true stereo image.
The frequency range goes from 20-20.000 KHz so it will record the same as your ears are able to hear.
Yes the mic is heavy, so is the AX2000. Use a tripod or a sholder strap if things get too heavy.

I understand your price concerns. But the good thing about a good mic is. You can use it on your next camcorder as well. You could also consider to buy a used mic.

Yes a lot of broadcast stations use mono shotgun mics for their recordings and if no one is askiing for more they will probably continue like so for the next century. But mono isnt that great and your ears and brain is capable of more than mono recordings.

Dont try to setup two microphones for stereo that is build for mono use. If the distance between the two is just a bit out of tolerance, you will have the sound out of phase. Sound isnt moving very fast, so if one mic is a bit closer to the object as the other mic, you will hear something that isnt mono and isnt stereo. It will feel weird in your head.

Its not easy to make good stereo sound recordings. Using a mono shotgun is far more easy, so I guess thats why its used by broadcast TV. They are more likely to get acceptable sounds in the production and they dont have time to deal with bad recordings, so they go for the safe solutions. But not for the stunning sound.

Still I wish you all the best with your mic and your shootings. I think we all purchased what we think is best :-)

"Therefore recording vocals in stereo makes meaning."

• I have to say that all dialog should be recorded in MONO. This goes for weddings or anything. If you have someone playing guitar and singing, yes, a stereo mic is more appropriate to capture the guitar and voice, or a small group. But for dialog, mono is the proper way to record. A stereo recording of voice will never have the voice perfectly centered, and you don't want the dialog or singing track drifting left and right because that's disorienting to the audience. If the proper way was stereo, then recording studios, and Hollywood would have figured that out and used stereo mics. But a MONO mic is always used by professionals for vocals and dialog.
• A shotgun is not designed for recording 10 feet away. It's designed to be held within 2 feet of the mouth. It does not increase the distance you record from, it just reduces the side noise in the mid-upper range.
• For weddings you need to put a lav on the groom, and a lav on the officiant. The bride will be picked up by the groom's mic. Stereo mics are for music, and ambient recordings primarily.

I have the NT4, and it's a great mic! Indeed get a shock mount and wind protection for it.

Yes a lot of broadcast stations use mono shotgun mics for their recordings and if no one is asking for more they will probably continue like so for the next century. But mono isn't that great and your ears and brain is capable of more than mono recordings.

Don't try to setup two microphones for stereo that is build for mono use. If the distance between the two is just a bit out of tolerance, you will have the sound out of phase. Sound isn't moving very fast, so if one mic is a bit closer to the object as the other mic, you will hear something that isn't mono and isn't stereo. It will feel weird in your head.

Its not easy to make good stereo sound recordings. Using a mono shotgun is far more easy, so I guess that's why its used by broadcast TV. They are more likely to get acceptable sounds in the production and they don't have time to deal with bad recordings, so they go for the safe solutions. But not for the stunning sound.

Still I wish you all the best with your mic and your shootings. I think we all purchased what we think is best :-)

Sorry Tom, but you seem to have VERY little knowledge of Television Production and the use of shotgun mics...Yes they are mono but are used to 'paint' an audio picture some are panned left and some right and many variations in between making that complete audio picture.
Just think of a soccer field 10-12 mono shot gun mics are normally used just for field FX, mainly to suit the wide shot camera.
If it was to be mic'd with 12 stereo shotgun mics with each L channel going to Left and each R channel going to the Right what you would end up with is a total mix mash of sounds with NO definition or coherence.
TV broadcasts very rarely if not ever use a single FX mic on its own.

PLEASE do more research on broadcasting techniques before making wild statements...... Or even ask on the forum of how its done as there are many people on forums with MANY years of experience willing to share.

Yes, if one doesn't know something from actual experience, they shouldn't be handing out advice.

Well to add in over 32 years of TV and film production I have only ever used stereo mic's as an overall stereo source or to record sound effects or a music ensemble in stereo, I also tend to use one stereo mic with mono spot mic's panned and that goes for soccer too as we generally have lots of mono mic sources and an overall stereo soundfield mic in the roof of the stadium.

95% of my work involves recording mono mic's but some of them may be panned as stated to create a controllable stereo image or soundstage.

Stereo can be created better in post prod and even mono sources can be given stereo width using digital room simulation etc.

Hi , I haven't read all the way through this thread , so apologies if someone has suggested this already .

Take a look at the Sony ECM MS2 - it is designed as an onboard stereo mic , has a fifteen inch cable terminating in two XLR connectors and requires phantom power . Here in the UK , it sells for a little over £200

At higher price points there are offerings from Sennheisser , Audio Technica and Rode .

For me , the Sony looks ideal to mount on the camera for general use , plugged into the two XLR sockets on the rear of my GY-DV500 , and I will mount a radiomic receiver on the back of the camera , wired to the front XLR to use when filming 'talking heads' , for which mono will suffice .

Looks an ideal size if you need to have a stereo mic mounted on your camera: http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/cat/audio/brochures/ECMMS2.pdf

Looks like an interesting mic.

It may be worth noting that this is M/S configuration, which some folks like less than a conventional X/Y type. (No opinion offered here, there have been other relevant threads.)

Also worth noting that the specs mention 40V minimum phantom voltage, so be sure your camera/recorder/mixer provides this much voltage (some provide less).

Yes be aware that is is a Mid/Side mic. You need to deal with the audio in post much differently with m/s recordings. The result is much more variable than typical stereo, but you must know what you're doing. Here's an article I wrote on m/s so you know what you're getting into:

Recording with the Mid-Side Microphone Configuration | BH inDepth (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/audio/tips-solutions/recording-mid-side-microphone-configuration)

Yes it is a mid side mic but I suspect like all the other sony's that I have used that it outputs in A/B or Left and right stereo mode.

There is a big difference in a M/S mic that outputs in A/B and recording M/S as that requires a matrix to encode the signals.

That Sony ECM-MS2 appears to have a built-in matrix to output A/B when used in stereo.
But if you remove power from the "Right" channel, it outputs "M" only on the "Left" output.
That makes it rather more handy than your typical A/B stereo microphone.
Especially for camera-top applications.

Yes , the nice thing for those of us with switchable phantom on the rear of our camcorders is that it is only neccessary to flick the CH2 phantom switch to off to change to mono .

I don't have one yet , but have more or less decided to get one ,

I'm personally never comfortable with the concept of a stereo microphone that moves. I do quite a bit of stereo recording, and seem to spend quite a lot of effort creating exactly the sound field I want to capture. I like the idea of a football field, where you can hear where the players are when they shout with your eyes closed, however that doesn't work when the stereo mic moves - the field moves with the camera and that always sounds weird to me. I always think of mics on cameras - either one mono, or a stereo, as one or two channel sound, never stereo. Even M/S rarely works properly for me - same reason, sure, there is left to right info, and you can worry about width in the edit suite, but if it moves, for me it destroys what could be quite nice sound. Stick it on a mic stand, and it works nicely. Same with two identical shotguns on a football field. I've never had more than 3 on the go for my projects, but one on the centre line, and one in the middle of each half works pretty well for me, the centre panned centre, and the others panned half left and half right. It's not very accurate stereo - but there is correlation between what you see from any of the cameras to what you hear. Almost certainly there are holes where the nulls are but these don't seem to be a problem.

Hmmm , is that not a bit like when you turn your head the soundstage moves in relation to where you are looking ?

All relative to what you are trying to do/portray I suppose ?

+1 to all my Sony stereo mics are M/S with a decode matrix built in - I remember that some of them had switchable stereo angle.

I agree with Paul a stereo mic should generally be fixed and not move, I take your point Derek but we don't hear sound like that and you can hear things that are behind you and your brain tends to keep a static soundfield as you move your head around.

We also don't see things as a video camera or lens does so fixing the stereo image to a moving image on a static screen generally does not work.

It also messes with the stereo image as if you pan left what was on the left channel can then suddenly become the right channel.

I did an ITV stereo sound training course in the 80's and there were some real howlers on how not to record stereo and the Eastenders tests were dreadful as the stereo image was all over the place as the boom moved around the sound stage.

Good thing about M/S mic's though is that the M capsule is always pointing forward so if you do have problems with imaging you can easily remove the S content and get a static good mono source, some post desks such as the AMS Neve logic and DFC that I helped design have AB wide controls that allow you to have M/S control of an AB signal, I also have a plug in for pro tools that allows me to adjust the stereo image/width of any AB signal.

I only have two stereo mic's and they are both sony M/S prosumer mic's, everything else is mono and gets panned to suit the sound stage required which remains static for any filming set up I may do.

I hear what you are saying and I suppose it is all a matter of degrees .

Just as with our human heads , small movements in vision are probably achieved by movement of the eyes with little or no movement of the ears , therefore no real change in the soundstage ( apart from a psychological one brought about by the way our brains work ) ; then panning slightly left and right within a frontal soundfield needs no real change in microphone positioning ( although again a camera mounted mic probably won't move much anyway and differences in what is picked up may be hardly perceptible ) .

On the other hand , if we are looking at an outdoor scene where a person ( or the camera ) were to turn fully round by , say , 180 deg , and there was some fixed sound source , would you not want it to move relative to the picture ?

I guess it all comes down to the subject matter - in an action film I guess you would want the sounds to track with the sources in a dynamic , fast moving scene .

On the other hand , something like a telecast of an orchestral concert would want a fairly static mix ( if there is a separate TV sound mix perhaps accentuating certain instruments or performers as the camrea picks them out , but not moving anything within the soundfield ) these days with stereo being more or less universal and surround being quite commonplace ( ideally for a sense of space and ambience ) , there may no longer be a separate 'TV mix' - I am thinking back to the old days of the BBC simulcasts where one mix would go to TV and another to FM radio .

I think surround sound , done properly , can be very good , but done for its own sake can be very tiring - I got interested in surround fairly early , playing around with Quadraphonic and Ambisonic decoders in the 1970's , then Dolby Pro Logic then Digital in the 1980's , before becoming quite jaded with it all and have gone back to a decent two channel stereo system in my living room a couple of years ago : I find it much nicer to listen to music in stereo ( well recorded stereo can still portray ( front to back ) depth , width beyond the loudspeakers and the accoustics of different spaces ) , and I don't miss surround for watching TV and films . I wonder if I am alone in this ?

One easy way to find out why panning a stereo mic is a bad idea is to do this simple test.

Put some headphones on with your stereo mic feed then watch the world through your camera viewfinder, you will soon find that hearing the stereo image moving around whilst watching what is basically a static image does not work.

Yes the camera is panning and moving around but your brain is watching a flat image and will not be able to process the audio as it does not match a lot of the time.

Also try shooting some footage in stereo and then edit it together and see how the stereo image moves around as the shots change, it may also be that if things are shot out of sequence that the audio will totally change as you point the camera in different directions for cutaways etc.

It's also why we don't pan mono sources to suit the pictures very much as it is not how we hear or perceive things in the real world.

That is interesting and I will give it some thought .

Certainly , with the types of films I tend to make it has not been a major issue .

In training films , live sound tends to be incidental and much of it is dubbed over with narration .

With events , the main shots tend to be fairly static from a main camera , with cutaways and close ups from other cameras being dropped in as video inserts and relying on the soundtrack from the main camera .

Weddings can contain sequences chopped together in any way they work ; I sometimes use my minidisc recorder to record continuous soundtrack if there is a piper playing while the guests arrive , and dub this over the assembled sequence , bringing up the odd bit of live sound as required and appropriate ; ceremonies tend to be a fairly static shot from a tripod , and photo sessions tend to be cut together with incidental music dubbed over afterwards . I also got one of the pipers I knew to come down and play in my garden one evening so that I could record him - this gave me about an hours worth of traditional music I could freely use in any of my wedding tapes , the agreement being that as long as I credited him I could use his music . This was on 15 ips open reel tape , using a pair of AKG C451/CK1 straight into my Revox B77 , and even now still decent enough quality to use today if required .

I have also managed to record church organists prior to weddings and gained some useful material .

I am always amused at how some people do weddings with rode videomic's and shotguns etc, it should always be treated as a stand alone event and have a sound rig to suit.

Think how big weddings such as the ones like last year for our royals are covered and scale it down with a fixed sound rig and spot mic's to pick up any action such as vows etc.

Camera mic's should virtually be non existent as they are generally in the wrong place and that goes for speeches as well which should have placed table mic's for the spoken word and audience mic's for any reaction.

A sep recorder can be helpful here but also using split recording across different cameras if you have them can allow more flexibility.

I don't do weddings but my four channel P2 cameras would allow split mixes to be created of radio mic's and a stereo soundstage that covered any audience or instrumental content such as the organ etc.

As you rightly say a lot can also be done in post prod to cheat a soundstage that suits the pictures.

Yes , I always considered it important to mic things up correctly .

Life is a lot easier when I can borrow radiomics from work , but even setting up my own wired mics is the minimum I would do to do the job properly .

Depending on the location , I might place a short rifle mic on a low stand ( often hidden in the floral arrangements ) to pick up the vows etc , and just to get it off the camera so as to eliminate handling noise . Sometimes if I had the camera down the front , putting the mic on a floor stand next to the tripod worked well enough - every venue is different and you have to be adaptable .

I used to mic up top tables for the speeches , but one of the main problems was always that people at the table would end up tapping them and shouting 'Is this mic working ? ' even though I would have already explained they were mine and not for a PA system ! In the end I moved away from a pair of C451/CK1 on either table stands or floor stands in front of the tables and went over to boundary mics which were not recognised as such ; they were more prone to picking up noise from the table but sometimes the lesser of two evils . Of course , if there WAS a PA system , you might get a feed from it , or just pick up the sound from one of the loudspeakers well enough . It was always a judgement call each time , although with regular venues you got to know what worked and what didn't .