Audio for Documentary
 

I have just spend the last hour or so reading up on past posts in regards to audio set-ups for documentaries. Unfortunately though, I still not 100% of the best way to go about achieving high quality audio.

As part of my university course, I am required to make a 10 minute documentary. As I'm heading overseas for work-related reasons next month, I have decided to take my camera along and kill two birds with one stone.

The trouble is, I won't have any crew. Therefore, no boom operator. I'm hoping that most of the time that will not be an issue, as I can put a microphone on a stand to conduct various interviews, whilst I stand behind the camera. However, there will be times when I can't set up a microphone stand. For example, I'm thinking that some footage will be on a bus; very handycam style.

I will be shooting using a Sony Z1P. I currently own a ME66 (for outdoors), Rode NT3 (for indoors) and have been borrowing various other mics (Shure Beta 58s, 57s, PG81s, 416s, studio condensors, etc.) when appropriate, as the ME66 and NT3 don't always achieve good results in certain environments. However, I will not be able to borrow microphones whilst I'm away.

After reading heaps of various posts (and from a limited personal experience), I have come to the conclusion that the Sennheiser 416 is a fantastic microphone to have in your inventory. It's really expensive - but from all accounts, well worth the additional cash. That said, it does have its shortcomings. A lot of people have said that its not great for indoor shoots (although others do disagree). Almost everyone has said unless the cameras really close to your subject, it sucks for on-camera use. The general consensus is its a industry standard microphone for ENGs, and mid-budget outdoor film shoots, but isn't really up for doing high-quality indoor recording (a Schopes hyper cardiod is the prefered choice, if you have the money).

Oh, and it's also worth mentioning at this point, please, please correct me if I'm talking rubbish during at any time during this post! If I write something you disagree with, please tell me! I'm still learning and I'd hate to pick up wrong information...

Anyway, I'm now wondering if I should bite the bullet and purchase the 416. My reasoning is, for a lot of the interview shots, I will be able to put it on a microphone stand out of shot. I have seen the 416 used in radio and televisions interviews before on stands, and the sound quality has been very impressive (despite the fact that they were shot indoors). For shots, such as on the bus, I'm hoping that I can get the camera, with a 416 attached, really close to the subject. For other, more "landscape" shots, I'm thinking that the 416 should be able to pick up some fairly good atmos just to give the footage a bit of life. I understand that shotguns arn't really appropriate for capturing atmos - but I think it should do the job. Or at least, better than the ME66! Not sure if it would "beat" a NT3.

OK. Question time.

Firstly, do you think the 416 is a worthwhile purchase for this particular project? If so, then what is the best method to attach it to the Z1P? I think it would pick up too much camera noise if inserted in the Z1Ps standard mic holder. I know Rode make a shock mount clamp adapter that fits into the Z1P holder, which may be appropraite?

What other options are there? Ideally, I would have a sound person with me, but it just isn't going to happen! I also seriously doubt I'll be able to get people to help out, holding booms, etc. So it's basically just me, which is unfortunate, but something that I will have to make work!

One thing I haven't been able to find in this forum is how do all the solo-documentary filmmakers out there handle audio? I know there are a lot of people who go out by themselves, without any crew and achieve good results. What kinds of microphones are they using on-camera? From all the posts I've read they basically concluded: "GET A BOOM OP!!!". That doesn't really help me.

I have concidered using wireless lapels - but I hate the idea. I would much prefer to have everything on cables. That said, I don't really want to use cabelled lapels, as that will just annoy my interviewees.

Is it best to have a microphone on camera that captures pretty much everything (a general atmosphere kind of deal), and another microphone that specifically tries to capture whoever is talking (ie. a 416)?

Finally, I have also been seriously concidering purchasing a field mixer. I would REALLY love to buy a Sound Devices 442 or 302, but at over AUD$2500, I REALLY can't afford it (being a uni student and all!). The MixPre is also a lot of money, but at around AUD$1300, do-able if I really felt the need to purchase it (but don't tell my bank!). It looks like a fantastic unit, and would fit in quite well with my Z1P setup. But, is it worth the money for my situation? It's really money that I shouldn't spend - but you know how it is. Video toys always defeat financial sense. I would love to have the control of a field mixer (as opposed to the fiddly Z1P audio controls), and from most reviews the limiters are quite good in all the Sound Devices products. It would also be a good investment, as its the kind of product that will last forever.

Anyway, to sum up, a single person documentary - how do I get sound that will match or go above and beyound the quality of a prosumer HDV camera?

Thanks to anyone who has been bothered reading this long post!

Chris!

First, the MKH416 and MKH60 work great indoors. One of the good features for both mics is that you can put them in really close to the subject with no difficulty.

Second, unless you have lots of money to spend, it seems to me you can get good audio with what you've got. True, better mics are better, but it's more about placement than it is a quality mic. This may be heresy, but I'd rather have a soundman who knows what he's doing with a cheap mic than an incompetent with a great mic.

For doing your own work with no soundman, as you said, if you can mount the mic on a fishpole on a C-stand, you'll get good interviews. For those kinds of situations, I use one of the shortie Matthews C-stands with a bracket for holding the boom. Set up the stand, put on the boom, extend it out so the mic is a couple of feet over the head and pointing properly, and you're there.

If you have to shoot a hand held interview with the on camera mic, it can be done. It's not wonderful, but you can get by with it if you have to. Shoot at a fairly wide angle and get in close, and have the person talking as closely into the mic as practical. You probably want him talking off camera instead of into the camera, but if you shoot so he's talking just off camera, not too far, you can get good sound if you're in close enough. It may be a bit intimidating for the interviewee to have a camera 3 feet from his face, however.

If I were you I'd get a fairly inexpensive wireless lav for those situations. I'd rather have the mics you have, plus a wireless (or even a wired lav) than just the MKH416.

K-Tek has some interesting shock mounts and camera mount adapters you might want to consider ... http://www.mklemme.com/pole/dvcam.html

A mixer implies a mixer operator to work it while you give your full attention to the camera. Since you'll be a one-man band, juggling the audio controls while operating the camera is just not going to work out. As good as they are, you're probably not going to see any big advantages to the 302 or 442 mixers because of that. OTOH, an improved front in to the in-camera audio isn't a bad idea and either a MixPre slung over your shoulder or a MM-1 preamp/headphone amp clipped to your belt might be worth the investment.

In my experience, boomed mics almost always sound better than lavs. That being said, if you are doing a lot of sit down interviews, especially as a one man band, a wired lav really has a lot going for it. It will be dependable, relatively good sounding, and very easy to set up.

On the doc I just finished working on, we used a wired lav for many of the interviews. Set up the camera, light the scene, the person sits down, and you clip the lav onto their shirt. Hiding wires isn't important if it's just a talking head shot. It worked rather nicely for this doc especially since the shots were framed tightly and the subjects spoke directly at the camera, so the "intimate" sound provided by the lav was acceptable. On the gigs I couldn't make it too (I did sound) and the filmmaker was alone, she was able to set up the lav with out too much difficulty.

Especially if your travelling, lavs are real small. The big problem in my mind with them is you get the sound of clothes rubbing and body movement.

That being said, when I was there, I usually strung up the boom with an MKH50 and the lav and we used whichever sounded better (many times the boom).

I agree that a boomed mic is always better, but he really needs a lav too for those situations where a boom is not practical. Last week I shot an interview with an Irish musician in an Irish bar. We wanted the bar activity in the background, which meant the shotgun mic would have been aimed in the direction the noise was coming from--no good. So we switched to the lav. I let the mic show but ran the cord inside the guy's shirt. Almost all the shots were tight enough to not see the mic, but I had one long shot where it was in. However, It was pretty wide and hopefully not really noticeable. We made the decision that it was better to gamble on seeing the mic than have it buried, because the background was pretty noisy.

For lots of interviews, a wired lav is fine too--no need for a wireless. If the interviewee is just sitting or standing, and you're fairly close, it's faster to plug in a wired lav, and you can get one for about half the price of a cheap wireless. Wireless is good too, but if money is an issue, consider a wired lav for special situations. I always have mine with me, and it's saved me more than once. I recall one shot where I had to interview a guy outside. I had been told it would be indoors, but it wasn't. It was way too windy for the shotgun, so having the wired lav in the bag was a lifesaver.

Best thing I did to improve my audio in run 'n' gun documentary shooting situations was to get a wide-angle adapter for my lens. No, seriously. This lets you get a camera-mounted shotgun (your 416, for instance) within 2-3 feet of the subject's mouth (almost ideal placement) and still have a good shot in a nice frame. Just make sure your microphone doesn't dip into the shot. Rode makes a nice hotshoe-mounted shockmount that is tall enough to get my Sennheiser out of the frame on my PD-150 with a .6 WA adapter, even at full wide. You may want to zoom in a bit to avoid barrel distortion.
Helps enormously with camera-shake, too. If I were going to be shooting on a bus, I'd consider a wide-angle an absolute necessity.

Otherwise, if you are shooting solo, I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about a boom mike. Boom mikes sound great if you've got a dedicated sound recordist who can focus only on doing that job. On the other hand, a wired or wireless lavalliere placed at sternum level will give you all the sound you'll need, with a lot less hassle. This will allow you to focus on the six other things you need to worry about!

Getting in close is necessary if you're shooting with the mic on the camera. It's certainly do-able and people do it all the time, but I wouldn't make it a first choice. You wouldn't believe how many otherwise decent documentaries I've had to dump from our festival list over the years because of crappy audio.

I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but let's remember that a really good mic camera mounted on a bus is going to pick up the same engine, road, handling and other noises as a cheap mic. This is another of those situations where you probably can't beat a $150 Rode VideoMic.

How far from the subject did you usually have
the MKH?

Would agree with your view on the 416, and that the 66 is very harsh. I ended up with the Sanken CS-1 short shotgun. 10% less than the 416 for half the price. Added to this is a COS-11 wilred lapel mic and an AKG reporter's mic.

The CS-1 is mounted to the Z1 using a Rycote bracket thing, which keeps the whole ensemble manageable:

http://www.mdma.tv/images/cs1-front.jpg
http://www.mdma.tv/images/cs1-side.jpg

The accessory shoe remains free for a wireless kit.

Thanks EVERYONE for your help and suggestions!

After reading through your posts I'm started to think a wireless lapel mic isn't such a bad idea after all. Despite the fact that wireless mics just scare me, it would make life a hell of a lot easier! You can pick up a Sennheiser ew 122-p G2 Wireless Lapel Kit for just under AUD$1000; I'm thinking that might be a worthwide purchase. Any objections? I don't like the idea of a wired lapel, as I think it will be a pain in the butt for this particular project.

Matt, what do you mean by "10% less than the 416"? Thanks for the photos - your setup looks quite cool! I think if I do go ahead with the wireless lapel, I'll use the ME66 on camera as a backup/atmos using one of those Rode-type adapters. However, would a ME64 capsule be more appropriate? If I'm going to fork out on a wireless kit, that counts out purchasing a 416. Other suggestions?

I'm hoping that for at least some of the interior shots I can just use a NT3 on a mic stand out of frame. I think that will sound better than a wireless lapel.

The wide angle lens is also a really great idea; one I've thought a lot about in the past. But it is also a lot of money. It's on the wish list...

I think I'll hold off on a field mixer for the time being, as I can probably make do with just the Z1s control for this project. However, I think a MixPre would be a great tool to have. It's on the wish list too...

Tim, slightly off topic, but anyway: how does the MKH50 indoors compare to a high quality lapel? From what I've read and to some extent experienced, a [hyper]cardiod would sound superior to a boom in, say a bathroom.

Again, thanks for all your assistance! Hopefully I can return the favour at some stage!

Hypers are preferred to shotguns for almost all interiors, not just highly reverberent spaces like bathrooms.

Before making your final choices, visit fellow DVInfo member Ty Ford's website, www.tyford.com. He has extensive sample files of various mics posted and in the video section of his download library there is a tutoruial comparing the results obtained inside a typical living room with a shotgun, a hyper, and a lav. Absolutely a "must see" for everyone purchasing mics for a gig.

Since you mentioned that you're heading "overseas" for this project, be sure to purchase a wireless set that has the appropriate frequencies for the area you'll use it.
I think Matt meant that in his opinion the CS-1 has 90% of the performance of a 416 at about half the price. It would also be considerably shorter physically. The last time I checked prices, which was awhile back, the 416 was available under $1000US and the CS-1 was closer to $700US. Has that changed more recently? The CS-1 would be a good candidate if you can afford it.
I definitely wouldn't invest in an ME64 for this set of circumstances. It has a very wide open pattern and has a peaked frequency response. It does have less off-axis coloration indoors than a 66, but that's because it's not trying in the slightest to reject those reflections except for a small null area directly to the rear. The peaked response can also make post-production more difficult because of all the high frequency content above the voice range that has been captured. Personally I'd only use a 64 if internal battery and very high sensitivity were absolute necessities. An AT3031 at about the same price for a complete mic as the Senn capsule costs, will be more pleasing.
However I wouldn't recommend a cardioid for your situation.
There are many hypercardioids that are less expensive than the CS-1, but none of them are without a deficiency. I think one that would be most promising for you would be the AKG SE300b with CK93 capsule. With some good wind protection and shockmount, it would work for on-camera atmos and run&gun to back-up the wireless lav. It might also replace the NT3 indoors but I haven't compared them directly and I do very much like the NT3 for many indoor activities.
The wide angle lens is a good suggestion, especially if you can afford a good one with zoom-through capabilities. Cheap ones can work too, but outdoors can give noticeable wash-out due to internal reflections.
A camera bracket is also very nice. Even substitute or home-made solutions can be beneficial, don't cost much and take up minimal room in your kit.
They allow much steadier shooting as well as extra separation for your on-camera mic and clearance for your wireless receiver antenna. The drawback is not having full finger-tip control of camera functions from your left hand.

I just recently picked up an NT3 and wanted to
add my impressions, even though I haven't
used it much.

It rejects off-axis sound surprisingly well.
Tried it on a singer on a mic
stand from about 6 feet out and
was impressed with its reach. (Next
time I'd bring it in to about 4 feet.)
Seems to pick up voice well but for some
instruments it may not be smooth.
Not real sure if it's harsh or not on
instruments. Need to use it more but
on a piano it seemed okay; on
strings it didn't seem smooth.
Might be a bit low in the bass pickup.
I have heard it's very good on acoustic
guitar.
I've heard various opinions on whether
it's good for close-mic'd singing. Haven't
tried this but it might be sibilant, not sure.

Anyone have any experience using the
NT3 on strings?

I haven't used my NT3's on musical intruments because I do very little close-up musical intrument recording. They are a little light in the bass region.
They do very well at cleanly rejecting ambient sound and reverberation, especially between 130 and 150 degrees to the side of the mic.
Makes for a good crowd mic facing away from stereo PA speakers when you're also getting a direct board feed. There is minimal leakage and what does get in is clean and uncolored.
They do have good clarity on voice from 18 inches to 5 feet in a clean environment. Close up they can reproduce mouth noises and I imagine string and playing noises that might not be flattering. Maybe that's some of what you're hearing. They've always sounded "smooth" to me and never harsh but like I said, I haven't used them for close-up instruments.

Jay, what would you think about using the
ME64 as an ambiance room mic?

Thanks for the link Steve. I've visited his site before, but never downloaded any of the sample audio files due to my slow internet connection. I recently just got broadband, so now I can actually listen to Ty's stuff without having to wait for hours!

Jay, good point about the frequencies! I just tried doing a Google search to find out if the Sennheiser CC2 Evolution G2 series are "compadible" in Taiwan, but couldn't find anything useful. Does anyone know first hand? Or, is there a site can answer my question?

I find it hard to believe that the CS-1 has "90% of the performance" of the double-the-price 416. If that was the case (admitedly I've never used a CS-1 before), surely the CS-1 would be more popular than the 416 (especially for the prosumer market)? Or is that 10% extra what you need to aim for?

The AKG SE300b with CK93 sounds quite interesting. It's selling for around AUD$500 here down under. What sort of wind protection would you recommend for this particular mic? Softie or Windjammer?

I would love to just use my NT3 on camera - but I think it would be too big and slightly too heavy.

I'm currently thinking the Sennheiser wireless lapel and CK93 may be the way to go, with a NT3/ME66 on stand (replacing the on-camera mic) when appropriate. Thoughts?

Absolutely make it a priority to dl and view his mic tutorial video in the video folder, before deciding what mics to get and use where.

Opps, I forgot to say this on my last post: "Obviously, before I spend any money, I'll spend a lot of time going through all of Ty's stuff and making a more educated decision". Thanks Steve for pushing the point! I really appreciate all your help! And thankyou to everyone for your continued advice and support!

Chris, I've never used a 416 but I used to own
a CS-1 and didn't think the sound of it was
all that great for the money. Now, it someone
is saying the CS-1 is so good just because of
the off-axis rejection, well, I can't speak
about that because I didn't use mine that
much. I just thought it sounded a bit thin
so didn't hold onto it very long.
One thing I should mention about the
NT3 is that it is VERY sensitive to
wind or air movement, such as a fan.
I don't know how you'd use it outdoors
except inside a full blimp. I've heard it's
got the same head size as a Shure SM-57
so wind protection for that should fit on the
NT3.

Yikes! I tried the NT3 on close vocals of
1 foot distance. Not recommended!
While the mic has worked okay on
vocals at 6 feet, it was pretty
rough on the close stuff. It was
sibilant and overall unpleasant and
harsh. It sounded like a telephone line
effect.

That's surprising. Did you have a pop filter between your vocalist and the mic? Could it have been overloading the preamp?

Yeah I've never had that problem at all and I've used the NT3 for VO work. It was fine, just not as nice as other mics I have and it did have unflattering clarity in the pickup of mouth noises if the talent was creating those.
Tell us more about the positioning, wind screens, pop filters, cables, phantom or battery power, condition of the battery, mic input gain etc.
There's a problem somewhere because that's not normal at all.


Quote: "Jay, what would you think about using the
ME64 as an ambiance room mic?"

You can definitely use an ME64 for room ambience if you want a very bright character that picks up everything. If there are dishes, plates, glasses and silverware in the room I would say pick another mic. There will just be too much high-end energy pushing your levels up unneccesarily, especially if you're working without EQ and going directly into the camera.

I've also used a NT3 for voice over work, and although there are obviously better options, it did the job and sounded quite good. If it sounded like a "telephone line", I'd say there was some serious problems in your setup.

Steve, I have been downloading, watching and listening to Ty Ford's video/audio over the last couple of days. It really is such a fantasticly useful and informative collection of work! I've learnt a lot! Thanks Ty! Thanks Steve!

However, it didn't really help me in terms of the questions posted in this thread. The general consensus of Ty's work is that high quality boom mics are the way to go, and you should only use wireless lapels when a boom is not appropraite. On-camera mics are basically a "no no". I already knew this. Ty's videos/audio would be great if I was choosing a microphone to buy if I was using it on a boom. But it doesn't really (or at least I couldn't find anything helpful) for unideal situations, like solo shoots.

I couldn't find any AKG SE300b with CK93 reviews on Ty's site. Anyone had an experience of using these mics "on camera"?

Any other "on camera" alternatives?

Repeating some previously unanswered questions:
- Sennheiser ew 122-p G2 Wireless Lapel Mic. Comments? Alternatives?
- Radio Mic Frequencies in Taiwan? Will the Sennheiser work there?

I still say that on a bus more than two feet away from the talent, it almost doesn't matter what mic you use--the result is going to be so overwhelmingly dominated by the background noise and freqency distortion of the environment. By analogy, if a space were going to be so filled with smoke that it was difficult to differentiate faces from more than six feet away, the video footage from a $300 cam would look about as good that from a $3000 cam. We have the sonic equivalent here.

Background noise from engine, road vibrations and the prattle of passengers is extremely high. Reflections are so close and so numerous that they are not perceived as echoes, but rather as a mass of wave interference that often attenuates the mid frequencies preferentially since they are the most prevalent, leaving the highs and lows more audible.

I think that a tight pattern and sensitivity are the key considerations, not frequency response or off-axis coloration. I'm inclined to believe that a shotgun would sound as good as a hyper in this envronment. And I'm virtually certain that a Rode VideoMic would sound as good on a bus as any other mic you put on a camera and shot with from conventional distances.

Chris, if you want to camera mount a $1000 mic that's your pivilege, but you can't justify it on the basis of this project IMHO. If you buy a VideoMic for $150, I'll give you $100 for it when you come back if you're willing to part with it. How's that? 8>)

The part of Ty's demo video I was thinking of when I suggested it is the comparison of the sound of a shotgun (Senn 416) with that of a hypercardioid (Schoeps CMC641) indoors both in the same position viz a viz the talent. The point being, no matter where you're thinking of placing the mic, the hyper sounds more natural in a reflective environment than does the shotgun.

When looking for reviews on the ck93, also search under "AKG Blueline"

The Senns will certainly work - whether your's are legal there or will be free from interference is another story. The Sennheiser website has a frequency finder page that will tell you what frequency blocks are legal in each country. Take their localized free channels info with a big grain of salt but at least the country by country pages will give you a start.

With that NT3, the sound could have been influenced by
the mic pre I used. I've heard samples
where the sound of an AT4050, which is normally a
good-sounding mic, can be adversely influenced by the
pre you pair it up with. Until I heard these samples
with different pres, I didn't realize how significant
could be the impact.
In my case it was a pre from a minidisc.

Fred, thanks for your honest advice. I really dig that analogy! I hope you don't mind if I use it in the future! I agree completely with what you're saying. For any bus footage, I'll probably use a wired/wireless lapel. Anything on-camera would be a backup/atmos. I'm sure a hyper on a boom would be a million times better, but unfortunately, no boom. The reason I'm asking about mics such as the AKG SE300b, is to use on-camera as a backup/atmos, and for use in other non-bus-like situations. I COULD use my ME66 on-camera, however I think there are better options. I understand NOTHING really sounds fantastic on-camera, but I'd like to try and capture the best sounds I can. So I'm not planning to waste money on a expensive mic for use on the bus. I want to purchase a microphone as a backup, but also one that I can use really effectively in other situations. Does that make sense?

Steve, thanks for your continued input. Yes, I have seen the video clip you are referring to (it's titled "Ty Ford Mic Tutorial Video"). It's a great clip - probably the best one on Ty's site. I understand the benefits of using a hyper indoors (mostly thanks to the people on this site).

I'll have a look for "AKG Blueline" reviews.

I had a look at the Sennheiser website, but it doesn't have any details for Taiwan. Anyone from Taiwan here?

Not from Taiwan, but just finished doing a series of audio trainings there, using my AT U100, no issues in any of 3 very large venues. that doesn't mean I was within legal contraints, just that everything worked great.
BTW, I'll argue that no "normal" bus is as loud as a twin engine Otter, KingAir, or Caravan with no door, and I regularly record in those environments using an AT 4053 and a large 961 boundary mic. I've got at least 75 jumps in those environments, and documented one of them at:
http://www.vasst.com/resource.aspx?i...6-f532c85adb79
Dunno if that helps, but it's a regular occurence for me, and I get extremely usable audio from those scenarios, even in this jump, where the judge had a very quiet voice.

That's not entirely true. Human speech will not sound good if recorded with an on-camera mic, unless you're up in someone's face. For recording ambient sound, however, you could gaff-tape the mic to your ankle if you wanted to... it doesn't really matter too much where you put the mic, most of the time. Really, a strong argument could be made for recording atmos from a camera-mounted position; the audio and video perspectives will match.

On the bus: if you decide to wire your talent with a lav and use a camera-mounted mic for ambient sound, think about going with something directional on the camera and point it away from your talent, so you can get as little of your subject's speech in your atmo track as possible. And don't worry about using a really expensive mic for those ambient sounds, like Fred was saying. It's just not going to make that much--if any--of a difference. Atmos just aren't that critical usually, because the frequencies are all over the place, and you're also turning them way down in the mix anyway to make room for the dialogue. Any quasi-decent mic with a relatively wide freq. response will be more than good enough.

I think you might find, after all is said and done, that all you'll need is the lavalier track anyway. But it won't hurt to try to get a separate atmo track just in case, I guess.

Thanks for the link Douglas! That's a really interesting article! Concidering you got usable audio in a very loud environment with quite some distance between the person speaking and the microphone, it makes me wonder if maybe the
AT4053 would be a good option to have on-camera use?

Sorry Jarrod, I've worded a lot of things in this thread badly. When I said backup/atmos, I was thinking more along the lines of capturing EVERYTHING (dialog and background noise) just incase the lav audio was of poor quality.

Chris, I'd probably choose my 4051 for on-camera over a 4053, but the end result would be similar.
I dunno if you've ever been in a twin engine turbine with no door, but trust me when I tell you it's one of the loudest, constantly noisy environments there is, at all frequency ranges. It took me 10-12 jumpruns to figure out a good mic configuration. Lavs don't work on skydivers for obvious reasons.

And there's another piece of good advice - after your first bus ride listen very carefully to the results!

Regarding use of a lav in a noisy environment, be aware that most lavs, wired or wireless, are omni-directional. Cardoids may be had, too, but the Senn 100G2 will come stock with an omni. So, it will be very sensitive to all environmental sound, and depends on proximity to the speaker. If it's close, the speaker is louder than the environment.

Be aware also - this is a terrible environment for auto-gain on most camcorders. Auto-gain will tend to increase the recording volume of the noisy background sounds between people speaking. You don't want that, a manual constant recording volume will keep background sounds at background levels.

Thanks Douglas. I will see if I can hunt down a 4051 for a test drive. Just to clarify, do you honestly think it could pick up "useable" audio if it were mounted on a camera, say 1.5m away?

Trouble is Seth, this project is very much going to be "play it by ear". I have a rough idea of the shooting environments, but they are VERY likely to change. I've been doing a lot of planning, although at the end of the day I'm going to have to just "make it happen" in a lot of cases. That's why I want to get a very verstile set of equipment ready.

Yes, you're right the Sennheiser ew 112-p G2 Wireless Kit comes with an omni mic. If I do end up purchasing this kit (which I think I will), I may purchase a ME4 cardiod lapel mic as well.

I never use the cameras auto-gain feature, so that's not an issue.

Has anyone used a ME67 before? The info sheet says "microphone must be placed at a distance from the sound source". Would this kind of microphone be more appropriate for placing on-camera?

I've also been investigating microphones that have been designed for on-camera use such as the Sennheiser MKE300 Video Camera Mic and the Rode VideoMic. Has anyone had any experience with these kinds of products? I guess I'd have to get an adapter to convert the mini-jack to XLR. A lot of people have complained about the MKE300 on this forum, but I'm just wondering in a more general sense if these kinds of products are more appropriate?

And, if the Rode Video Mic would be the better option, then what about the other Rode options such as the RODE NTG-1/2? They use XLR which means no need for silly little adapters.

For anyone who's interested, this is also a really interesting post. Dean uses a AT4051 on-camera with good results.

While I'm just throwing mics out there, how about the Sony ECM-678 Shotgun or the Panasonic AG-MC100G Microphone?

At this stage, I'm concidering the wireless kit (with a cardiod lapel), and possibly a 4051. What's the best method to attach the 4051 to a Z1P? Will it fix nicely in the standard mic holder? Is the standard mic holder "shock proof" enough? Is there a better option?

Sorry for all the questions! But, better to be safe than sorry! Knowledge is power!

IMHO 1.5 metres (5 feet) from the subject for a mic is borderline for good audio but in most cases it seems to me it would still be an awfully close camera position unless you're shooting something like an ECU of a violinist playing or a jeweler's hands as he works on a piece etc. With a still camera you'd never shoot a portrait from that distance, for example. From MS down to CU of people with dialog I'd expect to be 3 to 5 metres away, or even farther, so you can compose your framing with a short telephoto focal length setting on the lens and avoid the wide-angle distortion effects to the image you get with closer camera positions and "normal" focal length settings.

I think it's a fabulous sounding mic. I have used it to record piano several times and think it sounds great. It sound equally as good on voice to me. I think by now everybody has said a piece about hypers vs. shotguns vs. lavs, so I won't go into that. I will say that sometimes a lav might give you better isolation which is what a situation might call for, but the hyper always sounds more natural to me. And no scratchy noises from clothing or tummy noises.

I was just working with an NT3 and an Audio Technica
U873R, both hypers. Jay turned me on to the
873.

I used them both side-by-side for voice over, about
one foot distance from the talent.
What I was actually doing was recording with
them at the same time in order to make
comparisons of their sensitivities, to
help with levels settings down the
road.

When I listened to the recordings, while I
was really only doing this test for levels settings,
I did notice that the the U873R voice over
sounded a LOT better than what I got
with the NT3. It was fuller and had more
presence, as compared to the NT3 which
sounded thin. For this test the mics were held
right next to each other so the distance
fromt the talent was identical.

Now, I will say that the mic's went through
different pre's (iRiver/minidisc) and were recorded
with different encodings (MP3/Atrac). I hope
to try them again with matching setups.

I think you'll find that no matter what identical formats/settings you record to, the 873 will be more robust, and a tad hotter.
I really like the sound of it for what it's designed for.

I figure the results would be the same but
thought I'd add in those technicalities in
case anyone was curious.

There was a LOT of difference in the
sound of those two mics. The 873 was
more pleasant sounding and WAY more
like a typical studio VO. I tried the
873 once on a female singer and nothing
really stood out to me in that usage
as showing the 873 for being all that great
for singing.