MKH 416 Blew my hair away

[taubkin]

Don't forget the use of soundblankets to shape up lousy acoustics. They are sometimes more important than an expensive mic.

Cheers!

[enterdcable]

Oh, absolutely.

[Dave_Fisk]

If you are only going to get one mic to use for almost everything, then get the 416, or the Sanken CS-3e....or the Sanken CS-1. The schoeps is great, but has problems with high humidity, and may not be so great if you have an inexperienced person booming. Ultimately, it would be great to have both, but that can be cost prohibitive.

If you get the 416, I'm sure you'll be happy. You already like the sound, plus that thing is really rugged. You can drop it, hammer with it, stir paint with it, and it still works. That's why pretty much everyone in the professional community has one, and why all the rental houses rent that mic more than any other mic out there.

-Dave

[enterdcable]

Dan Lahav, CMC5 sounds like great advice but I think I might go ahead with Dave Fisk's recommendation with the MKH 416 because I'm pretty inexperienced when it comes to sound I don't think I'll be able to afford a good sound/boom man.

We probably wouldn't be able to use the CMC5 to it's full potential and I want to mix paint with my mic. JK. But being in a film production- things are a vital plus if they are rugged.

[enterdcable]

Oh thanks by the way, Dave Fisk, it's the reassurance I need to drop a grand- though I'm quite williing to because if a movie is 50% visual and 50% sound and if the DVX is 3000, it's simple arithmetic ain't it? I understand the full importance of sound. I've been using the AT series and I'm ready to take my productions to the next level. (my producer is meeting Robert Evans wish me luck!)

[Dan_Lahav]

the 416 is a great mic. it's definately an asset to a filmmakers toolbox. If i could afford one, i would add it to my collection as well.

[Barry_Green]

If you understand the full importance of sound, you should definitely understand how important it is to have a qualified boom operator and a qualified sound mixer.

You'll probably get much better sound from a mediocre microphone being run by quality people, than you will from an expensive mic run by amateurs.

Bad sound is the #2 thing that kills indie films (bad acting being #1). Rent a mic and spend the money you save on at least one qualified, skilled audio person, it'll make a world of difference.

[enterdcable]

Thanks Barry. What I meant by amateurs was friends in the music industry who do recordings themsellves and have done sound for friend's moviese and such and understand completely how sound works (they record their own music) but are not boom/sound operators.

I was planning on using the mic as a line in using the best 25 ft and another shorter balanced XLR- thus foregoing the mixier, and wouldn't need to have a hired person to mix the sound levels professionally, monitoring voice levels while recording...

But are you saying I should? With film- this IS A MUST!! I know, I call him right after my cameraman. So I shouldn't just rely recording sound on the dvx? I thought it sounded great from the tests I did and from other's opinions but should I be running it through a mixer?

Thanks.

[Barry_Green]

Recording into the DVX is okay. I'm talking about having professional sound people operating the equipment. Sound is the most overlooked part, and frequently people will assign anyone who has nothing to do to be the boom operator, because "anyone can hold a boom, right?" Which is why so many indie productions sound terrible. A great boom op is worth their money, that's for sure.

So if you're spending dough and treating the project like it's important, then you definitely owe it to yourself to get a qualified boom operator. Solid audio crew will do as much for, or more for, your production than having top-of-the-line gear.

[enterdcable]

Although they're not paid, they are very good when it comes to sound, I will be heeding your advice.