Need 2 mics for indoor/outdoor interviews

[paulears]

When I was a teacher in college - with a mixed group of 17-25 year olds, we had a nice pole, a 416 and Rycote with a hairy cover. Cost a lot of money and we used it with a portable recorder, with decent headphones. I used it a few times on projects and was more than happy with it. Students - however just failed to understand it was a proper skill. Their results would often be dire when out on location, on their own, without me - but with me, even in the studio - results were quite usable. The group were mixed in ability - so no matter who was booming - it seemed strange. Their comments on hearing me curse their results as varying shades of useless/rubbish/hopeless (after the initial more educational "not quite precise enough/too much random sound not enough subject/unbalanced in quality" ran out) were that we should have better equipment!

However - on a shoot WITH me it became clear what they were doing differently. Holding a boom pole with both arms above your head is tiring, so they tucked the end into their hip and angled the pole up at 45 degree, like a fishing rod. The mic was no longer pointing at the subject. Sometimes the cameraman would yell that the boo was in shot - which just meant they steep end the angle till it wasn't! Headphones would be either off one ear so they could talk to their friends, or if they were on, then they must have simply ignored what the headphones were actually hearing. In short - if they heard a voice in the headphones, and got level on the meters, that was job done. All the stuff we'd spent time on like inverse square law, polar responses and boom technique was just too hard or not considered important. Many younger people seem to equate sound quality with being loud enough. They cannot hear the difference between low res mp3 and 98K wav files. They can't identify the bass is missing - as in actually unplugged! Some can of course, but not all. I suspect that as some people are colour blind, so some others are sound blind. Things like compression just cannot be heard - even when you switch it in and out. I can hear the differences, but many students simply can't.

If you want quality sound, they need training properly - out of 16 media types, only 2 were interested in sound - and just 1 took it further. The others had no aptitude for sound, and if I was honest, I'd suggest that the only reason they were doing sound was because they'd shown as little skill with their eyes as their ears, and had been 'given' sound. I've always been luck - equally happy with sound, vision or lighting - but for me, lighting came first - then the others. For somebody starting out, learning to really use their ears is not that easy!

[TheDingo]

+1 for the Rode NTG-3 for your outdoor mic and for the Audio-Technica 4053b for indoor work.

Also, cardioid mics can be used indoors if the room is quiet and you want a wider pick-up spread. ( I switch between an AT-4053a and an AT-4031 depending on how much coverage I want and how noisy the room is )

I also highly recommend a good field-mixer and headphones for your boom op to properly hear what the mic they are running is doing. ( Sound Devices MixPre or better )

[ggrantly]

As an owner of both the Oktava and AT4053b, I would favor the AT4053b. The Oktava is certainly good, especially for the money. The 4053b is a notch better, for a price. In this case you get what you pay for. Also, even when shooting indoors, you will want something like a Rycote Baby Ball Gag (mini blimp) to reduce the whoosh when moving either mic.

Grant

[KINOKS]

I'm actually in the same predicament at this moment. This is the original seller of Oktava on ebay. You get 3 different capsules (cardio, hypercardio and omni) for 200€ + VAT. It's a really cheap mic. For me the question is if the reported handling noise of the MK012 is acceptable. AT4053b cost 410€. Is the price difference worth it?

[tyreeford]

Super cardioid is not a Shotgun necessarily, first of all. and YES this subject is covered to death and well covered.

even the best mic in the world can suck in the hands of an amateur that doesnt know what they are doing or cannot monitor the signal. no mic in the world can make up for lack of know-how. so there is no such thing as a forgiving mic.

if you get a mic that has a wider pick up pattern so the aiming isnt as critical then you're dealing with more unwanted sounds being picked up as well.

rule of thumb, is generally shotguns outside and hypercardiods indoors, since youre not willing to do the homework then just follow these guidelines.

good shotgun in your range 'Rode NTG 3' under 1k , hypercardioid in your range : 'Audio Technica AT4053b' also within your budget, and get wind protection and good shock mounts for both.

good luck

+1

Ty Ford

[tyreeford]

Just so someone doesn't come along and misinterpret the Schoeps comment.

The Schoeps cmc641 (I own two) is a great mic which can be used indoors or out, thank you very much.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Kindredmachine]

When I was a teacher in college - with a mixed group of 17-25 year olds, we had a nice pole, a 416 and Rycote with a hairy cover. Cost a lot of money and we used it with a portable recorder, with decent headphones. I used it a few times on projects and was more than happy with it. Students - however just failed to understand it was a proper skill. Their results would often be dire when out on location, on their own, without me - but with me, even in the studio - results were quite usable. The group were mixed in ability - so no matter who was booming - it seemed strange. Their comments on hearing me curse their results as varying shades of useless/rubbish/hopeless (after the initial more educational "not quite precise enough/too much random sound not enough subject/unbalanced in quality" ran out) were that we should have better equipment!

However - on a shoot WITH me it became clear what they were doing differently. Holding a boom pole with both arms above your head is tiring, so they tucked the end into their hip and angled the pole up at 45 degree, like a fishing rod. The mic was no longer pointing at the subject. Sometimes the cameraman would yell that the boo was in shot - which just meant they steep end the angle till it wasn't! Headphones would be either off one ear so they could talk to their friends, or if they were on, then they must have simply ignored what the headphones were actually hearing. In short - if they heard a voice in the headphones, and got level on the meters, that was job done. All the stuff we'd spent time on like inverse square law, polar responses and boom technique was just too hard or not considered important. Many younger people seem to equate sound quality with being loud enough. They cannot hear the difference between low res mp3 and 98K wav files. They can't identify the bass is missing - as in actually unplugged! Some can of course, but not all. I suspect that as some people are colour blind, so some others are sound blind. Things like compression just cannot be heard - even when you switch it in and out. I can hear the differences, but many students simply can't.

If you want quality sound, they need training properly - out of 16 media types, only 2 were interested in sound - and just 1 took it further. The others had no aptitude for sound, and if I was honest, I'd suggest that the only reason they were doing sound was because they'd shown as little skill with their eyes as their ears, and had been 'given' sound. I've always been luck - equally happy with sound, vision or lighting - but for me, lighting came first - then the others. For somebody starting out, learning to really use their ears is not that easy!

That made me chuckle; sounds like a nightmare but maybe I should calrify when I say "novice" since my perception and others' seem to be different. We are an actually film company (a small one), as in, this is what we do 50 hours+ a week. For the last 8 years we've conducted mostly lav interviews and filmed audio-free B-roll in the Middle East for TV and product documentary work and trianing courses. Now, we're being forced into boomed audio in which we have far less experience even though our operators are amazing audio techs. I'm sure our 2 operators will do a darn good job but I expect them to make mistakes; thus the request for a "forgiving" mic. I think I've decided on 2 "Audio Technica 4053b" mics for indoor interviews and 2 "NTG-3" for outdoor interviews.

I truly appreciate everyone's input and suggestions! Audio is definately our weekest area (or at least mine) so I'm looking this as much as before beforehand.

[Kindredmachine]

Just so someone doesn't come along and misinterpret the Schoeps comment.

The Schoeps cmc641 (I own two) is a great mic which can be used indoors or out, thank you very much.

Regards,

Ty Ford

So should I pick up a couple Schoeps cmc641 mics instead of using seperate mics for indoor and outdoor? Or would an NTG-3 perform better indoor over a cmc641? Last I heard there was no such thing as a mic that could do both so your statement is confusing.

[tyreeford]

Maran,

who peed in your wheaties this July 4th?

No rudeness that I can see, just straight ahead good info.

If your skin really is that thin, stay on the porch and don't venture out in the yard with the big dogs.

And keep Christ's name out of it while you're at it.

Ty Ford

[Steve House]

I could be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing he has no one else. It never ceases to amaze me that people forget that their are amatuer filmmakers, isolated filmmakers, and some that just dont plain no anyone else. So for the sake of the project and to get it made they sometimes have to out source someone that isn't a filmmaker by trade, but is willing to help. I cant imagine if this guy had access to a seasoned pro, he would be using a novice by choice. Plus audio is incredibly complex, he may be doing the majority of his "homework" in other areas, isn't that why were here? to help one another, and without being a rude and jerky about it. Cut him some slack for christ sakes, if it's to much of a hassle, then dont bother answereing his question, move on\!

I haven't forgotten that he might be an amateur, I don't recall one way or the other. But it doesn't matter ... if he does not have any pro's or even knowledgeable amateurs available then his crew of volunteers needs some pre-shoot training on what their various roles will be and how to fulfill them properly. You don't wait until you're on the set ready to shoot for real to assign people to roles, you have some meetings and rehearsals before hand - teaching his volunteers what to do and how they are to do it becomes the job of the filmmaker