AKG SE300b/CK93 vs Audix SCX1

gco

gco

Veteran
Based upon what I have dug up here it looks as though the Audix SCX1 hyper is a step up in performance above the AKG SE300b/CK93 hyper. People seem to be very happy with the SE300/CK93, however, there is not a whole lot of detailed info on the SCX1.
Does anyone have personal experience using both of these and what are the conclusions?.
Thinking of upgrading from the Octava. The Audix runs about $100 more that the AKG and am just wondering if there is any justification for it.
thanks in advance,
g
 
I have both microphones and I have to say that I prefer the AKG. That being said, the Audix was bought 2nd hand. The AKG has a lower noise floor and greater output. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another.
Jon
 
Jon, do you think it would make sense to use the AKG indoors on-camera? I already have a NTG-2 and was wondering if I would be better off to get a hyper to compliment it than getting a better shotgun. I was considering the Audix as well as the Oktava and the Sontronics STC1...
 
mbwkrause said:
Jon, do you think it would make sense to use the AKG indoors on-camera? I already have a NTG-2 and was wondering if I would be better off to get a hyper to compliment it than getting a better shotgun. I was considering the Audix as well as the Oktava and the Sontronics STC1...
Click to expand...

Hyper for indoors? Absolutely. The AKG or ANY other mic on the camera, regardless of type or cost? Whether indoors or out, not unless there's simply no other option to bring home the shot. The position where you'll put the camera to get the most best images of the subject will virtually NEVER be the best place for a microphone to be placed to properly record his dialog. On-camera mics are best reserved for general background ambience recording only.
 
Thanks Steve, I know that. But I´m working as a one-man-band and often have to shoot on the spot interviews with no time to set up a boom or anything. So my only option is a lav and an on-camera mic however bad that might be. I have about $500 to spend for a mic complimenting my NTG-2... But I didn`t mean to hijack this post...
 
Last edited:
mbwkrause said:
So my only option is a lav and an on-camera mic however bad that might be. I have about $500 to spend for a mic complimenting my NTG-2... But I didn`t mean to hijack this post...
Click to expand...
I'd take Steve's advice. Although, I think you do have an option of using a boom holder or mic stand and using a microphone. If you have time to light an interview you have time to get good sound.
 
Jon Goodman said:
I'd take Steve's advice. Although, I think you do have an option of using a boom holder or mic stand and using a microphone. If you have time to light an interview you have time to get good sound.
Click to expand...

Well, that`s the point, I don`t have time to set up lights either... I totally understand where you are comming from BUT if you have to shoot run-and-gun you have to shoot run-and-gun. All I´m trying to do is to make the best of a bad situation (soundwise...)
 
Jon Goodman said:
I have both microphones and I have to say that I prefer the AKG. That being said, the Audix was bought 2nd hand. The AKG has a lower noise floor and greater output. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another.
Jon
Click to expand...
Hey Man,
I appreciate the feedback!,
given the other favorable comments I have seen on the AKG and relative silence ont the Audix, I'm leaning in that direction.
thanks for the feedback friend,
g
 
mbwkrause said:
Thanks Steve, I know that. But I´m working as a one-man-band and often have to shoot on the spot interviews with no time to set up a boom or anything. So my only option is a lav and an on-camera mic however bad that might be. I have about $500 to spend for a mic complimenting my NTG-2... But I didn`t mean to hijack this post...
Click to expand...

Are you operating the camera and conducting the interview at the same time or do you have someone else with you in one of those roles? If you're truly a one-man-band, is the lav you mention for you or do you have time to put it on the subject?

<caution - editorial mode engaged> As I wrestle with this in my mind, and a lot of people seem to face the same issues you're facing, I keep wondering what's the point of shooting interviews like that in the first place if you know going in the technical quality of the results won't come up to par? It's akin to saying that you don't have time to focus and white balance the camera. If all you're interested in is a personal record it doesn't really matter but if you're shooting something that you ultimately intend to put in front of an audience, my opinion is that you need to organize your shoot so that you can do whatever it takes to deliver professional quality results. If the story is important enough to bother offering to strangers at all, it's worth telling it in the most professional manner you can deliver. If that means taking more time to set up gear (including lighting and sound) or hiring additional crew to work with you, so be it. Otherwise you're in the position of, in essence, aplogizing to an audience weaned on theatrical movies and broadcast television and convincing them that your message is important enough that it's worth listening to the interview even though they have to forgive the flaws. I can't shake the notion that flawed technique trivializes content in the eye of the audience, thus making it impossible to effectively communicate the ideas behind your production and negating the reason for doing the project in the first place. <editorial rant mode off>
 
Last edited:
Steve... there are certainly many situations where your rant doesn't apply. Even on broadcast television news, there's a lot of fairly low-quality footage from situations where there wasn't time to do better. Many documentaries also contain less-than ideal footage/sound when situations don't permit better. I think mbwkrause has made it clear that he understands what's better to do when there's time... so the rant is a little much. I mean, we're seeing a lot of CELL PHONE video/audio on broadcast TV! Or, ever listen to a 911 phone call recording on TV? All that stuff they need to subtitle to make at all understandable? Interviews of people leaving a courthouse/who don't want to be interviewed? Cops?
 
ullanta said:
Steve... there are certainly many situations where your rant doesn't apply. Even on broadcast television news, there's a lot of fairly low-quality footage from situations where there wasn't time to do better. Many documentaries also contain less-than ideal footage/sound when situations don't permit better. I think mbwkrause has made it clear that he understands what's better to do when there's time... so the rant is a little much. I mean, we're seeing a lot of CELL PHONE video/audio on broadcast TV! Or, ever listen to a 911 phone call recording on TV? All that stuff they need to subtitle to make at all understandable? Interviews of people leaving a courthouse/who don't want to be interviewed? Cops?
Click to expand...

Sure, when you see planes hurtling towards the ground there's not enough time to setup the sound properly and getting the story is paramount. But other than such events, footage shot in a combat zone, things like that, if there's time to even minimally setup an interview there's at least time so a little something to make sure the sound recorded is clear and intelligeable. Unless you're doing something like shooting blind while on the run in the midst of a motor barrage, shouting questions at the subject as you run for cover, how long does it take to clip a lav on the guy's chest or hand him a wired stick mic instead of trying to rely on a mic on the camera? Courthouse steps interviews? All I've seen are done with a two-man news crew. Cops? AFAIK, they shoot with a camera person and a sound person on each team and if you look close most of the officers are miced with wireless lavs.

I guess I'm still tied to the idea embodied in the motto of a company I worked for many years ago: "Good Enough, Never Is!"
 
Last edited:
Steve, you might not have noticed, but there is a whole new genre out there called web video. And yes, I am one of those crazy people who not only shoot and do the sound but also conduct the interview at the same time. The result might not be up to your standards but then the pay isn´t either. If you want to see what I´m talking about you might want to check this link: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1156002426/bclid1155191454/bctid1419799841
For such a piece, shot and edited by me and pubished on a website of a big German weekly I get 600 Euros. That´s about what a decent sound guy charges in one day, right? So you can argue that my film is a piece of garbage and it should have been done "properly". Well, I think there is lots of room for improvement, I´ll give you that. But in this case the only choice is making it work on this budget or not doing it at all. And I think the web offers a whole new world for short documentaries that will be worth watching but would never have been done as a "full production". You might or you might not like it but you fool yourself if you continue to ride your high horse and say everybody else who didn´t do it your way just didn´t try hard enough. Btw., I´m one of the crazy people who started carring a Mixer with them because I want to be able to ride the levels and make the best of my situation. I appreciate those on the forum who are willing to help me with my inexperience and problems. And I apologize to gco for having taken this threat totally off track. Maybe somebody else wants to answer his original question?
 
Last edited:
There is a long list of documentaries shot for just one person. Most of these filmmakers don't want to work with a crew because they feel is more complicated to get access to the subjects, travel around and get into people's houses. These are more important factor than a lighting and sound for them, and they are right in my opinion.
 
rafaeldelauz said:
There is a long list of documentaries shot for just one person. Most of these filmmakers don't want to work with a crew because they feel is more complicated to get access to the subjects, travel around and get into people's houses. These are more important factor than a lighting and sound for them, and they are right in my opinion.
Click to expand...

"Crew" can be just a team of two. What I'm saying is no matter how important the message, to do it justice one needs to do everthing possible to communicate it clearly and distinctly in order to get it across most effectively. Technique evolved because it made the communication more effective - in and of itself it's meaningless. But content delivered without the technique required to communcate it clearly is also meaningless becase the absence of technique has stripped out its meaning before it ever reaches the audience.
 
The evolution of technique allows filmmakers to deliver their message in an effective way and work by themselves. It's not an opinion, this is fact than more and more filmmakers are working alone and they don't want anybody with them.
James Longley, Sean Mc Allister, Jon Alpert, Rose Mc Elwee. Do they make bad movies just because they work alone?
 
rafaeldelauz said:
The evolution of technique allows filmmakers to deliver their message in an effective way and work by themselves. It's not an opinion, this is fact than more and more filmmakers are working alone and they don't want anybody with them.
James Longley, Sean Mc Allister, Jon Alpert, Rose Mc Elwee. Do they make bad movies just because they work alone?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with working alone unless it leads you to give short-shrift to delivering a quality product because you simply don't have enough hands to do all the tasks that need to be done. It's an uphill battle to capture the best images and also the highest quality sound at the same time and I think it's a mistake to compromise on either one just so you can work alone. The effectiveness of the piece you're shooting has to take priority. To draw an example from another area, how much credibility to you give to someone giving a speech who mumbles?
 
My point is that the effectiveness of working alone has been probed by those filmmakers, they compromise "techniques" excellence but they still deliver movies that are effective on their on values. We are narrowing technique here just to sound, editing and cinematography. Empathy, access and storytelling are technical challenges for documentary makers too
You don't listen too much to a mumbling speaker but a Ok speaker with a powerful message is very interesting for me.
 
rafaeldelauz said:
My point is that the effectiveness of working alone has been probed by those filmmakers, they compromise "techniques" excellence but they still deliver movies that are effective on their on values. We are narrowing technique here just to sound, editing and cinematography. Empathy, access and storytelling are technical challenges for documentary makers too
You don't listen too much to a mumbling speaker but a Ok speaker with a powerful message is very interesting for me.
Click to expand...

"The medium is the message" - McLuhan

IMHO the manner of presenting the message may be more important than the content of the message per se. A technically compromised presentation introduces 'noise' into the communication that may filter and ultimately dilute its impact.
 
IMHO the manner of presenting the message may be more important than the content of the message per se.
Click to expand...

See, for me it´s the other way around. But maybe I´m oldfashioned. Oh wait - there is also this "new" thing called YouTube. How do you explain its sucess?
 
mbwkrause said:
See, for me it´s the other way around. But maybe I´m oldfashioned. Oh wait - there is also this "new" thing called YouTube. How do you explain its sucess?
Click to expand...

"Old fashioned" would be looking at the blend of artistic and technical excellence of work from people like, oh, to move away from film for a sec, Dorothea Lange and Walker Evans who realized that artistic and social sensibilities and technical craftsmanship go together hand and glove. YouTube's popularity is simple - people have a blast using it and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not as yet, AFAIK, a venue for serious artistic experimentatio or social documentary work. It's great fun for skaters showing off their skills or for people who think acting like a fool qualifies as comedy, but it ain't there yet for serious cinematic work or social documentary. If I were shooting a doco to gain support for efforts to preserve the last few remaining Blue Unicorns, YouTube is the last venue I would consider for my primary distribution channel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top