AKG SE300b/CK93 vs Audix SCX1

Steve, the fact is that the documentary industry, if such thing exist, is getting more and more films made by just one person, that's besides our opinions, it's just reality. Sound craft and camera is adapting to this trend, even if you don't like it.
A great example of these new times is the Sanken Cs-1, talking about sound. A microphone designed, in my opinion, for one man band shoots. Use it on top of the camera or get it out and rig it on a mic stand. I love the description of the CS-1 as a kid born out the marriage between the MKh50 and 416. You get a hyper pattern for on camera microphone, but a very sharp side rejection.
You like it or not, but it's happening.
 
rafaeldelauz said:
Steve, the fact is that the documentary industry, if such thing exist, is getting more and more films made by just one person, that's besides our opinions, it's just reality. Sound craft and camera is adapting to this trend, even if you don't like it.
A great example of these new times is the Sanken Cs-1, talking about sound. A microphone designed, in my opinion, for one man band shoots. Use it on top of the camera or get it out and rig it on a mic stand. I love the description of the CS-1 as a kid born out the marriage between the MKh50 and 416. You get a hyper pattern for on camera microphone, but a very sharp side rejection.
You like it or not, but it's happening.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of recognizing the trend or not or liking it. In fact, I'm all in favour of independent production, the individual auteur, and non-traditional distribution channels. You seem to think I'm knocking the one-man-band shooter and that's not the case at all. What I'm knocking is compromising the quality of the final production IN ORDER to be a one-man-band. What counts is what's on the screen and coming from the speakers. What I'm not in favour of is fuzzy, off-colour, out-of-focus images, jerky non-sensical editing, and an unintelligable soundtrack that sounds like it was recorded from down in the bottom of a well. Independence - emphatically yes. Amateurish production values - emphatically no. The sole concern is what does it take to get sound that is clear, clean, crisp, and professional sounding in general. If you can record dialog that sounds professional from an on-camera position while shooting as a one-man band, terrific. But 99% of the time, Mother Nature and the physical laws of acoustics say it can't be done with any mic regardless of price. If the sound you're getting for your important project sounds like wedding guests shouting their congratulations in the direction of Uncle Joe's handycam from across a noisy room, I'm sorry, but that amateurism will undermine the the entire project. Technique matters. Your audience knows what it can sound like from years of exposure to theatrical films and broadcast radio and television. That perception of what "serious work" sounds like is what sets the bar and your message has got to be awfully engaging to get past it.
 
Last edited:
Steve, there is a physical dilemma. One man band is a valid option when well done.
Question, where the hell do you rig a microphone if you are shooting a moving subject, hand held? I can't find another place but the camera. Any ideas?
 
rafaeldelauz said:
Question, where the hell do you rig a microphone if you are shooting a moving subject, hand held? I can't find another place but the camera. Any ideas?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're being rhetorical, Rafaeldelauz, but I'll field your question.

You could use an on-camera mic, but mic placement will be inherently compromised for reasons that have already been covered. This may be perfectly acceptable for action shots where all you really need is a the general sound of a scene, but the mic will likely not be close enough to catch dialogue clearly. If the location is particularly noisey (eg. a quiet downtown street corner), background noise levels may prevent you from getting anything specific at all. This may be acceptable for the shot you have in mind, but you'll be caught flat-footed if a conversation suddenly breaks out, or other important sound elements occur.

Another option would be to wire the subjects with wireless lavs before-hand. However, this strategy requires access to the subjects in advance, as well as a great deal of cooperation. The utility of this strategy really breaks down when the wired subjects begin interracting with other non-wired folks, in which case the production sound becomes wildly uneven. That, and you may not get a second take if the wireless drop out.

Another option would be to have a boom opperator keeping pace. A good documentary sound person will be able to keep the important action on-mic while keeping an eye on the camera opperator's position and movement. Should the shot unexpectadly change, the boom op' can reposition the mic. Documentaries tend to be mercurial things, and this is one of the few mic'ing strategies that allows one to radically change the mic position without interrupting the shot.

The sound person's role on a production isn't just to drink coffee and tell jokes, they're there to give the production greater flexibility and to improve the expressive power of the footage.

I would respectfully suggest, Rafaeldelauz, that you may not be fully exploring your options in the shot you've described.
 
Smuir, my question is part of the conversation I was having with Steve about technical challenges shooting one man band. I know how to record sound in documentary situations with a two person crew, that's how I make my living.
The whole point was how to meet the requirement of recording good sound when you are by yourself and have a camera on your shoulder, not hand left for a boompole and your subject moving around. We know lavs are not ideal, we know the camera is horrible place for a microphone. That was my question, in this situation, what's the solution? And the answer shouldn't "don't shoot like that".
 
rafaeldelauz said:
Smuir, my question is part of the conversation I was having with Steve about technical challenges shooting one man band. I know how to record sound in documentary situations with a two person crew, that's how I make my living.
The whole point was how to meet the requirement of recording good sound when you are by yourself and have a camera on your shoulder, not hand left for a boompole and your subject moving around. We know lavs are not ideal, we know the camera is horrible place for a microphone. That was my question, in this situation, what's the solution? And the answer shouldn't "don't shoot like that".
Click to expand...

Not to put myself out of business but it sounds like you need a hyper capsule and/or a short shotgun with a good shock mount and wind protection plus a way to get the mic closer to the subject. Perhaps a light weight fold up stand that could be plunked down with the mic aimed from underneath? Not ideal for every situation but might work for most. If you're using a tripod how about something that quickly clamps onto it to hold a short boom so you can go overhead? Yet another idea. A small modified articulated boom that could be held with the help of something on your belt. Camera on one shoulder held with one hand, boom held with the other. None of these solutions exist as standard items so you would have to be inventive with existing products or come up with your own designs tailored to how you do your camera work.
I mix a weekend morning news show and most of the sound bites range from pretty mediocre to marginal and this is a large CBS affiliate. The reason? Its just the cameraman and maybe a reporter getting the story. SOP is slap a lav with a windscreen on wherever you can get it on the quickest, have the camera audio set to auto gain and let it fly. A camera mic gets ambiance that's usable if it isn't too windy for the softie on the mic. Its all about caring about the audio in the first place, setting the gain stages properly, and having adequate wind protection. Last but not least the gear has to be pro quality and include enough mics for the situation. Some news shooters do really well and others consistantly bring back sound that might have too much wind, buzzing, overloaded audio, and sometimes its beyond imagination what they did to it. Sorry, I'm ranting but you get the idea. Get good tools, use them properly, (even if you're all alone) and you should get decent sound.
Good luck and when you get tired of lugging so much stuff around hire one of us. You'll be glad you did.
Best!
Bernie
 
If I have to shoot alone in a loud environment "on the go" I use an EV RE50b with a wireless transmitter and just have people hold the mic. It works wonders. If i need to to a sit down interview alone, I will use a c-stand and boom cradle to get the mic (usually a hyper) close enough or use a wired or wireless lav if not.
 
Ok, so the preponderance of evidence points in the direction of the AKG, right?
LOL--what in the hell did i start?--LOL
 
To try and summerize the points. No one is saying one man bands aren't workable in certain situations but 2 points to consider:

1. One man bands do not work across the board and you need to know when it's time to bring in help...and the answer is not "when I can afford it."

2. The times you can make OMB work, attention must be paid! To wit, you can't just put a shotgun on the camera and call it a day. Your audience doesn't care about your financial or manpower problems; they care about their mental state. Noisy and distorted audio makes your audience physically and mentally uncomfortable. It is a strain to listen to and they will not bother if you don't bother to get it right.

There is always a solution but it takes time and sometimes money.

The 5 minutes 'wasted' on getting the audio right is minor compared to the complete waste of time shooting an interview that is unlistenable would be.

Cheers
 
rafaeldelauz said:
Smuir, my question is part of the conversation I was having with Steve about technical challenges shooting one man band. I know how to record sound in documentary situations with a two person crew, that's how I make my living.
The whole point was how to meet the requirement of recording good sound when you are by yourself and have a camera on your shoulder, not hand left for a boompole and your subject moving around. We know lavs are not ideal, we know the camera is horrible place for a microphone. That was my question, in this situation, what's the solution? And the answer shouldn't "don't shoot like that".
Click to expand...

I don't think there IS a technical solution that is 100% suitable. In my mind I usually make a distinction between breaking news coverage, where you're shooting on the run in a totally uncontrolled situation, and documentatary production, where you're workling to a plan, telling a story that you have thought out in advance, and are working in a situation that at least is somewhat, if not completely, under your control. If you are covering breaking news as a one man band and are loath to risk pinning a lav on the subject or can't get their cooperation, then use a good 'gun on the camera, live with the result, and be ready to replace the tracks with wild sound and voiceover in post. If you're shooting to a plan, then you actually DO have the choice, your advance planning should be detailed enough that you'll know exactly the situation you'll have to face before arriving at the location, and "don't shoot like that" is a perfectly legitmate answer. No one is holding a gun to your head and saying you HAVE to work alone are they? It's a choice you're making, for whatever reason, and like every choice it has consequences, setting up problems to which there are perhaps simply no solutions that don't involve making a different choice in the first place.
 
gco said:
Ok, so the preponderance of evidence points in the direction of the AKG, right?
LOL--what in the hell did i start?--LOL
Click to expand...

I went through the same process of trying to get info on the Audix SCX1-HC, AKG SE300B/CK93 and AT4053a as an upgrade for the Oktava. Not much info at all on the Audix or AT anywhere on the net, believe me... I wish Dan Brockett had included these mics in his excellent review; at least we would have had some audio samples to compare.

Ty Ford has said in some of his posts that if you can't afford a Schoeps, the Audix is the next best choice (70% of a Schoeps for 70% less). He also likes the AT4053a.

Marty Atias of ATSComms says the Audix is a very undervalued mic.

Other than that, most of the folks seem to really like the AKG Blue Line. I've heard that they're on the warm side compared to the other mics.

I'm sure you can't go wrong with any of the choices listed here.

That being said, I ordered an Audix a week ago and am currently waiting for it to be delivered. I'm outfitting it with a BBG/Windjammer/KSSM w/soft bands. Probably won't have any feedback on it for at least a few more weeks...
 
Last edited:
Thanks Leo.
yeah, i did run across those comments from Ty and several others but they were a bit brief. Given the lack of info on the Audix and abundance of positive info on the AKG, went ahead and pulled the trigger on the AKG. Maybe at some point I might buy the Audix to compare but right now need to go with the tried and true.
would be curious what your opinion is after you get a chance to try your Audix out.
thanks again,
g
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top