advice to improve sound on doc

[bryersen]

I am shooting a doc by myself, am two months into a yearlong shoot, and have questions about improving the sound. The doc is 66% intimate interviews and 33% huge variety of B-roll and large vistas. I am shooting with an HPX-170 and two Neumann 81i's (love them). To keep my amount of equipment simple at first, I put one mic on the camera for the interviewee or location sound and one with a desk stand to record my questions. Now that I'm comfortable, it's time to go for improvements.

1) Will getting the main mic off the camera and onto a mic stand will improve the sound because
a) the mic is picking up some of the low hum of the camera (even tho the HPX does not
have a tape drive, there is a hum),
b) the rear of the cardiod pattern will be away from me (I'm right next to the camera)

2) Do I need to keep both mics off axis to keep my words off the interviewee's mic and his/her
words off my mic?

3) Is there a way to mount both of the interview mics on one stand, and the sound is good?

4) Is there any reason to record sound onto a recorder other than the camera?

5) To record stereo for some of the B-roll and large vistas, should I ...
a) pair the two Neumann mics in a coincident XY pattern (any suggestions re mount? the
Neumann one is $239) ?
b) buy a bi-directional mic and pair it with one of my Neumanns in a MS pattern?
c) buy a stereo mic (Rode NT-4, Senn 44-P, or Shure VP-88?) ?

5) I'm editing in FCP, what's the issues with stereo recorded XY vs. MS?

6) What's the sound quality difference with a blimp vs foam screen with fake fur?

7) Headphones recommendations?

Thanks for any and all answers. This is my first digital shoot and first doc. I've only done 16mm with Nagras and 416s. At least I've done digital post and I know the emotions are in the sound.

 

[Alex H.]

You should start with the Audio 101 sticky, which has answers to many of your questions. Also, the search function will turn up plenty of answers to often-asked questions such as the recommended headphones.

I am shooting a doc by myself, am two months into a yearlong shoot, and have questions about improving the sound. The doc is 66% intimate interviews and 33% huge variety of B-roll and large vistas. I am shooting with an HPX-170 and two Neumann 81i's (love them). To keep my amount of equipment simple at first, I put one mic on the camera for the interviewee or location sound and one with a desk stand to record my questions. Now that I'm comfortable, it's time to go for improvements.

Is it absolutely necessary that you record your own voice? Typically, for docs and similar ENG/EFP, the interviewee is instructed to work the question back into the answer, since the interviewers voice is rarely - if ever - heard in the edited piece.

Also, recording just the one mic means that you can record it to both channels, and drop the recording level of your second channel so that you have a safety in case of sudden peaks.

1) Will getting the main mic off the camera and onto a mic stand will improve the sound because
a) the mic is picking up some of the low hum of the camera (even tho the HPX does not
have a tape drive, there is a hum),
b) the rear of the cardiod pattern will be away from me (I'm right next to the camera)

The camera is the last place you should have your mic for an interview. It is going to pick up camera noise, that's just the way an on-camera mic works. The mic needs to be mounted on a stand with a boom arm, over the interveiwee's head, and aimed at the sternum. It should be as close as possible to the subject without getting into frame. 12" is okay. 8" is better.

Your mic, the KMR 81i, is not a straight-up cardioid. It is a shotgun with a supercardioid element in it, but Neumann's spec sheet shows a much wider response than a shotgun would normally have. Hm...

2) Do I need to keep both mics off axis to keep my words off the interviewee's mic and his/her
words off my mic?

Again, is it absolutely crucial that your voice is recorded?

3) Is there a way to mount both of the interview mics on one stand, and the sound is good?

The mic should be as close to the source as possible. So, not really.

4) Is there any reason to record sound onto a recorder other than the camera?

With a camera like the HPX-170, not necessarily. You'll almost always get better sound recording on a dedicated, high-quality audio recorder. If the camera has XLR ins with decent audio circuits, you can get perfectly usable dialog recording.

5) To record stereo for some of the B-roll and large vistas, should I ...
a) pair the two Neumann mics in a coincident XY pattern (any suggestions re mount? the
Neumann one is $239) ?
b) buy a bi-directional mic and pair it with one of my Neumanns in a MS pattern?
c) buy a stereo mic (Rode NT-4, Senn 44-P, or Shure VP-88?) ?

This is where a separate recorder may come in handy. Record your ambient sound beds separately from your footage. Some folks prefer an XY pair of cardioids (true cardioids, meaning your KMR 81i isn't the first choice), and some prefer MS. I use a VP-88 (MS) for a lot of my stereo field recording.

5) I'm editing in FCP, what's the issues with stereo recorded XY vs. MS?

XY vs. MS really has to do with personal taste. They have slightly different stereo images, and different ways of controlling the width of the image field. Both are mono-compatible, though that's getting to be less and less of a concern as fewer and fewer folks are listening on mono systems.

6) What's the sound quality difference with a blimp vs foam screen with fake fur?

Both are going to affect the high end a little. A zepplin with fur is going to give you much better isolation/protection than a foam screen with fur.

 

[biginvegas]

You should start with the Audio 101 sticky, which has answers to many of your questions. Also, the search function will turn up plenty of answers to often-asked questions such as the recommended headphones.



Is it absolutely necessary that you record your own voice? Typically, for docs and similar ENG/EFP, the interviewee is instructed to work the question back into the answer, since the interviewers voice is rarely - if ever - heard in the edited piece.

Also, recording just the one mic means that you can record it to both channels, and drop the recording level of your second channel so that you have a safety in case of sudden peaks.



The camera is the last place you should have your mic for an interview. It is going to pick up camera noise, that's just the way an on-camera mic works. The mic needs to be mounted on a stand with a boom arm, over the interveiwee's head, and aimed at the sternum. It should be as close as possible to the subject without getting into frame. 12" is okay. 8" is better.

Your mic, the KMR 81i, is not a straight-up cardioid. It is a shotgun with a supercardioid element in it, but Neumann's spec sheet shows a much wider response than a shotgun would normally have. Hm...



Again, is it absolutely crucial that your voice is recorded?



The mic should be as close to the source as possible. So, not really.



With a camera like the HPX-170, not necessarily. You'll almost always get better sound recording on a dedicated, high-quality audio recorder. If the camera has XLR ins with decent audio circuits, you can get perfectly usable dialog recording.



This is where a separate recorder may come in handy. Record your ambient sound beds separately from your footage. Some folks prefer an XY pair of cardioids (true cardioids, meaning your KMR 81i isn't the first choice), and some prefer MS. I use a VP-88 (MS) for a lot of my stereo field recording.



XY vs. MS really has to do with personal taste. They have slightly different stereo images, and different ways of controlling the width of the image field. Both are mono-compatible, though that's getting to be less and less of a concern as fewer and fewer folks are listening on mono systems.



Both are going to affect the high end a little. A zepplin with fur is going to give you much better isolation/protection than a foam screen with fur.

re: Is it absolutely necessary that you record your own voice? Typically, for docs and similar ENG/EFP, the interviewee is instructed to work the question back into the answer, since the interviewers voice is rarely - if ever - heard in the edited piece.


Clearly you have not seen any Michael Moore, Nick Broomfield, Errrol Morris docs, the list of filmmakers can go on and on. They are filmmakers who are protagonists in their films and thus yes need to heard. Nick Broomfield (Kurt and Courtney, Hollywood madam) does his own sound shot gun mic in hand.
if you are a solo shooter, mics rigged to camera will be picked up regardless of direction - just speak up! Or add digital recorder like the H4N into the mix and you are covered.

 

[Alex H.]

Fair enough... but this would be why I asked the question, "Is it absolutely necessary?" That sort of assumes that the answer could possibly be, "Yes." And yes, I have seen many of their films (please don't make assumptions about what I have and have not seen). But those guys have a crew, and their faces are in the pictures. For a one-man-band with just a camera and mic, and no boom-op, it's easier to lock it down and not worry about recording the film maker's voice.

If, for some reason, a particular question does need to be heard, docs often have the off-camera (off-axis) voice included in that moment. Honestly, if the interviewer is off-camera and isn't seen at all, having a voice that is on mic sounds a bit unnatural... almost like a VO. The aural separation of the off-axis voice makes a point, in my opinion.

If the documentary has a protagonist, that can certainly change the formula.

if you are a solo shooter, mics rigged to camera will be picked up regardless of direction - just speak up!

Not exactly sure what you mean here, but on-camera is always the last choice of mic placement. And whether one mic or two, if the interview is seated and locked, mic stands make things so much easier.

Also, the comment that the OP's doc is comprised of "66% intimate interviews" leads me to believe that this is not an exposé-style doc with a protagonist.

 

[Noiz2]

Clearly you have not seen any Michael Moore, Nick Broomfield, Errrol Morris docs, the list of filmmakers can go on and on. They are filmmakers who are protagonists in their films and thus yes need to heard.

He did say "typically", you are pointing out exceptions. TYPICALLY the interviewer is not heard, or in most cases if they are heard they are added in later.
90% of the "interviews" on news shows where they are not physically in the same place are done that way. A PA or line producer asks the question, the "interview' is cut for time etc. and then the star askes the questions that need to be asked and pretends they are having a conversation. This is also very common on NPR.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Absolutely read the stickies. Then order yourself a copy of Sound for Film and Television. Spend a couple of hours watching. Just about all your questions, and questions you haven't thought to ask yet, will be answered.

 

[bryersen]

thanks for all the quick answers.

Yes, I am protagonist as well. Now that i'm quick with one camera, I'm adding a second camera - sometimes on me, sometimes on them, sometimes on us both with all the equipment too. I had hoped the digital camera noise would be low enough to allow the mic to be on the camera, but most of my interviews are too quiet. So, I will have two mic stands with boom arms. I understand the positioning of the boom. thanks.

Am still wondering about . . .

Editing stereo in FCP - is it easier with stereo recorded XY or MS?

Mic choice for stereo -
a) buy a bi-directional and pair it in an MS pattern with one of my Neumanns? Which mic?
b) buy an MS mic - Shure VP-88
c) buy an XY mic - Rode NT-4 or Senn MKE 44-P?

Is the HPX-170 good enough in it's audio circuits to record my stereo B-roll and large vistas? It does have two XLR inputs, but are the internal audio workings good enough? This film is about personal moments of transformation, so I want the sound of the B-roll and large vistas to match that level of importance. I know alot will be done in post, but I want to bring all I can to post. I'm traveling the country in a van, so I'm not going back to get sounds, yet am trying to keep my equipment small. Opinions - do I need a recorder? (am I being short-sighted by trying to cut this corner?) Which recorder?

Any other advice?
thanks to all

 

[Bruce Watson]

Mic choice for stereo -
a) buy a bi-directional and pair it in an MS pattern with one of my Neumanns? Which mic?
b) buy an MS mic - Shure VP-88
c) buy an XY mic - Rode NT-4 or Senn MKE 44-P?

Is the HPX-170 good enough in it's audio circuits to record my stereo B-roll and large vistas? It does have two XLR inputs, but are the internal audio workings good enough? This film is about personal moments of transformation, so I want the sound of the B-roll and large vistas to match that level of importance. I know alot will be done in post, but I want to bring all I can to post. I'm traveling the country in a van, so I'm not going back to get sounds, yet am trying to keep my equipment small. Opinions - do I need a recorder? (am I being short-sighted by trying to cut this corner?) Which recorder?

Recording ambient is a whole different world than recording dialog. To do either "right" requires microphones optimized for the task. Recording stereo is yet another different world especially if you're picky and want it to sound really right. Well done ORTF recordings preserve the phase relationships between the stereo pair and just "sound right" to my ears, while using a mid/side configuration purposely deletes the phase relationships in favor of increasing options in post, but it sounds somehow artificial to me. But how does it sound to you? We can't tell you that.

Recording ambient is going to put much more pressure on your pre-amps and the entire recording chain -- less noise at each stage results in more audible detail in the final. At the very top end of the spectrum is something like this from Schoeps. Then you'll need good cables, a good mixer, and a good recorder to take advantage of the good mics. Look at the Sound Devices line for mixers and recorders. At least it's a place to start, and will help you learn the industry jargon so it's easier to search out other solutions.

Do you have to go this far? Of course not. I'm just pointing out that the range between your camera's inboard mics and the top end of audio quality is absolutely huge. As usual then it all comes down to 1) how do you, personally, define quality; 2) how much work are you willing to put into it (equipment is only part of the battle); and 3) how much are you willing to pay for it? And nobody on this or any other forum can answer those questions for you.

 

[Noiz2]

Well first off XY will be "easier" in FCP because you won't have to decode it.
There are folks who will argue one over the other for days. Personally I don't think it matters much.
The pluses for M/S are that you can easily change the with of the stereo spread and you have a dedicated center element so mono is "better".
The minuses are that unless you have a mixer with a decoder built in you can't hear in stereo while recording and you need to decode it to get your stereo track.

The pluses for X/Y are that your always in stereo and you don't have to do any processing to use the files.
The minuses of X/Y are that you have to process the file if you want to change the stereo spread and for mono you either collapse the tracks leaving the phantom center or you use one track or the other. Both methods have potential problems, the first may have some phase issues and the second may sound "off axis".

You can process either format to create the other so your not stuck with what you recorded.

The only thing I dislike about the M/S format is the need to decode it to listen to it.

There are also a bunch of microphones out there that have M/S elements but decode in the mic and output an X/Y signal. You can spot most of them because they have spread settings. The VP-88 I believe has this option.

Production work is certainly different from FX work but it's not night and day. A lot of the microphones cross over but cardioids are used a lot in FX and hardly ever for production. If your picking up ambiences for a film its not "nature recording", your not looking for a perfect reflection of reality (not that that is possible anyway) but a building block to create the "reality" of your film. Your not looking for what sounds best in headphones but what can be layered up and sound great in a theatre, or maybe on a TV.

Your not, or at least shouldn't be, using the track raw so perspective and stereo image are not really as important as they would be otherwise. Your going to layer it and want it around etc. What is important is noise though because you are going to add a bunch of tracks to create the final. So a decent mic preamp is pretty important. Better quieter mics are a plus and if your outside wind protection is not an optional extra.

BTW you get extra credit for recording stuff for post. We LOVE getting recording that actually match the shots. You may in the end not use much of it but it is very helpful to hear what was recorded. For ambiences and backgrounds (the terms are fairly interchangeable but generally ambience refers to a sound that doesn't have humans in it where Backgrounds are more about the hustle and bustle) try to record 3 min or so. It's hard to stay still for that long. You can do less but a minute and a half is about a short as you can go and still be of much use.

And don't change perspective during the recording.

 

[Alex H.]

Well first off XY will be "easier" in FCP because you won't have to decode it.

The only thing I dislike about the M/S format is the need to decode it to listen to it.

There are also a bunch of microphones out there that have M/S elements but decode in the mic and output an X/Y signal. You can spot most of them because they have spread settings. The VP-88 I believe has this option.

Yes, you can easily find an MS mic that has an internal decoding matrix, and the VP-88 is one of those. It also has width adjustments on it. I've had one for many years and it has been a solid performer.

Also, many field mixers, including the MixPre-D, offer a decoding matrix feature.

 

[bryersen]

Thank you for all the info. I've read your posts a number of times and searched for more answers in DVXuser and around the net. Thanks also for the kicks in the a** to get me to see the obvious errors I was making.

This is the direction I'm heading . . . opinions?

I think I'll record MS stereo because the B-roll with interviews often enough has the interviewee in the middle of a large shot. They might say a few words or make sound fx. I would also record ambiences with the same MS set-up. Ambiences and B-roll could be loud (drums or motorcycles) or quiet (prayer with beads in a church).

MS mic choices ----
a) Pair my Neumann KMR 81i with a Senn MKH 30 $1250.
b) Pair my Neumann KMR 81i with a A-T 4081 $699.
(this is a ribbon mic, would it work?)
(any other suggestions to pair with Neumann?)
c) Buy a unified MS mic --- Shure VP-88 $689.

Can I set levels with the mid and side mics separately and well, or do I need an MS decoder to make appropriate level choices? The levels will be reset in post anyway, yes?
The Shure mic will send out the mid and side separately or together, right? So, I could hear it both ways, yet send the sound via a Y-splitter to two separate channels?
Would the sound be that much better by pairing with the Neumann or am I better off with a very good single mic because I'm working alone?
Which gets me very good very usable sound to layer onto?

Mixer/Recorder choices ----
a) Sound Devices 702 recorder, no mixer $1875.
b) Sound Devices MixPre-D with Tascam HD-P2 recorder $1490.
c) Sound Devices MixPre-D with Fostex FR-2LE recorder $1345.

What will be the sound/noise difference between these three options?
Since I am working alone and not going to be adjusting the pots during a shot, do I need a mixer? It would be one less box.
I don't think the SD 702 has an MS decoder.
Also, since I am wearing all the hats, I truly appreciate easy, fast and reliable interface. Which of the three recorders has the best interface? Any other major differences I need to consider? Transfers to HDs any different?

Budget comes into the equation too. I can't do both (a) choices.
I imagine I'll be selling these purchases when I'm done and renting in the future, so resale value is important as well.

Another question ---
Zepplin - will the new Rode Blimp fit a pair of stacked mics in an MS set-up? It looks like it would and great price. Anyone know?

Thanks to all your time and advice.
Emotion is in the sound - may we all have low noise floors.

 

[Alex H.]

I think I'll record MS stereo because the B-roll with interviews often enough has the interviewee in the middle of a large shot. They might say a few words or make sound fx. I would also record ambiences with the same MS set-up. Ambiences and B-roll could be loud (drums or motorcycles) or quiet (prayer with beads in a church).

This doesn't exactly make sense. Are you deciding to record everything in MS? Not sure I understand what you mean by "B-roll with interviews often enough has the interviewee in the middle of a large shot. They might say a few words or make sound fx." Can you clarify that?

Stereo is used to record sound beds: train station, airport, restaurant, forest, waterfall, mountain stream... in other words, ambient sound and no dialog. Dialog needs to be mono, and if you have two mics running for an interview, they are recorded separately and both mixed to the center in post.

Much of your B-roll will also be mono. In fact, all of it. If you're shooting some one in a church using prayer beads you'll want to get close in on that sound-wise, and stereo is too wide of an image for that (and you may end up replacing that with FX or Foley, which will be mono). Stereo recording in that situation would be of just the natural sound of the room with no movement in it.

If you interview some one about, say, building a musical instrument and you get B-roll of them building it, get mono sound. The perspective of B-roll changes too much, and if that sound is recorded in stereo then the stereo perspective is also going to change with each shot. That's very disorienting for the viewer.

Record your stereo sound beds separately, and without video. Those tracks are mixed in underneath the B-roll and B-roll audio.

MS mic choices ----
a) Pair my Neumann KMR 81i with a Senn MKH 30 $1250.
b) Pair my Neumann with a A-T 4081 $ 699.
(this is a ribbon mic, would it work?)
(any other suggestions to pair with Neumann?)
c) Buy a unified MS mic --- Shure VP-88 $ 689.

My personal preference... get the VP-88. It's got everything built into a single mic chassis and will be the easiest for you on the fly.

Can I set levels with the mid and side mics separately and well, or do I need an MS decoder to make appropriate level choices? The levels will be reset in post anyway, yes?
The Shure mic will send out the mid and side separately or together, right? So, I could hear it both ways, yet send the sound via a Y-splitter to two separate channels?
Would the sound be that much better by pairing with the Neumann or am I better off with a very good single mic because I'm working alone?
Which gets me very good very usable sound to layer onto?

The VP-88 can do a few things. First, it can output the separate Mid and Side signals for you to decode later (either in the mixer or in post), or it can use its internal matrix to send out a decoded stereo signal straight from the mic. Second, it has width control for the internally-matrixed signal in three positions: L, M, and H. last, it can run off phantom or an internal battery, with both flat low-end roll-off (HPF) options for each.

If you are recording to a two-channel device, there's really no way to monitor as decoded stereo and record as non-matrixed MS at the same time.

Mixer/Recorder choices ----
a) Sound Devices 702 recorder, no mixer $ 1875.
b) Sound Devices MixPre-D with Tascam HD-P2 recorder $ 1490.
c) " " " with Fostex FR-2LE recorder $ 1345.

Since I am working alone and not going to be adjusting the pots during a shot, do I need a mixer? It would be one less box.
I don't think the SD 702 has an MS decoder.
Also, since I am wearing all the hats, I truly appreciate easy, fast and reliable interface. Which of the three recorders has the best interface? Any other major differences I need to consider? Transfers to HDs any different?

If you have the money for the 702, go for it. It's the creme of the crop, and it does an decoding feature for MS.

Any of the recorders will have pretty simple file transfers (especially since they record to removable, solid-state media).

I imagine I'll be selling these purchases when I'm done and renting in the future, so resale value is important as well.

Why? If you have them (since you have the budget to buy them now) why turn around and sell them? You'll have some resale value, but you'll take a hit on the purchase and then have to pay rentals on top of that.

Instead, why not rent the kit out on the side? A little extra income never hurts, and the gear can pay for itself.

Another question ---
Zepplin - will the new Rode Blimp fit a pair of stacked mics in an MS set-up? It looks like it would and great price. Anyone know?

Not sure there's a way to clip a second mic in there.

 

[bryersen]

This doesn't exactly make sense. Are you deciding to record everything in MS? Not sure I understand what you mean by "B-roll with interviews often enough has the interviewee in the middle of a large shot. They might say a few words or make sound fx." Can you clarify that?

No, not recording everything in MS. I used the wrong words. I'd be using the MS stereo to record ambient sound beds without video and some shots with the interviewee in them. One interviewee took me to a drumming circle and in the middle of it yelled out to me. Another was an interviewee meditating in a bird-filled garden who opened her eyes and said a sentence. The MS would give me coverage for these surprises, yes?

Sometimes I would be able to mic mono to the camera and stereo to the recorder, but not always.

 

[Alex H.]

No, not recording everything in MS. I used the wrong words. I'd be using the MS stereo to record ambient sound beds without video and some shots with the interviewee in them. One interviewee took me to a drumming circle and in the middle of it yelled out to me. Another was an interviewee meditating in a bird-filled garden who opened her eyes and said a sentence. The MS would give me coverage for these surprises, yes?

Have you considered adding a wireless lav system to your kit? That can be a big CYA for potential dialog from a subject during B-roll. And honestly, things like the drum circle don't necessarily need to be in stereo. A lav and transmitter on the subject, and a room mic to the other channel of the camera (or recorder), will give you plenty to work with. But if it's something that doesn't generally require sync sound (the meditation in the garden) you can always mic for potential dialog with video, then get the sounds of the garden as a stereo sound bed afterward.

Sometimes I would be able to mic mono to the camera and stereo to the recorder, but not always.

Then you need to make a decision. If the risk of a usable line of dialog is a concern, then dialog should be the focus. If you'd rather get the sounds of the space in stereo, then plan to lose any brief dialog that may come up. Again, it may not even require stereo sound of the event, and it may be something where you can get stereo sound bed later if you need/want it.

Keep in mind also that it is rare to see something mic'd mono for dialog to camera, and stereo for ambient track, at the same time. It's hard to mix those in post without disrupting the aural perspective.

I guess the one thing I'm surprised hasn't come up at this point (and why I haven't even asked about this), is why purchase is the plan here and not hiring a sound person with the appropriate gear? I know it's a "year-long shoot," but is that shooting every day? If not, it may be worthwhile to look at hiring. As much as you're planning to spend to buy gear (and yes, a sound person over an extended period of time will be a bit more), is it not feasible to hire? You'll get what you need and can focus yourself on the other aspects of the doc. It's just a question that needs to be asked.

 

[Doc Bernard]

+3 on a stereo mike, if that is the route you are going. Life will be much easier for you, if you are not getting a sound guy.

Another thing that no one has really brought up, is your mic pairings. One, that ribbon you spoke of. Ribbon mics, by their nature have a dark tone to them, and they will sound nothing like your KM81, so there will be a tonality mismatch. Two if you are going to do an XY, rule of thumb is always use the same mics on both axes. It's not a law, but a really good idea.


Lastly:

I am shooting a doc by myself

It better not be me.:evil:

 

[Noiz2]

Alex, if I remember correctly he's trekking across the country in a van so hiring a sound guy probably isn't practical. Wow you won't hear me say that often.

 

[Noiz2]

Bryersen,

My opinions. The SD recorder is a really solid box, but the menu system can be confusing so I'm not sure it's the best choice.

I get the feeling that your planning on mounting the mic on the camera. Aside from that not being a good idea a mic like the VP88 would really not work on the camera.
I'm not sure what the center capsule is but probably cardioid, so that is not going to be a good dialog choice.

And I don't think a shotgun and a figure eight mic would work for M/S. So I think you have to drop the idea of using one for both unless you spring for a so called stereo shotgun. In the shotgun mode it will be somewhere in the Hyper to short shotgun range.
However I believe these mics use the side capsules to help create the shotgun pattern so I don't think you can get the more directional pattern and stereo at the same time. I would use two a mono mic and a stereo setup (or mic).

Alex has a point about changing perspectives and that will be more or less of a problem depending on the edit and the amount of post sound you do. I think proximity may be more of an issue. You don't want to be jumping from a relatively close mic to a distant one unless you have a big visual shift. The wider your microphone the farther away the dialog will sound. So a shotgun on the person in the drumming circle is going to sonically get you closer to the person than a stereo one will.

And you seem to have some confusion about how all this works.
X/Y picks up a stereo image and that come out on two feeds. It might be two cables from the mic or a proprietary cable that has two connectors at the end. One is left the other is right.

M/S picks up a center mono signal and the second element(s) pick up a mono side signal (essentially everything but the center). Those two signals come out from the mic the same way the X/Y did except one is center (Mid) and the other is Side.

The decoding takes the center signal and adds the side to create the left channel and takes the center and subtracts the side to create the right channel. At that point you have the same thing as you did with X/Y. It's more of a matrix in thing than a decoding thing. And as I said earlier you can go the other way also.
M = L+R, S = L-R. In both systems it takes both signals to create stereo.

There are a number of recorders and a bunch of mixers that will let you monitor a M/S signal as X/Y stereo. If your going to decode the files anyway there is very little reason to record M/S and it adds a level of complexity.

 

[Noiz2]

I did a little searching and I found three "stereo shotguns" that might do kind of what your looking for and be in the price range.
The one most people like for this is a Numann, but at around $6K I figured it wasn't an option

So the ones you might want to look at are:

Sennheiser MKH418S

Audio Technica BP4029

and the Sanken CSS-5

It appears (found this in a discussion I found) that the BBC requires shows to use stereo shotgun mics so that they can get some stereo ambience out of the production sound. Kind of dodgy but it's kind of the same reason you want to do it so there you go.

Of the three the 418s is supposedly a 416 with a figure eight element added.

The Sanken is Charles Maynes goto FX mic so that is a pretty solid recommendation. Also it apparently is not really an interference tube shotgun and has it's center element at the front of the mic and uses the other elements to create the polar pattern. And for this reason doesn't have the problems typical of shotguns indoors.

SO, if you were going to use one mic for everything the Sanken may be the only one that would do a decent job.

 

[Alex H.]

Alex, if I remember correctly he's trekking across the country in a van so hiring a sound guy probably isn't practical. Wow you won't hear me say that often.

That certainly makes a difference.

My opinions. The SD recorder is a really solid box, but the menu system can be confusing so I'm not sure it's the best choice.

The FR-2LE is also a bit clunky in the menu. The HD-P2 is a little easier to navigate, and the external controls make a bit more sense. With either of these it may be worth looking into an Oade Bros. mod with the pre-amps (if used on its own), though adding a MixPre-D on the front end does add MS decoding and removes the need for the mod.

 

[Rippie]

Alex, if I remember correctly he's trekking across the country in a van so hiring a sound guy probably isn't practical. Wow you won't hear me say that often.

I've done quite a few of these types of jobs
so I have to say its quite possible to hire a sound guy for the trip.


To the OP, in my opinion I would be recording everything in mono. Without some years of experience under your belt you are just increasing the odds of something getting messed up.
I've been doing this awhile and worked on some bigger end documentaries (including 1 in theaters now) and I have SELDOM ever recorded stereo
in these situations.
Have I done it? sure, but I would be FAR more concerned with every other aspect of getting good sound before you start to worry about stereo vs. mono.
Now you opened the can of worms on how the stereo signal is going to be recorded. Is it going to change perspective everytime you make an edit?
Is it going to stay consistent between edits? etc.
Worry about getting quality sound before you worry about getting fancy.

My opinion.