GH3 Alternative microphone :)

S

Stab

Well-known member
Ok so I shoot a lot of weddings. During the ceremony we usually record the priest / speaker with a shotgun mic positioned at their table. Mic goes directly (wireless) into the camera (GH3). It always sounds great!

The shotgun mic we used is from my buddy, and I want to buy my own microphone now. But I was thinking, is a shotgun mic actually the best (and cheapest) type of mic here?

Isn't a dynamic mic just as good for these kind of things? I assume the distance between the mic and the speaker is never more than a meter / yard... So doesn't this defeat the purpose of a shotgun mic?

I can buy a high quality dynamic microphone for much cheaper than a decent quality shotgun mic. Anyone has experience with these? Will the output be 'hot' enough for usage without an external amp? What are my options here?

Thanks!

For instance, what about this:
http://www.amazon.com/Shure-SM48-LC-Dynamic-Microphone-Cardioid/dp/B0002D0HY4
 
A shotgun is directional and helps get the sound you want instead of a lot of the room. The Shure you linked is going to sound best when it's three inches from the source. I'd stick with a shotgun.
 
That meter / 3ft distance is probably the sweetspot for a shotgun mic. Even though you are using a shotgun, getting it as close as possible to your talent will yield the best results.
The additional benefit from a shotgun is it's ability to reject sound at the sides of the mic. Having it close will provide a strong signal and allow you to not boost the level to high
which will keep the noise floor low as well as have better side rejection.
 
Alright, guess a shotgun is still the best option then. But the only affordable options for me are the Rode NTG2 or something like that which are not really good quality mics.

But in your opinion that is still better than an unidirectional dynamic mic?
 
Why on earth is nobody suggesting a lav microphone for a wedding ceremony? I don't care how good a shotgun is, a lav will be much closer to the subject since it will be on the subject talking. In a perfect world shotguns will sound better than most lavs but this isn't a perfect world and even a decent lav mic will blow the pants off of most shotguns in the ceremony environment because people move, turn around and never stand exactly on top on the mic you placed. A shotgun at a wedding ceremony should only ever be used in a worse case scenario where you don't have a choice. Personally I would insist on the officiant wearing one. Go as far as telling the Bride and Groom that it is imperative. If that still isn't an option than before using a shotgun I would check with the venue if they have a sound board you can plug into.

If you don't want to invest in wireless lavs then do the next best thing that actually has higher quality audio. Use a good lav with a 1/8" mini plug with a Zoom H1 recorder. This way you get the benefit of a lav mic without any of the transmission conversion. Just a pure lav recording at 24 bits. Audio Technica lavs make a great combo with the Zoom H1.

Always have a backup as well. You will never be able to go back and get audio. If you have a lav on the priest put one on the groom as well. The alternative would be to plug in to the sound board for the backup. If either of those doesn't cut it then you can use a shotgun as the backup but will never be as good. Even a $1,000.00 shotgun 5 feet away will not sound as good as a $50.00 lav 5 inches away.

Oh yeah don't forget to mic the podium if it will be used. There is nothing that stands out more than clean audio for one part of the ceremony and crappy audio on the next part. Put a second or third lav/H1 combo on the podium.

With three lav/H1 combos you are still looking at a cheaper price than a single good wireless mic and you will be able to cover three positions at arguably higher quality audio. Less control of course and a bit of a set it and leave it situation but as long as you set the levels so they won't peak you should be ok. If you really insist on having the live control then go the wireless lav route.
 
The points that Thomas raises are very good. A High quality wireless lav will provide excellent results, however if you decide to go the ZoomH1 route and Audio Technica lavs (or similar)
you will not have the ability to monitor the audio during your live event and will not know if anything is going wrong until it's too late. This would make me very anxious during the shoot, not to mention the post production syncing you will have to do with the various H1 setups.
 
If you are going to be using wireless lavs, then it's going to cost a fortune to buy, so you're better off actually hiring a sound pro with the equipment, because regardless, if you are running a bunch of wireless lavs, you'll need a dedicated sound person. Wireless lavs are great, but unless you have the budget to hire a sound pro, it's not realistic. Wired lavs + Zoom H1 like suggested is another option, but again, you'll be flying blind, because you can't monitor the sound while recording - you're taking a bit of a chance. Stick with the shotgun if that's what worked for you in the past. The NTG2 is not the only option. There's also the AT897 which many people prefer over the NTG2, and which is cheaper, at about $180 new; there's also the AT875r which is a fantastic mic that's even cheaper at $150, but you'd need phantom power for it.
 
mmaller said:
The points that Thomas raises are very good. A High quality wireless lav will provide excellent results, however if you decide to go the ZoomH1 route and Audio Technica lavs (or similar)
you will not have the ability to monitor the audio during your live event and will not know if anything is going wrong until it's too late. This would make me very anxious during the shoot, not to mention the post production syncing you will have to do with the various H1 setups.
Click to expand...

very true. Thats why if one can afford it they should use wireless mics. A Zoom H1 is a great option but there is a small risk factor. With that said if you lock the device and make sure it is recording long enough before the start of the event you should be ok. The odds of the device causing a problem are much lower than a wireless mic going bad. As for the levels you have two choices. You can use auto levels which are nowhere near a perfect option but it is a safe option. You can also set the manual levels low enough to be safe. It is much easier to raise levels in post than it is to remove clipping. Again not optimal but that is part of the tradeoff of not using more expensive wireless mics.

This is also why I insist on having backup. No live event should ever settle for a single audio source. That is just asking for trouble no matter how amazing one thinks their gear is. Put two mics on a priest and one on the groom. This way even if one device fails your butt is covered. This is also why I suggested plugging into the sound board as a backup option. There are many ways to handle backup even using the shotgun as a backup. I would bet my life on the audio levels zoom H1/lav sounding much better than the shotgun backup but it is good to have something in the case that their is a failure.
 
OldCorpse said:
If you are going to be using wireless lavs, then it's going to cost a fortune to buy, so you're better off actually hiring a sound pro with the equipment, because regardless, if you are running a bunch of wireless lavs, you'll need a dedicated sound person. Wireless lavs are great, but unless you have the budget to hire a sound pro, it's not realistic. Wired lavs + Zoom H1 like suggested is another option, but again, you'll be flying blind, because you can't monitor the sound while recording - you're taking a bit of a chance. Stick with the shotgun if that's what worked for you in the past. The NTG2 is not the only option. There's also the AT897 which many people prefer over the NTG2, and which is cheaper, at about $180 new; there's also the AT875r which is a fantastic mic that's even cheaper at $150, but you'd need phantom power for it.
Click to expand...

says who? I used wireless lavs for 18 years all by myself. The whole point to using wireless lavs is the convenience of not needing a sound person. Of course going wireless costs a fortune. That is the whole point. You pay for what you get. If you want to have the best audio by yourself wireless is the way to go. The next best thing would be to use wired lavs hooked a H1 type device. You lose the control but I still would bet my life on the audio sounding much better than using a shotgun.

I understand there is a concern about riding levels but I just don't think the value of that control is worth as much as getting the mic close to the mouth of the people actually talking. Churches have reverb, echo and sound from the sound system in the church. You have much better odds getting great audio by just running wireless lavs into the camera and recording low enough to make sure it doesn't clip. Not optimal but what in a wedding is optimal? I would rather have an easy to use setup that gets me 90% there 100% of the time then a system that gets me 60% there 60% of the time. I would even go as far to (cringe) suggest auto levels of some kind. Again far from perfect but I have heard weddings using two wireless lav mics hooked directly into a camera with AGC that blew away a wedding with a dedicated sound person who vastly over complicated the situation. Too much gear, too much stuff to deal with and too many potential problems. They also used their love of shotgun mics as a crutch to assume it would give the best results. It did at moments but other moments sounded horrible.
 
I find this interesting that lavs are even being questioned here. Years ago I did weddings. I put a lav on the groom, one on the priest (if he would allow it) or at least one on the podium. Typically the mic on the Groom picked up what he said in addition to what the Bride said and then the Priest/podium mic would get the rest.

Why that formula may have changed from 10 years ago is beyond me :)
 
Jim Simon said:
It hasn't for me. Still the best way to do wedding audio, I feel.

Though I would argue in favor of replacing the actual lav wireless system with something similar, but without any of the pitfalls of wireless audio (and I hope not the expense of good wireless, either).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=juicedlink+little+darling&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta
Click to expand...

There was also the Tascam units that have since been listed as not available in the US for whatever reason. Basically the same concept as using a zoom H1 and a lav but the Tascam had the nice feature of recording a -6DB safety track. Very nice feature since you can't ride the levels. In this case you would use the main track that you estimated a good level for and hoped it wouldn't clip. In the event that it did you would have the safety track 6db lower. I use this feature a lot on my Tascam DR-60. This basically means recording at two different levels so you don't have to worry about riding the levels as much and can treat the audio as a set it and leave it sort of thing.

What I do now with my H1 is set the level a bit lower to make sure it doesn't clip. I then have to boost the levels a bit in post and very occasionally remove a tiny bit of noise.
 
There's a kind of new option in this area, namely the Tascam recorders which are wifi controlled (eg DR-22WL). They have a built in wifi network and you simply place them appropriately, then retire to a safe distance with your phone, with which you can start/stop recording, monitor levels, change input level, pause, mark, etc etc - basically everything you can do with such a handheld recorder in your hand, but from quite a distance away.

This gives rise to some interesting possibilities - conceptually, it's (for instance) like having a stereo mic in front of the priest wired back to a recorder next to the camera (or, a wireless mic feeding a receiver and recorder) except the recording is happening at the mic itself and no cables are required.

There's actually not the slightest technical reason why such a device should not be produced with a normal cylindrical body (for convenience) and no display or local controls, fully and uniquely operated from a phone - a mic that records, controlled over wifi. Perhaps not impossible to have multiple mics linked to a single phone controller.

If using radio mics, if the radio link goes down temporarily, you've got nothing till it works again. With a wifi control link, losing the link temporarily leaves the recording running uncontrolled (hopefully at a level which has already been set to be about right) and when the link is re-established, so is control and display of time and levels. There's no need to keep the phone on once you've started the recording and set levels, apart from the comfort factor of seeing the time counting and the meters flicking. It's a pretty robust solution.

Unfortunately Tascam released their new babies before the phone apps were really ready. I believe the iPhone version is pretty good but the Android version lacks a number of features, which has lead to a bit of online criticism. Also, the wifi link eats batteries and you really need to plug an external usb battery pack to the recorder, though that's really not a big deal.

Not touting this as a solution that's ready for bigtime use today, but it's a pointer to the near future.
 
I've just recorded (for fun not professionally) a jazz quartet in a small club, while also using a video camera (G6). Needless to say, the best place for a mic was not the best place for the camera, so I used the DR-22WL, simply attached to a mini tripod and placed on someone's drinks table near the stage. Then I retired to the camera location and operated the recorder from my phone (including adjusting and monitoring levels). Aside from the need to be somewhere else in the room, this also meant that I didn't need to fiddle with the recorder in front of the crowd (nor cause handling noise in doing so), and I didn't need to run any cables, which the house management would not have allowed.

The audio result (after a little post-production) can be heard here -

https://soundcloud.com/ozpeter/part-2-item-1

Frankly I'm very pleased with the outcome and with the operational advantages of this way of working (for a simple recording). I think once people catch on to the merits of wifi control, it will become a more frequently used way of doing sound for vision.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top