audio: shotgun vs lav

Slimothy

Slimothy

Veteran
What is the best way to record dialogue for a film? Is it going to be clearer with a shotgun or a lav? I've heard about some people plugging the shotgun into one input and the lav into the other? What is the purpose of this?
(what is the situation the shotgun does the best in as
opposed to a lav).

p.s-Do Lav mics come in two seperate parts because I read a post by Barry saying that the Countryman EMW lav from b&h is a feature film quality lav mic for 179.00. The lav mics other people recommended were all priced over 500.00. is the 179.00 for just the lav mic itself and you still have to buy the reciever or whatever it's called? Sorry if my terminology is off as I have no clue what the hell I'm talking about. Tim.
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

Lavalieres can be used by themselves (directly hardwired into the camera through the XLR connector) or in combination with a wireless transmitter/receiver system.

Many times people confuse wireless lavalieres with lavalieres themselves. Just because a microphone is a lavaliere, that does not make it wireless. And just because a microphone is wireless, that does not make it a lavaliere.

The Countryman I was talking about would be a hard-wired XLR style, with a cable from the mic to the camera.
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

which one creates a better sound? Directly hardwired into the camera via the xlr, or with the use of a reciever/transmitter?
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

Directly-wired is always going to be more reliable and of better quality than any wireless system (assuming you're using quality XLR cables, and the same type of microphone, all other things being equal).

No radio transmitter is going to compete against a physical cable as far as reliability or quality of transmission.

However, Hollywood uses overhead boom mic's whenever possible. Lavalieres are a distant second choice. And wireless is always a method of last resort. There are some circumstances that absolutely demand wireless, but those are the only circumstances where it should be used. For most filmmaking work, the overhead boom mic is the preferred method.

Hopefully Barry_S, Oleg, Dave or some of the other audio experts will weigh in with more advice.
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

Okay, that really answered a hundred questions for me. When shooting dialogue I always want to use a shotgun mic if possible. So I will just invest in a good shotgun mic rather than buy any lavs.

Does the ME66 give you feature film quality? I am in a band and have access to a quality Mackie mixer; would it help the sound quality to go from the mic, to the mixer to the camera? (would the phantom power even work like that, or would I have to get something to power the mic?). If the ME66 doesn't quite give feature film quality, which would you suggest? Thanks. Tim.
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

You will get many responses to that question. From what I have heard, the ME66 is a quite overrated mic. Features use mic's like the Sennheiser 416, MKH60, Schoeps, etc. $1000-$1500 each.

For the price of the ME66, you could just about get an Audio Technica 4073, which (according to Matt's tests) delivers much richer, nicer dialogue.
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

Barry Green's advice is right on the money. If you can boom from overhead, that would be the most preferable way to record dialogue. Overhead booming usually gives the best mix of dialogue and realistic ambient sounds that add depth to the dialogue track. A lav is going to sound "dryer" and thinner than a boomed hypercardioid or short shotgun. A lav can save your butt when booming isn't practical (high ambient noise or wide shot), but it's really the last resort when you can't boom or plant a mic.

The ME66 is a solid short shotgun, but most indie filmmakers don't really understand the best applications for this mic. It's makes a nice ENG mic and is very good at recording dialogue for exterior shots. The high sensitivity can really work to your advantage in certain situations.

Last month I was sound mixer/boom operator on a short film and most of the film was a conversation between a man and a young girl. I initially thought the man's voice was going to totally overpower the voice of the young girl, but it turned out to be the opposite. The male actor delived his lines in almost a whisper, while the girl's voice was louder. The man was sitting on a bench with the girl standing about 3 feet away. Ideally, I would have boomed both actors with separate mics, but I was the lone mixer/boom op, so I originally thought I might have to put lavs on both of them, but as it turns out the ME66 worked beautifully. Carefully positioned to balance the dialogue between the actors, the high sensitivity of the ME66 did a great job picking up the quiet delivery of the man. Because the ME66 is not too directional, I was able to strike a nice balance and capture the dialogue from both actors, even though they were positioned a bit apart and had thir mouths pointing in different directiions.

That being said, I wouldn't recommend the ME66 for most filmmakers for the simple reason that it's inappropriate for most indie-type small interiors and will produce a hollow reverby quality of dialogue. Interiors really require the ME64 hypercardiod capsule, and you're going to loose the reverb, but will still have a slightly thin sound.

For an inexpensive shotgun the AT897 is currently the bargain the ME66 used to be. At a slightly higher price, the AT4073a is a significant step up in quality from the ME66 and is much more suitable for recording interiors. The AT4073a is a solid investment and is at a real sweet spot in terms of price/quality ratio.

In absolute terms, a line out signal from a mixer will produce higher quality than a mic level signal routed through the DVX mic preamps. In practical terms, if you're using a high sensitivity mic, the difference is very small. A field mixer is useful for the DVX in terms of being able to adjust levels and use more than two inputs. If you give your sound mixer an actual mixer, you're going to end up with better sound--mainly because of the control and increased recording options. The mixer will provide phantom power for any condenser mic.

Feature film sound quality is 75% technique and 25% equipment, so I would consider some good solid reference books like Producing Great Sound for Digital Video and Audio Postproduction for Digital Video by Jay Rose as mandatory reading.
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

All good advice. But one thing was missed. the boom op has to hear what he's doing. the best way for a small production to do this is for the boom op to wear a small portable mixer with headphone monitoring. most of these mixers have a return from camera so you can monitor the signal going to tape to make sure it's not distorted at the camera. the mackie isn't very condusive to doing this. Look for portable battery powered field mixers like the FP33, SD 302 and many many others. They will have phantom power.
Also, as a general rule, use hypercardioids indoors and shotguns outdoors.
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

No analog wireless system sounds as good as a hard line. There is a digital wireless system out there from Zaxcom, but that costs over $3K, and probably out of your price range right now. It sounds just like a hard line, though. It's great for wireless boom.

Using wireless is your last line of defense. Although, it's getting used more and more in the television and film world.

-Dave
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

Ok, thanks alot to all of you for the advice. I have a good idea about it now and will purchase that book! It's absolutely amazing how much money this site has probably saved dumbasses like myself! tim.
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

one last question...whats a good place to rent audio/video equipment in the Los Angeles or San Bernardino area?-preferrably san bernardino..I'd like to read that book, do some tests and then buy...tim.
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

Totally agree, you should have both. For dialogue scenes an overhead boom mic is usually the preferred way to go, but you should definitely have a good lavaliere in your kit as well. There are some circumstances that are appropriate for, and in fact demand, lavalieres.

Even though I disdain wireless systems, I still have two. There are some circumstances where wireless is the only way to get the shot.

The thing I'm trying to point out is, so many new videographers think "wireless = the answer to all my problems". It's more like the BEGINNING of all their problems: interference, batteries dying, clothes rustling, mic's falling off, and all the audio sounding flat with too much "presence".

That said, I love my Tram TR50, and it sounds exceptionally like a boom!

Slimothy's original question is "what's the best way to record dialogue for a film?" In context with that question, I say it's:

1. an overhead boom (held by a skilled boom operator)
2. booming from below
3. Planted lavaliere's and planted booms
4. Wired lavaliere
5. Wireless anything
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

i know! i saw it posted, then my system froze and i had to hit the reset button to "unlock" it. then when i came back it was gone!
damn computers...
it was such a "long" post, i don't feel like retyping it.
your response, barry, pretty much sums it up, anyhow...
thanks, you the man!
 
Re: audio: shotgun vs lav

[quote author=xort link=board=audio;num=1099453693;start=0#7 date=11/03/04 at 10:13:52]
Also, as a general rule, use hypercardioids indoors and shotguns outdoors. [/quote]

Ok,
I am confused now....
sorry about my stupidity,
but
I thought hypercardioid is the same thing as supercardioid and shortgun

ME66, AT4073a, MKH-60, AT897 : Super cardioid or short shotgun

then

ME64 is hyper cordioid?

I thought ME64 was just cardioid....

so I guess super cardioid is more directional than hyper cardioid?

and use mics like Oktava MC012+Hypercardioid front capsule for indoors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top