Audio Tutorial Thread

Jeremy Ordan

Jeremy Ordan

Major Contributor
For my big 'ol post number 1,000 I thought I would try to start a little trend here on DVXUser with something that I could contribute to, but also learn a ton from.

As a community, especially within the frequent visitors to the audio thread, we have everyone from experienced professionals with IMDB resumes that would make Lucas blush, enthusiasts who have bought and sold every microphone, mixer, recorder, and pole available, and people who are just crazy about audio. We also have a lot of frequent visitors to this channel who ask the questions we here every single week: 'What mic should I buy', 'Which is better X or Y', and my personal favorite 'I have $500 to spend, should I buy this mic and ignore wind protection'.

After lurking for over a year on this board and then getting active (overly active some would say) I thought it would be nice to have a thread where everyone could almost put their tutorials and thoughts regarding audio and how to best achieve good sound. This can relate to equipment, positioning, microphone choices, cabling, or just a new technique or approach to sound capture.

I just thought it would be nice to try to have everything in one place where we could not ask questions, but just share our best practices. By no means am I trying to portray myself as a professional, I am just a guy who likes good sound. I do believe that prior to being allowed to post in the audio thread you should be required to read Matt's infamous 'Everything I Know About Mics So Far' thread. I am also not trying to hurt sales of Ty's Book. I just thought it would be nice to have a single place for our audio tutorials.

I guess I will start with what I consider to be a very newbie response to audio, not so much the question of which mic to buy, but whether you need to purchase a microphone at all.



I read a lot of the threads here in the audio channel with people asking what microphone should I buy if I'm shooting in this certain condition. I read a lot of threads in this audio channel about people asking about two different microphones. I read a lot of threads in this audio channel of people talking about making their first film (or twentieth film for that matter) and asking what is the ideal audio set up. Normally the members of this great community put together great posts, concepts, and cases for every microphone or audio package and the question asker walks away with a clearer knowledge of the equipment that they are going to purchase as well as a confidence that their money will be well spent.

Everyone likes to purchase something. Perhaps it is the instant gratification of getting something in the mail, opening it, and immediately playing with it and standing back in awe as your sound system quickly takes shape and has a life of it's own. The problem for most users, myself included, is that I do not do sound for a living, and the idea of going out tomorrow and putting together a kit that is more expensive than my car is just not going to happen. So what do I do if I need quality sound on a project but I cannot afford to buy a whole kit?

There are several options to this question.
1. Buy one thing at a time as you can afford it
2. Buy lower quality but buy a whole kit
3. Rent
4. Hire someone

Most newcomers to audio who come into this thread want to know what to purchase. They want to know if a $300 mic will perform like the $1000-$2000 microphones they hear in the films they watch. They feel good about the advice they receive, but once they hear the sound quality in their projects and then compare them with major Hollywood productions, the amateur shines through.

I am under the belief that each project is an investment. You invest your time, energy, and money into a project. I also believe that sound is 60-70% of the experience of watching a movie. A gun is fired with no sound. A gun is fired with sound. Someone falls to the ground gripping their chest. Someone falls to the ground gripping their chest, you hear the heart beat slowly slow down and fade away. Sound adds to the visuals we see, thus creating the complete art. A joke is told with the sound muted. A joke is told with the sound unmuted.

I am under the impression that for any filmmaker, professional, amateur, aspiring, established, that the best rule to keep in mind is that filmmaking is collaborative. Many people who ask questions want to buy something to go along with the camera they purchased, the lights they purchased, the dolly they purchased, and the actors they hired. I know, trust me, that with a project you wear many hats, but a film made with collaboration is not a film, more a diatribe.

I am under the belief that for any project the best solution is to hire a sound person. First, my reasons for this belief:
1. It continues the tradition of collaboration with filmmaking
2. A sound person will bring their own sound equipment, therefore saving you the expense of having to purchase a kit you could not afford on your own.
3. A sound person will focus on what I consider to be 60% of the movie experience, therefore leaving you to concentrate on the camera, direction, lighting, or any other hats you wish to wear.
4. The equipment a sound person brings with them will be much more complete (in most scenarios) than what you could hope to piece together over several months. Furthermore, the sound person will be more experienced at using this equipment.
5. You will get a higher quality of sound.
6. Your friend who you put on the boom pole will try to keep the mic barely out of frame. Your professional who you hire will try to keep the mic as close to the persons mouth as possible, ensure better sound capture, and fight for every hundredth of an inch available.
7. Finally, On a film project of any size, there is enough to worry about, if you are directing sound should not be one of them.

I have suggested this for quite sometime, and often enough people respond that either A) They cannot afford someone B) They want to have the equipment themselves for future projects C) They live in XYZ and there is no one there who can do that for them.

I believe that the only honest answer is B. They want to have equipment. My rationale to this line of thinking is simple. Would you rather have something not so good that you cannot use to the full potential or have this project that you are investing so much into come across flawlessly for 60% of what people experience? The reasons for hiring someone are truly simple, but before I digress, allow me to approach the two other reasons people offer for not wanting to hire someone. Money. Obviously this is an issue. Here on this board you have experienced users from all over the world (I am not one of these, mind you, and am not writing this campaigning for a job). There will be opportunities when these people have down time to hire them, perhaps at discounts. Furthermore, there are countless places online to look into where you can hire someone or post a job offering (DVXUser.com included). I hate to think that for maybe $50 (for a favor) to $500 a day someone would allow money to stand in their way if this is a project that you believe in. The second issue is that people say that there is no one in their area. This is completely crap! Everywhere you are there should be someone within several hundred miles that you could reach out to and offer a job to. There are also countless universities and programs where people are training. While you might think that you bring nothing to the table to negotiate with because you need this persons assistance and services, at the same time you offer an enthusiast or a professional in training experience to build their reel and/or resume. This is a great bargaining tool.

I could go on with this topic for about another five or six pages and not run out of things to say because I feel that this is the one area people ignore their productions the most. At the same time, I hope with this post I have at least opened the door to more communication and open mindedness regarding looking at options other than purchasing in order to achieve the highest quality of sound.

-Jeremy
 
That's not Oleg....it's Exile! :grin:

Nice Mission statement Yankee. I hate to admit but what sort of info are we looking to put here? For actual info on how to do such and such, I like to point people at books or web links to audio advice.

For example :

If you are serious about trying to learn how to do audio it always starts with Jay Rose's book, "Producing Great Sound for Digital Video". http://www.dplay.com/book/pgs2e/index.html

If someone won't take that simple step (not just buying it...but actually opening it up and reading), then they really don't care about audio and just wanted a simple and cheap answer to half of their product ("How can I pay as little attention to audio as possible and still have it turn out well?").

If someone wants a simple quick primer so they can just understand what their soundperson needs then there are web links like:

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/location_sound.html

We have a sticky at the top of this forum for mic comparisons and Matt and Yank have done a good job offering up other gear that is needed(mixers, poles, wireless, etc). Just need to post links to the appropriate thread for that info now.

Of course, as you said Yank, most people are not so much looking for information but personal reinforcement that they are doing the right thing.

Looking forward to see what develops here.

Best
 
who is Oleg ?
I know that lately he is posting on other forum about his gastronomic point of view for people with strong stomach :-)
me , I am only answer , not suggest anything except reading the archives .
 
I was just looking for some best practices to be here. By no means am I trying to create the difinitive post or anything like that, but just something that could serve as our own DVXUser audio guide.

The books you mention are awesome, as is Ty Ford's guide. I just think that with all the experience we have here we can really create some sort of guide for people to get better audio.

I guess I look at it like this. Before I turn to a book (and I have a ton) I always turn to this forum. The last thing I wanted to do was put anyone off, encourage a marathon thread, or massive tutorials... I just think that it would be beneficial for people to have a place to come learn best practices.

Maybe it was a stupid idea, I dunno
 
OK, I don't have any wisdom that merits a "tutorial", but I'll post a few aphorisms that may help:

1) There are few questions that haven't been answered before. At least TRY the Search function first.

2) One hour spent in pre-production will save you two hours on the set.

3) Test everything before the shoot.

4) Make a checklist of equipment you'll need. Use the checklist.

5) Always have a plan "B".

6) 15 minutes getting a quiet set will save you 2 hours in post.

7) There's a reason for all those names at the end of a Hollywood movie. Don't expect to get the same results without a lot of help.

8) Mediocre mics properly placed will kick the pants off high end gear improperly placed.

9) Good/Cheap/Fast-Pick Two. Nowhere does this apply more than with sound acquistion.

That's all for now.

p.s. Congrats on the 1000 posts-do you go "double platinum" now?
 
Good post Joe. I think all of those are incredible points. I was actually going to write another thing today at work that sort of broke down my opinion on mic placement, but I think that other people here have a ton more experience with that than myself. I started to put together a completely subjective shotgun mic review for the 11 mics I have bought and sold... Still working on it because I actually worked at work today.
 
TheYankee said:
Maybe it was a stupid idea, I dunno
Click to expand...

I hope that wasn't brought on by my confusion. I applaud any attempt to help others. I was just a little unclear on what form of help/advice you were thinking should be put here. Just the way this particular brain works...

"Please get me something to drink" ME: Hot or cold? alcoholic or straight? carbonated? Twist of lemon? etc

"Please get me something to drink" SOMEONE ELSE: Here is some ice water with a twist of lemon, enjoy. :grin:

Anyways. If we are going for general audio knowledge and since it has all been written about or posted before I think a compendium of links is what is in order. Personal experience/allegories always make learning more relevant and fun but links are at least a broad starting point. Here is a easy one on booming technique, enjoy.

http://www.cyberfilmschool.com/learn/article_detail.aspx?id=77

In fact that website has tons of nuggets of info on sound and other aspects of productions. Any audio noobie should browse around there before they start asking questions. Another useful link from that site...

http://www.cyberfilmschool.com/learn/article_detail.aspx?id=53

Looking forward to your mic review Yankee.

Cheers
 
I would reiterate that buying is usually not the best option. Audio is a little safer than video equipment, though, simply because the standards are not evolving so quickly. Still, why buy when you can rent, save money in the long term, upgrade as needed, and not have to maintain equipment? Plus, rental house prices are ALWAYS negotiable.

The best way I've found to learn audio is to do the audio from start to finish - from recording production sound all the way to sound mixing. It will teach you exactly why professional audio guys are such sticklers, won't let you shoot when a plane is overhead, and so forth. I've just finished audio post on a project that had no official sound person, and I can tell you I've developed a new appreciation for those guys who are usually sitting to the side with headphones and a mixer and always slowing down production. The picture is way easier to cheat than the sound.

As far as tutorials go, what I have to say may be too basic for most people here. But for those who know less than even me about sound, here's my two cents.

First of all, learn what signal-to-noise ratio means. It just means that, though there will always be background noise, the ratio of the noise to the sound you want to record should be as large as possible. Basically, get the mic close, and monitor to make sure that the voices are much higher than any background noise. The voices will be mixed high in the final mix, close to 0db (the loudest you can go before peaking), and so you have to make sure they are really loud compared to the ambient tone of the room.

I know lots of pro sound people are always talking to me about expensive mics. Though microphones vary in quality, I think it's more important to understand some key things about audio first. Cheaper mics today are no worse than the best mics a few decades ago, and yet old movies sound great allot of the time. The key is not just better mics; there is craft involved.

The on-camera mic is a good example of how mic quality does not necessarily dictate audio quality. The reason on-camera mics usually sound so crappy is that the subject is too far away, and when they move their voices get louder or softer. However, I've recorded ADR and foley with the on-camera mic and found it works fine as long as it's close. Likewise, anyone who's ever heard good binaural recordings has seen what cheap condensor mics can do if handled well.

Second, consistency. Ultimately a scene needs consistent audio that seems like a continuous stream. If a scene were, say, recorded in one long shot, and the sound ratio was good, then a airplane overhead might be okay (in fact, what we try to avoid during production is often put back end in the sound mix - planes overhead, refrigerator sounds, people talking in the bg). Otherwise, the problem is you get a plane overhead in one shot that isn't there in another. Bottom line: persistent noise might be okay. Stop for anything new. Unplug refrigerator and things like that, but if you start with a machine making noise in the background, keep it running.

Third, whoever is holding the boom, if he's not a pro, needs to get a crashcourse in how to hold the boom without causing vibrations himself, how to monitor what he's recording, and how to get in close with the mic. The recordist should be a Nazi about getting in close with the mic; you should be hearing "boom in" from the camera guys to let you know that the boom is as close as possible without being in frame. Getting close is a creative job like anything else. It's all about distance-to-subject.

Last, the absolute best solution is to have an experienced person who is responsible for production audio as well as mixing. That way he knows he'll have to deal with the audio later. He won't just let you move on without knowing the audio recorded will work. He will often, too, bring his own equipment, which solves many of the above problems. If you don't know a sound guy, get to know one. It helps.
 
Stanrick_Kubley said:
The recordist should be a Nazi about getting in close with the mic; you should be hearing "boom in" from the camera guys to let you know that the boom is as close as possible without being in frame. Getting close is a creative job like anything else. It's all about distance-to-subject.
Click to expand...

Excellent advice. I have trained 3 boommen in the past year (no one ever wants to stay boomman for long) and teaching them to fear me more the producer is always key. My mantra is I better see that boom come into the shot at least a couple of times on the productions.

I had one that I ultimately had to "let go" becuase he was overly concerned with keeping the boom out of the picture he would consantly hang the boom a foot or more out of even the 4x3 frame. I want to see that thing right in the middle of 4x3 to 16x9 lines.

Stanrick_Kubley said:
Last, the absolute best solution is to have an experienced person who is responsible for production audio as well as mixing. That way he knows he'll have to deal with the audio later. He won't just let you move on without knowing the audio recorded will work. He will often, too, bring his own equipment, which solves many of the above problems.
Click to expand...

Best advice that is offered in here but always met with distain. "How dare you imply I should hire someone to do audio for my professional production!" LOL

Cheers
 
i often hear boom when the camera operator see grip stand leg :-)
no need in purpose go inside , just ask for reharsel , if there is no reharsel , f..... the thirst shot
 
Shotgun Mic Review Part 1 of 3

Shotgun Mic Review Part 1 of 3

In keeping with the idea behind this thread I thought I would go ahead and deliver my personal opinion on a variety of shotgun microphones priced under $1000. I have been fortunate enough over the course of the past year to purchase, sell, buy, rent, play with, trade, and bargain my way into way too many shotgun microphones in my search for an ideal solution to record sound in outdoor conditions. While I normally do not do a lot of shooting in outdoor conditions, I was constantly searching for that ideal sound that would work for me. Like I said, I have had a lot of microphones. I am not a professional by any means, do not do paying gigs, nothing along those lines. What follows here is simply the opinion of a guy in Charlotte, NC who happens to like sound, knows people who like sound, and was willing to lose money by ignoring other people's advice and pretty much try every recording option available with a price point under $1000. I hope that my experience might help sway some people from repeating the same mistakes I made, but at the same time, I hope that it might reinforce much of the knowledge that has been discussed on this board previously. Finally, to repeat, I am not a professional, and these descriptions and reviews are completely subjective based off of what I have experienced with each piece of equipment with my own ears. OK, review time.

Audio Technica AT-55 - This microphone has a special spot for me because it was the first external recording device I ever purchased. It is also a piece of equipment that has served me on a ton of projects that I have done. To start with the build quality, for a cheap mic, it does not feel like one. It actually has some weight to it, and is encased within a metal casing (not plastic). Furthermore, it is a short shotgun type design. This is a battery powered unit with switch offering three settings: off, normal, tele. The normal and tele settings are nearly identical with just the pattern specifics and the reach being different. The ideal reach of this mic is really 6"-36" (like most shotguns), but with this microphone, the sound is very thing, the output is low (DVX owners will have levels peaked to 12) and the overall tone of the sound is not pleasing. I find that for male voices this microphone emphasizes the bass elements, but that is because the levels are not going to be smooth. Rear rejection is nearly nonexistent on the factory model, but with some general soldering knowledge there are several aftermarket modifications that can be made to this microphone that enhance reach. For the price point this microphone cannot be beat and is an ideal, if not preferred solution, for early filmmakers looking to move from an on camera recording solution. For anyone who owns a DVX, hopefully you have enough audio experience to ignore this microphone. Furthermore, the microphone has a 1/8" output, requiring either an XLR adapter or a 1/8" to 1/4" adapter to a 1/4" to XLR adapter. If purchased is being considered by anyone, please keep in mind, while the $60 price tag for an unmodified version (or $120 for a modified version) is nice, there is an additional $25 in adapters required in order for it to work with the DVX. I would not consider this microphone to offer a tight pattern by any means.

Audio Technica 815 - This was my first purchase after I moved away from the AT55. At the time of purchase I didn't know the difference between long shotguns, short shotguns, mid length shotguns. The way I looked at it was, hey, this is a nice looking gun and it is designed for ENG. Well the audio of this microphone directly reflects this. The AT815 (not the 815b) is a longer shotgun designed for outdoor ENG situations. It provides a cold sound and is battery operated only. The highpoint of this microphone is that it has excellent rear rejection and incredible reach. For people looking to camera mount this mic, the major problem is that unless you are zoomed to 18% or higher, this microphone is in frame (and that is without it being perfectly balanced in mic shock mount). The build quality of this microphone is slightly suspect. The threads AT used seem to age drastically, and for a microphone with no on/off setting that operates only on battery power, this is a massive shortcoming. The gold finish is also, well, cheesy to say the least. This mic has very low self noise, but from my experience the low pass filter should be constantly engaged to prevent overloading. It runs at a normal level (meaning that DVX inputs can be set to 12 o'clock and ideal levels are recorded). I don't recommend this microphone for anyone unless your primary use for it would be seeking that news quality sound. It certainly has that 'live at five' breaking news signature to the sound. This is a nice quality for some uses, but I find that in post this signature can be applied without the specific purchase of this microphone.

AT815b - I don't know what AT did between the 815 and the 815b, but they are completely different microphones. While they both are similar in size (meaning massive), weight, and sound signature, the 815b seems to my ears to sound sweeter and not carry that news at 5 signature. Ultimately this is a great step forward for this mic. I recommend it for anyone needing a longer reaching microphone, ENG uses, and general outdoor recording. The problem still exists with the sound, it has that signature, but it is sweetened to make it acceptable for film uses. It's not easy to describe a sound or a difference, but this microphone has it, and it is a nice purchase if you understand that this microphone does not deliver Hollywood sound, but an ENG Hollywood sound. I hope that makes sense to some people. That being said, if filmmaking if your primary objective, please run from this microphone. If interviews, run n' gun documentary, and nature recording are more your deal, then this is a great microphone at a great price.

Rode NTG1/2 - Alas, I come to my beloved and misunderstood red headed step children, the rode microphones. These are interesting fraternal (non identical) twins. It is easiest to describe these microphones in regards to their competition, the ME series from Sennheiser and the AT897 from Audio Technica. Rather than go that route, here is just my opinion on these mics. The NTG is an incredible shotgun for the value. Anyone with a sub $300 budget would be hard-pressed to find a better value and better sound replication. I find the output to be a bit hot thus meriting a slight adjustment on the inputs (11 o'clock under optimum settings), but the sound replication is very nice. This is where the Rode mics really shine, sound quality. You are not going to get an exact copy of your recording sound, the Rode adds its own signature to everything, so be aware of what you are purchasing. With the Rode you are going to get an increase in your mid channel and a slight clip on your highest highs and lowest lows. This creates a very warm mid heavy signal. For male voices or average female voices this creates a beautiful sound that replicates that "Hollywood" sound. For voices with extreme depths (James Earl Jones) or extreme highs (teenage girls) this mic seems to create a strange side effect. It does not sound good, but rather creates a pattern that seems to sound like an AT55. This is not a good situation. For most users recording adults or late teens this is an excellent mic. It has average rear rejection and low self noise. Rode makes a great mic with emphasis on solid construction, but this shotgun actually has a looser pattern than its competition. This is good and bad. I prefer a looser pattern shotgun, but this is pretty lose. The off axis rejection is not as strong as the AT897, but the sound quality is better. Trade offs...

AT897 - As simply as it can be said, this is a great microphone for the money. It has an excellent solid build quality and is a short shotgun. The 897 does a rather good sound replication, clipping simply the highest of the lows and lowest of the lows. It does an excellent job on the mid lows, mid channel, and high channel, giving a full sound that comes out just slightly cold (compared with the warmer sounding mid channel of the Rode). The sound signature is very accurate, but there is something about this microphone that to my ears just doesn't sit well with anything above it in price. For the money it is an excellent purchase offering supreme off axis rejection and rear rejection. It has a tighter pattern than the NTG from Rode, but the reach is not as strong. Furthermore, the AT897 actually is a low output mic, and hardly can be considered hot. AT really misses the ball with this aspect as most DVX users will be constantly riding levels before ending up at a solid 3 o'clock out of laziness and being tired from riding levels. A great microphone as far as sound quality, build quality, but a couple of strikes against it.

BEST >$300 SHOTGUN MICROPHONE
If the AT897 microphone were 20% hotter it would be my choice for best >$300 microphone. I like the accurate sound replication, the off axis and rear rejection. I love how it runs silent. I can even work around the diminished reach of this mic. The big problem for me with the 897 is the output. At $300 I look for a microphone that doesn't need a baby sitter. As it currently stands, in this price range I prefer the NTG from Rode for the sound replication (while mid rich) and reach.
 
Shotgun Mic Review Part 2 of 3

Shotgun Mic Review Part 2 of 3

Sennheiser ME66/K6 - I have been thinking for a while on how to describe this microphone. Personally I have a lot of baggage associated with it. It is the only microphone I have bought and sold 3 times. It is the only microphone I have rented 6 times. It is the only microphone I have ever owned that I don't like that I still find myself going back to and at least once a week consider purchasing another. While this might sound insane, I love anything modular. I like the flexibility that the ME series offers through different attachments. At the end of the day though, here is my review of the ME66. 90% of the posts about the ME66 are true and 60% of the posts about it are false. Follow my logic here. The ME66 is built like a tank, and depending on the K6 module purchased can be battery and phantom or just phantom powered. Depending on your type of usage will determine the module that will work best for your needs. The ME66 can be purchased for between $200-$300, with similar prices on the K6. The average price for a complete kit runs between $400-$550. The build quality is incredible, and Sennheiser obviously invests a lot into making sure that these microphones can take a beating and still deliver. I have personally beaten these mics into the ground and still received top notch performance out of them. Now the rejection. The ME series, from my experience, offers incredible rear rejection. This is a tight pattern and shows the Sennheiser quality. Off axis rejection is not as significant, but still out performs ALL microphones in a lower price range. Now we come to the three big problems with the Sennheiser ME66. First: sound quality. In my opinion, the ME66 is very thin sounding. For me it sounds as if it cuts 50% of all the low frequencies. This leaves a very hollow sounding recording that doesn't add to the experience of enjoying a movie. With all of my projects that I have used this microphone on, I always end up watching and paying more attention to the sound than the overall experience. I feel that this pulls you out of the experience. The best way to describe this experience it to use a graphic EQ while you are listening to something and just remove your lowest 4 settings or 0 them out. I just am not a fan of the sound. I have tried in post to boost, to add a little reverb, to warm up the sound... ultimately it is not worth it. Second, signal. This is a hot mic, and by far the hottest mic I have ever used. The average setting on the DVX for me with this microphone is at 9 o'clock. It is loud and in charge. I also find that the hotness of this mic is not consistent. At some points you are red lining everything, and the next moment you can't hear a thing. This is not a 'plug n' play' mic, and should ONLY be used with an external mixer and someone monitoring and riding the levels. Third, price point. The Sennheiser falls into this weird price point (considering a place like www.americanmusical.com sells it for $418) of being above the Rode & AT897 but below the AT4073a. It is $100 more than the models below and $100 less than the model above. It almost sits alone among the $400 price range. That being said it is like a man without a country. In order to really get into the meat of this microphone, I need to compare. The sound of the Rode and AT897 is superior, but the ME66 blows it out of the water in the off axis and rear rejection. Sennheiser knows how to make a pattern, and the ME66 has a much tighter pattern than the mics below it, but the mics below it sound better and don't suffer from the hotness issue. The 4073a (discussed next) sounds better than the ME66, offers better off axis rejection, but not as good rear rejection, and has a perfect output signal. Ultimately with the ME66 you are trading something anyway that you turn with this microphone: Sound quality, controllability (if that is a word), rejection, pattern sharpness, or self noise. The one highlight of the ME66, something that most people don't acknowledge is that this mic has at least a 25% better reach than any other microphone with the exception of the Sennheiser MKH-416. If ideally you like to be 24"-36" away with a shotgun, which is pretty average, this mic will continue to produce at 25% greater distances. This does not seem like a massive selling point though, because there is no substitute for proper technique when it comes to sound acquisition. It is almost like saying that auto focus is ideal because then you don't need to worry about it. I hope that makes sense.

Audio Technica 4073a - This has become one of my favorite shotguns for all the reasons why I wanted to love the ME66, but it even has some shortcomings. Furthermore, after buying and selling this microphone, I have purchased it again and use it as my primary shotgun (yet another expensive mistake). The 4073a is the perfect blend of technology, practability, and price point for an indie filmmaker. It offers incredible sound replication with only a minor adjustment favoring the mid and low signals, while the highs are reproduced minorly. This equates to a full bodied sound that is as close to Hollywood production as I have experienced. Furthermore, the off axis rejection is noticeable through every turn of an audio cycle. The rear rejection is at least 200 times as good as on the 897, but in a head to head match up the lesser priced ME66 still seems to zero out more sound than the 4073a (this is especially noteworthy especially when you consider how hot the output of the ME66 is). In my opinion though, this microphone shows what can be done when engineers set out to design an ideal solution for their audience. AT, while they have a great reputation amongst musicians and studio artists, have always targeted their products more towards the budget friendly where price outweighed performance. The 4073a breaks this mold to an extent by introducing professional sound, acquisition, and reproduction into a very cost effective package. This short shotgun has excellent reach, but the sound is really the selling point of this microphone. It has almost no self noise, and it's signal to noise ratio is one of the lowest available. This provides for clean noise acquisition and seamless integration into film projects.

AKG CK98 - Once again, a lot of mixed feelings. The CK98 is a modular cap that goes with the SE300b preamp / powering unit also made my AKG. The two units together push the price to about $600, putting this microphone on that same island as the ME66. The Ck98 produces a very rich tone similar to the Rode in quality. It provides the same rear rejection as the 897 and off axis rejection similar to the 4073a. It has a reach similar to the 4073a, but the reach is similar to the AT897. This makes it an interesting montage. Priced along at $350-$425, it fits in nicely with the groupings, but has characteristics of all the mics. Perhaps the worst part of this mic is that shotgun itself looks delicate. I would consider this the most likely to break, and that is an expensive repair (trust me, I know), but without a doubt AKG has one of the best customer service divisions of any organization I have dealt with. The reasons, and only reason, to consider this microphone is if you are interested in a modular system where you can have one of the best hyper cardioids microphones available and also be able to turn it into a shotgun. This is the second most used microphone in my collection, I just prefer the more neutral tonal qualities of the AT4073a. The pattern is reasonably tight, about 2 degrees wider than the AT4073a. Once again, if you are interested in a good modular set up, this is ideal, but remember with the shotgun component, it is has a lot of qualities of lower priced mics all mixed together in a blender and delivered in a fragile package. The highest thing to be said about this mic though, there is no noise whatsoever and it also reacts well to being violently swung about on a pole, rumbling isn't easily conveyed.
 
Shotgun Mic Review Part 3 of 3

Shotgun Mic Review Part 3 of 3

Sennheiser MKH-416: The big dog. Technically available right above $1000, they are always available used at $800-$1000. The first thing to say is that if any other mic was a tank, this thing is a nuclear bomb shelter. Not only can it stand up to the test of time (10, 20 years) but it is solid. This is a true professional quality shotgun. It has, to my ears, 1:1 sound replication. Every degree off axis produces a significantly different tone, and the rear rejection I raved about on the ME66 is exponentially improved on the 416. This is a true pro mic. No one complains about the sound quality, and while the ME66 distracts you from what you are watching and focus on the sound, and while the 4073a integrates seamlessly so you can take in the whole experience, the 416 actually makes you more involved in what you are seeing because of how incredible it sounds. This mic is ideal for outdoor dialogue or foley work. I bought this mic at $1100 and sold it pretty quickly at $800, as nasty loss to learn an important lesson for myself. I am not a professional sound person, nor do I pretend to be one. While I liked seeing the infamous 416 in my kit, one of the best features of the 416 is that it has the tightest pattern of any shotgun mic I have listed thus far. That being said this is not the type of mic to purchase if you are putting your friend on the boom pole and putting this mic on the end of it. In order to achieve the best sound quality (and if you are considering the purchase of one, obviously you want the best sound quality) this needs to be handled by an experienced operator. For me the pattern was just too tight and I wanted something with a little more forgiveness. This could be attributed to my lack of experience, laziness, or just acceptance of the level at which I currently find myself at with my sound capture ability. I could not see holding onto an $1100 mic for foley work.

MY OPINION: 4073a vs. MKH-416:
The 4073a can be purchased for $550 and the MKH-416 for $1100. The question therefore must be asked, at twice the price, do you get twice the mic. In my opinion, yes. The sound from the Sennheiser is incredible, toe curling, and right in line with that "Hollywood Sound". For me, not being a professional, I prefer the AT4073a, not for the sound quality but for the forgiveness (or lack of tightness) in the pattern. I do not need to be aimed right at someone's mouth, I can be at their nose or eye and still get identical sound. The 416 is not that tolerable. This is a highpoint of the 416 and all microphones priced above it, not a negative. The negative is in my level of experience in getting good mic placement. Personally, I think that the 416 is the best mic I have used, but for my needs it is like me getting a Ferrari to drive to work everyday... Just more than I need for my five mile commute where I never exceed 35 miles an hour. I hope this makes sense.

OK, that's the end of my mic review. There have been a couple of models I have played with that I have left off, and there are several >$1000 mics that I have never used, so I do not want to comment. This is my no means a professional review, nor do I pretend for it to be. My only goal was to share my experience with these and hopefully rather than ignore the advice of others on this board as I had, save themselves some money and get what will work best for their budget.

-Jeremy

PS: Finally... once again, I am not a professional, these are my opinions based on my purchases. If you are looking for a professional breakdown on these microphones please look to Ty Ford, Oleg, or Dave Fisk. If you are wanting to know how to interpret each microphones specific spec sheet, ask Matt to write a tutorial for that.

EDIT:

I want to apologize for the long winded post, but obviously I have a lot of opinions on this stuff and I ramble a bit. Hey, honestly if it helps one person find what they are looking for and not throw out thousands of dollars like I did, then it was worth my time...
 
If you've got an me66 and a 4073a (and I'm sure you do) then speak into the TAIL of both mics. Hold each one in front of your mouth like you're gonna' bite off the xlr connector (maybe 6"-12" away). Now tilt the mics so the XLR wire is pointing at your chest... so that you're speaking into the rear of each mic at about 120 degrees away from the front (behind the tail but off the tail's axis). Be sure to record it rather then simply using headphones so you don't get distracted by the resonation inside of your own head. Play it back. I have nothing against the me66 personally... but there's no comparison between the 4073a rear/side rejection and the me66's.

EDIT: Be sure to do this outside or in a place where your voice isn't bouncing off a wall in front the mic and coming back to it. The 4073a is actually a hotter mic then the me66 and this will further the confusion if you do this test in a reflective room. The rear/side rejection of both mics will seem closer in comparison because the 4073a is hearing more of your voice on the return then the me66 is.
 
Matt, like I said, just my experience with the two mics. I want to love the ME66, I really really do. I have spent a ton of cash buying and then hating that mic only to turn around and buy it again. I want to like it, but at the end of the day, I just don't like it. I will get my hands on another one in the next couple of days and run the test that you just said, but in my opinion, and that's all the above was, an opinion, I think that the ME66 has good rear rejection, it just sounds like ****

EDIT:

One thing about the 'hottness' of the 4073a when compared with the 'hottness' of the ME66 is that the 4073a is actually controlable. The ME66 just doesn't have a sweet spot. I can ride the 4073a right at 11 o'clock and be perfectly content to let the level just hang out there. With the ME66 there is no sweet spot. The mic fluctuates between nearly perfect to did I just blow out my headphones. While the actual output on the 4073a might be greater than the ME66, which is a possibility, it is a stable and consistent output.

Plus, the sound quality of the 4073a is so significantly fuller and more complete that it makes the ME66 sound like a toy.

EDIT 2:

Matt, I don't mean to disagree with you by any means with what you were saying though. You are by far more experienced than me with sound and microphones, this was just my opinion. After thinking about it, part of the reason why I think that the ME66 has such good rear rejection in my opinoin is that the output is so hot and the sound is so thin. Maybe it is rejecting not as much as the 4073a but with that sound it sounds more impressive than it actually is. This is a possibility I did not consider when I was posting my impressions of each of these mics.
 
This is a great thread, Jeremy. I'm considering a move up from the AT897, and your documenting your experience is exactly the kind of thing I think we need more of. I particularly appreciated the comments about "forgiveness" issues with the 416. Never would have thought of that issue, and the boom operators I seem to get can barely point in one direction with their finger.

I'm leaning towards the 4073a.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top