can anyone recommend a *very* directional microphone?

J

joker454

Well-known member
Hi guys I have a new project that involves lots of outdoor filming, so I'm looking for the most directional microphone available. I have to deal with noises like lawn equipment, barking dogs, etc, so I'm willing to go with a lower quality microphone if it does a better job at rejecting audio that comes from the sides. The subject will always be right in front of the mic as it's a very controlled shoot in that regard, hence it can record in the tiniest cone in front of the mic and that would be great. I'm currently using the Sony ECM-XM1 which is ok, but I'd like something more directional than that. I'd be using it on a Sony NX30 right now so it has xlr inputs. I can't use mics hooked to the subject for this particular project. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, what do you expect to find? And by "the subject will always be right in front of the mic" do you mean that the mic will be, properly, on a boom over the subject's head, or that it will be right on top of the camera?

A quick search of the Audio forum will turn up dozens of threads that ask/discuss this very same question, and the answers never change. A mic can only be "directional" up to a certain point, and a mic on the camera isn't going to do you any favors at all. A shotgun mic is generally going to give you the best rejection outdoors, and a long shotgun will have a tighter pattern in front, but the only way that's going to work for you is to have it boomed properly. If it's on the camera, pointed straight out, it's going to pick up everything that's behind the subject. It's not just a mic, but technique as well.

That also includes distance: the closer the mic, the higher the ratio of dialog to background sounds.

Also, what exactly are you planning to do: narrative work, or something more like news gathering? And what's your budget?

Here are a few of the recent threads that talk about things like this:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?292725-Cheap-shotgun-mic-for-video
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?292139-The-most-directional-mic-under-us-600
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?289933-Best-microphone-in-noisy-environment
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply, I'll check out those threads. I'm mainly trying to tap into peoples experience here, I figure people here have used many mic's over the years so they would be familiar with which ones do a better job at rejecting adjacent sounds. All shotgun mic's will advertise that they are directional but the only way to really know which are best at it is to use them, hence I figured folk here could identify a mic or two if directionality was the primary concern. I've searched many threads but they often go on with many other things unrelated, I mainly just want to know which mics are best at rejecting sounds from the side. I guess if it simplifies things, assume the mic is on the camera on a tripod pointed at the target about 3 feet away, off to the left side someone is using a lawnmower, and to the right side is a barking dog. If my main concern is I want the mic to record as little of the lawn mower and barking as possible, are there any brand of mics that come to mind as being particularly good at rejecting sounds perpendicular to the mic? Budget can be $1000 if that helps. The subject being recorded could be anything, it may be a person talking, it may be a penguin, it could be an engine running, etc. So basically I'd need whatever mic that would not record the barking dog and lawn mower, but it would record the person/penguin/engine in front of the camera. Rejection is more important than sounds quality. So for example if Mic "A" records at 10x better quality than Mic "B", but Mic "B" records none of the lawn mower and barking whereas Mic "A" does record some of the lawn mowing and barking, then I would go with Mic "B".
 
Last edited:
if you cant boom the mic or put in on a stand i think a lavalier mic would be the best option in this case.
 
There is a small group of shotgun mics that have a narrow super-cardioid pick-up pattern, but I have never used any of these, so I really can't say how they compare when it comes rejecting off-axis sound.

DPA Microphones 4017
Rode NTG-8
Sanken CS-2
Schoeps CMIT5U
Sennheiser MKH 8070
Shure VP89L
 
NO microphone of any brand, model, reputation, or price will do a halfway-decent job mounted on a camera at 3 feet away. Don't waste your time or money chasing after a shotgun solution. If you can't get a boom microphone any closer than that, then clip a lav on the subject, or even better a head-set mic with the tip 1 inch away from the subject's mouth.
 
Thanks TheDingo, I'll look into those mic's. Richard, I probably can't use a lav partly because sometimes there would be no where to pin it but also because the location of the sound would vary. It could come from the subjects mouth or even from their feet, so if I mounted the lav near their mouth then presumably I'd miss any sounds that happened near their feet. That's where using a camera mounted mic helps me because I've been able to capture the sounds I need. I thought about using a boom but it probably wouldn't work for the commando style filming that I'm doing where it helps to be less conspicuous. Anyways it doesn't have to be a perfect mic, even if it's an upgrade from what I have now then that would be cool. For my particular application it's really not about sound quality, but just getting rid of the unwanted surrounding noise. Or in other words what I think you guys would consider poor sound quality for your application would be ok for me so long as the surrounding noise isn't there.
 
This is pretty directional...

http://www.ozspy.com.au/products/13-toys-gadgets-and-gifts/278-parabolic-spy-microphone-and-torch/

You don't need to capture the sound from their feet, clean dialogue is the most important thing. Things like footsteps are easily and preferably added later. Real sound effects just don't sound real on film. You've got to make them sound real. Hollywood adds everything but the dialogue (and even some of that) in post. If there's no talking you don't even need to record sound at all. The other trick is record several minutes of ambient sound at each location. You can mix this with you post-sound effects to make them sit better with your recorded on-location dialogue. That way you don't need to add so much reverb to make it blend.

If you try to capture dialogue, footsteps, clothes rustling, birds tweeting, wind through the trees...you're going to need a lot of microphones! Concentrate on one mic for dialogue with good rejection and get it as close to your actor as you can.
 
Well this is for a very unique application, it's not dialog I'm capturing and it's not footsteps at their feet either, but I do need to capture both audio sources. It's not ambient birds and such either. I had this complication last time I had posted as well, my work is adult industry related and I'm finding out my needs and the situations I film are orthogonal to what people typically deal with here so sometimes it's tricky to get across what I really need without getting into extreme detail...which I don't want to do. The stuff you mention won't work for my needs, I need to capture particular sounds when they happen, it just wouldn't work to dub them in later. For other reasons I can't use lav's or boom's, but a mic on the camera works great because I can point it in a split second at what needs to be captured. In any case that Rode NTG-8 looks promising, I found a youtube review on it that shows it ignores off axis audio very well as does the Senheiser 816, this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLMtHXblOo8&feature=player_detailpage#t=169s Some are suggesting the Audio-Technica BP4073 as well, apparently it cut off axis sounds nicely and is significantly shorter which would help a lot as the Rode NTG8 is really long. I'll keep googling around and checking video reviews. Thanks guys!
 
Last edited:
joker, we are all adults here....well most of us (I refuse to grow up). If you are uncomfortable discussing the use in public (which I understand), I don't think a direct PM to some of the members here replying to you with advice would be out of order.

If any of us are willing to discuss with him in PM fashion....sing out. He will be able to get better info. I am okay with a PM.
 
Let me premise this by saying no puns are intended (everytime I try to reword it, it still sounds like a double entendre). And site rules say it's not allowed to be discussed so let's keep it on the audio solution without mentioning it.

Gotcha. The lav is out then, nowhere comfortable or out of sight to put it. And you probably don't have a lot of time between angles to adjust your setup. I've never thought about it before but now you mention it, the action often moves indoors for the parts where your issue arises. Amongst the mics I use for music recording I've found RODE seem to have the best self-noise rejection so by association rather than direct experience I'd say if you have to camera mount that might be something to consider. Changing your location may be your best option because if you do get a highly directional mic and are getting in close you might find it rejects too much. Other than location, time of day and day of the week are other things to consider. The solution may not be a microphone. Sorry if that's not helpful. It is going to be difficult to try out highend mics for your situation and expensive if they don't give you what you need.
 
Alternately if it's just dog barks and the like and there aren't too many, a post solution would be to cut and paste some audio from somewhere else in your production to cover it up. Or accept the ambience for the reality of it. How important clean sound is to your audience, I don't know. Maybe just make your best effort to get clean audio and accept what you get. I don't know what the standard is, never paid that much attention. Overhearing a neighbours conversation would be the worst case but I reckon if you can hear them, they can hear you and if they're not complaining over the fence they won't be letting little Timmy play in the backyard for an hour or two.
 
I started reading this thread because it´s always fun to read the answers to "the ol' sound problem". It doesn't really matter if you´re filming someone with no clothes, exploring his body, the rules of sound don't change. So if you´re "always on the run" with your scenes and can´t eg set up a tripod boom or use an operator, well then bring the camera in closer. Use a wideangle lens and get real close and dial the sound in for that.
Not an option for documentaries or movies, but for your work, getting in close should be acceptable, I suppose.
Another thing: If the "unwanted" sounds from the neighbors are part of the concept, add those later in post. You record on a quiet day and add the chainsaw noises later on. If the "unwanted" sounds are NOT part of your scene, well, wait until it´s quiet. Your sound guy would tell you that anyway if you booked one ;)
 
you can use some noise reducing technology (noise cancellation ) like recording unvanted sound (ambient) while recording wanted sound.
then it is possible to put them in phase (180 deg off) so you can attenuate unwanted noise.

this is tricky but works well.
some device includes directly several microphones for that purpose.
parabolic microphones are great too but bulky.
you can also take a directional microphone and put it in a tube of foam to attenuate unwanted sounds
i use this in churchs to cut echo and it works well.
a 3 inches tube made of thick foam (preferrably with texture inside, like small spikes ) is great.
if you can fin an electronician, he can build that easily.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the closest to what you are looking for is either a parabolic mic or the one from Adio Technica? Anyway they have both been used in sports recording to pick up things like the sounds on the field from a long way away. They are both extremely directional.

But you pay a price. The parabolics have this huge dish around them (as in 2-4 food diameter), so not too inconspicuous, and the new mic though not terribly large costs a fortune. It uses an array of capsules and a processor to produce an extreme directionality. Also parabolics tend not to sound so great.

Or you can go with this baby ;~)
 
The side rejection of a shotgun mic is proportional to its length, all other things being equal. So the mics with the highest side rejection will be long, often so long that they will intrude into the top of the frame when you zoom wide if they're mounted on the camera shoe. It's also engraved in granite by inviolable laws of physics that due to the inverse square law, the closer the mic is to the desired sound sound, the louder that source will be in relation to environmental sounds that might interfere with it. In an extreme example, a hand-clap 10 feet from the microphone might be the same or lesser volume as that lawnmower next door but move the mic in until it's 18 inches from the hands and the clap will be much, much louder than the lawnmower - ie, moving the mic closer to the hands makes the sound of the clap louder but doesn't change the level of the lawnmower.

I have no problem with any adult content so OK with PM as well
 
Last edited:
Egg Born Son said:
Alternately if it's just dog barks and the like and there aren't too many, a post solution would be to cut and paste some audio from somewhere else in your production to cover it up. Or accept the ambience for the reality of it. How important clean sound is to your audience, I don't know.
Click to expand...
That's kind of where I'm at right now, where I edit out the simpler stuff like single barks or accept the ones that aren't easy to edit out like a car driving by. The key was for the audio to sound soothing and non abrasive, so a Harley driving by or a conversation from over the fence definitely detracts. Sometimes dogs go nuts as well and aren't as easy to edit out alas. If I could save myself time in post though that would be awesome as I'm juggling many projects right now.

Spartacus said:
If the "unwanted" sounds are NOT part of your scene, well, wait until it´s quiet. Your sound guy would tell you that anyway if you booked one ;)
Click to expand...
I have waited on occasion when it's really bad, but waiting around costs money so I'm hoping I can avoid that :)

nosys70 said:
you can also take a directional microphone and put it in a tube of foam to attenuate unwanted sounds
Click to expand...
Hmm that's interesting. Thanks, that's something I hadn't even considered!

Noiz2 said:
But you pay a price. The parabolics have this huge dish around them (as in 2-4 food diameter), so not too inconspicuous, and the new mic though not terribly large costs a fortune. It uses an array of capsules and a processor to produce an extreme directionality. Also parabolics tend not to sound so great.
Click to expand...
Ok, so parabolic would be really large. Hmm ok that probably wouldn't work then.

Steve House said:
The side rejection of a shotgun mic is proportional to its length, all other things being equal. So the mics with the highest side rejection will be long, often so long that they will intrude into the top of the frame when you zoom wide if they're mounted on the camera shoe.
...
ie, moving the mic closer to the hands makes the sound of the clap louder but doesn't change the level of the lawnmower.
Click to expand...
Ah, I hadn't considered mic length poking into camera view. That would make the Rode NTG8 a challenge. Well some have also recommended the Rode NTG3, I guess I can go midway as a compromise. Ultimately if it doesn't eliminate all unwanted audio but does eliminate some and saves me time in audio post then it pays for itself anyways. I will also try a 0.75x wide adapter next time and film even closer to the subject, and reduce mic sensitivity. As you suggest that will keep the subject audio at the same level whereas the noise in the distance should diminish a bit.
Ok lots of good info. Probably need midrange length mic like a Rode NTG3 so that it doesn't poke into view mounted on the cam, and I can try fabricating a foam mic cover and see how that helps. Add a wide lens, reduce mic sensitivity and come closer to the subject to further diminish ambient noise. Cool guys thanks again, I'll do some more experimenting :) If there are other mics you guys like that are similar to the Rode NTG3 that aren't super long but do a decent job at off axis noise rejection then please let me know!
 
This is all very silly. You can use very long shotguns, and with a skilled sound op booming or even hand-holding you can get distant sounds louder than the shorter types for the same distance, but the reality is that you are going to be disappointed and poorer. The idea of dishes certainly works, and you quite often see small ones with transparent materials at sports events - but they are hearing what are pretty loud sources. The inverse square law is the key here. Get mics (almost any mic) in close and the apparent level increases, and distant sounds are reduced. In your case, the real problem is that much of the noise you wish to record is actually not very loud at all, so you are going to hear all the other rubbish too. It will be furniture creaking, and the crew moving that you'll hear. If it's outside, then there is so much low level noise that it's going to be hit or miss. I'd hire something in and experiment.

The intro to this kind of thing was when as a 17 year old working in a recording studio, I was asked to record audio for a project. This was the seventies when the first home vcrs were just becoming available (the Philips 1500 series here in the UK). The project turned out to be imported cine films from Holland, with no audio at all. So all the noises had to be re-created, foley style. Reel to reel tape was the recording medium then of course, but as there were hundreds to do, most were done one-shot. Telecine in the next room, and just two mics and the reel-to-reel for the yucky jazz music in the background. I would sit with huge headphones and try to balance the music, and the noises produced while we watched a monitor. As we were dubbing English onto a Dutch film lip sync was hardly a problem - but the other noises were really simple to produce. It needed a plastic bowl with washing up liquid in it. That was the only special item. This bowl could produce all the noises required by use of your hands - with kissing the back of the hand (very unpleasant with the washing up liquid taste) as the only other technique. The location was a holiday centre with the entertainment team all taking part - as a youth - I'd never even heard these noises before, and the entire thing was a great laugh. If you ever want an adult funny game to play - try to do this yourself in two teams against the clock. You need the clock because the clock stops when somebody giggles - which they do all the time. It's virtually impossible to do at first. Back then, all we had were a couple of mics used in the shows, and a small mixer into the video recorder, with the telecine into the video input. The sound created like this is not real - but actually sounds more real than reality!

I'd forgotten all about this until this topic appeared. I really think that the typical distances you will be working at mean that apart from the BCUs getting good sound will be impossible. You don't have the luxury of rehearsal and setup, so the long mics will be the best, but the best will be pretty poor.
 
Since people have brought up physics... A parabolic reflector actually does hear "more" in it's focused direction than a shotgun. Shotguns work by subtracting sound and parabolics work by adding more sound from the direction you want, and vertualy eliminating sound from directions you don't want.

The other mic that I couldn't find on line but I have an article on somewhere, does something similar to a parabolic element but through multiple capsules and complicated processing. So it may also "hear more" in the chosen direction.

They both were designed to record things you could not get physically close to and often are used to record things many feet away. Shotguns not so much. Really long ones have very tight directionality but that is because they are tossing away more, so the sound you want isn't any louder but what you don't want is quieter. A parabolic in contrast greatly increases the level of what you want. Your typical hyper is about a 1/2 - 1/3 inch diameter. So it's capsule area is about .196 inches square, two foot diameter parabolic has a "capsule" area of 1809.50 square inches. That is a huge difference in signal strength.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top