Comparison of shotgun mic (Rode NTG2) to lav mic (Sennheiser G2)

And the shotgun still sounds better. More lively. The lav loses a little of the sparkle. But you're also doing that comparison with the stock Sennheiser lav, which isn't a great lav to begin with.

There are some (very few) shotgun/lav combinations that will intercut well, such as the Sennheiser 416 lav and the Sanken COS11 lav. But more often than not, a boom mic (shotgun or hypercardioid) will yield the best results.
 
While the difference is there, I think it is minimal. Often when wireless lavs (especially G2s) are discussed on forums the pros treat them as vastly inferior to shotguns. This video proves they can hold their own.

Due to the wide shots, I did this scene in my movie (currently in post) using a pair of G2's. I was quite pleased with their performance. The lav in my case , though, was a Countryman B3.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1JTUwjviY0
 
the difference you hear is a more "highcut" sound of the lavalier because it's under the clothes... clothes cut high frequenties.
 
For me the difference was huge! The test came about after shooting a little scene the day before where we only had the 2 mics in the test so one person was miced with the lav while the other was being boomed. Even to my untrained ears the both sounded different. And here, again, to me, it's obvious that if you can you MUST boom as the sound has more volume.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
For me the difference was huge! The test came about after shooting a little scene the day before where we only had the 2 mics in the test so one person was miced with the lav while the other was being boomed. Even to my untrained ears the both sounded different. And here, again, to me, it's obvious that if you can you MUST boom as the sound has more volume.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's about "more volume." Volume typically refers to amplitude, and in the recording phase that depends on gain staging. It's really about response.

Boom mics pick up just a little bit more of the space around them, which gives the audio a little more life. Yes, lavs will lose some highs when under layers of clothing, but even if clipped to the outside they will sound drastically different. And this comparison video would be drastically different with a better lav... though I believe the shotgun would still win out.

I don't dislike lavs. I have two of the G2 systems, though I do have Countryman B6 lavs for them as I really do not like the stock Sennheiser lavs that came with them. They do a very good job, and they sound very nice. But the difference between a lav and a boom is drastic, and the boom wins out for more natural dialog. There are times where framing or the actor's distance from the camera will mandate use of a wireless system with a lav, but boom is it whenever possible.

Some of the tell-tale sound of the lav also has to do with compander circuits, where some wireless systems are far superior than others (Sennheiser has the advantage in the sub-$1k range).

All that aside, it's great to really hear these things side-by-side. While there are many versions of these comparisons out there, I think this one is especially worthwhile as it features the two most talked about, budget-minded solutions that pop up on these forums.
 
Last edited:
Patryk, congrats for making the effort to do this comparison. I agree with whoever advised you on preferring the boom. Though wireless lavs are used in $100m+ movies every day, all of the mixers (recordists) recording the production dialog on those films prefer the boom and use it when they can.

While there is not a stark difference when listening to your demo through the speakers on my notebook computer, when using headphones (Sony MDR-7506) the boom definitely gives a more natural sounding voice and room character, and more closely follows the camera perspective. But to those who might see (hear) this demo as showing that body mics sound close enough to a boom to discourage the use of a boom, I'll point out that the demo is set in such a way that the boom and the lav would sound the most alike; i.e. sitting motionless, talking softly, just one person, medium close shot. Also, audio compression on the camera (and/or the transmitter) are two other variables that could reduce the advantage of one mic over the other. One more thing to consider: YouTube is a great tool, but the file compression is such that it is not an ideal media for critical listening comparisons (dynamic range and other subtleties suffer).

Regarding cutting from a boom to a lav, the reason this is sometimes difficult is not so much because of the difference in the mics themselves, but because of the difference in their placement.

Again, Patryk, thanks. Well done.

Glen Trew
 
Just a point, even if you don't hear much of a difference, there's a GIANT difference in listening to YouTube compressed audio on laptop speakers compared to listening in a calibrated and acoustically treated mixing stage. The differences become much more noticeable and obvious.

EDIT: Glen beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
Jim H said:
You can tweak EQ settings a bit to help, but I don't think you're ever going to get a lav under clothes to sound as good as a shotgun.
Click to expand...

That's what I wanted to say also.

Another solution could be other clothes. Or another mice.

For movie, lavs are mostly used when the boom realy can't catch it, or to give it more "voice-power".

Cutting the HF of the boom could also work..then the difference is less and that's what get most attention. Adding some room maybe (setnoise, roomtone, ambience, whatever it is cold today...)

But for interviews things and companymovies...don't worry about using lavs... Nobody will hear it...except soundguys. The only thing most people hear is the difference. And yet, for interviews it's mostly used out of the clothes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top