Decent Hyper for indoor

[drapeama]

Given your budget constraint, I can't see the problem with an Oktava MK012

That sounds like the best solution, price/quality and pros&cons all together.

THIS is another great option for a low-cost hypercardioid, and it doesn't get many mentions around here.

Did you ever tested it with a preamp like the JuicedLink? I own two of these devices, one generally camera-mounted with a mic and the other along the portable recorder with the mic boomed. I wonder how these preamps would performs with that Audio-Technica mic.
From what I've tested, with another Audio-Technica Hyper mic (ATM-650) the signal to noise wasn't the best. I've got better results overall with the NTG2:

 

[Alex H.]

From what I've tested, with another Audio-Technica Hyper mic (ATM-650) the signal to noise wasn't the best. I've got better results overall with the NTG2:

You do realize that the ATM-650 is a dynamic mic, yes? Higher s/n is expected as the lower sensitivity and output level of a dynamic mic is going to require loads of gain added to get any semblance of signal when used on a boom. A dynamic hyper vs. a shotgun (condenser) is not a fair challenge at all.

Further, the four mics you used in the above video are about as improperly matched as you can get. The MB4k is cardioid, not omni, according to Audio Technica's product guide, though it is a condenser. The ATM-650, as I've already mentioned, is dynamic and has no business being on the end of a boom pole or even atop a camera. And the ATR-55 shouldn't even be considered a shotgun mic. A cheap "shotgun" that has a switch to go from "wide" to "tele" is a joke. That's just a gain switch, and will bring up all the environmental noise as well.

 

[Fran Guidry]

...
From what I've tested, with another Audio-Technica Hyper mic (ATM-650) the signal to noise wasn't the best. I've got better results overall with the NTG2:
...

Hopefully you recognize that the ATM650 is a dynamic instrument mic intended for close placement and loud sources. As such it has low sensitivity (requiring more preamp gain) and a low frequency rolloff which contributes to the tonal balance in your test.

Fran

 

[Fran Guidry]

...The pre-amps in any of these compact recorders may not perform so well, and that's just the nature of the beast for cheap recorders. They are very useful tools, but they all have their limits. That said, I have not yet played with a DR-60D so I cannot attest to its performance. Same with the H6, but my experience to date with several Zoom recorders is that the pres are not impressive. The DR-100mkII and the DR-40 have, I believe, the same pre-amps. Good, but not great.

There's no substitute for having a good mixer or external pre-amp between the mic and a low-cost recorder.

The H6 preamps are quite a step up from previous Zooms. I've done some comparisons at the Homebrewed Music blog:

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/28/zoom-h6-vs-rme-ufx/
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2013/08/15/zoom-h6-acoustic-guitar-shootout/

Fran

 

[robbailey]

Looks like both the h6 and the 60d should have upgraded pre's. The clips of the h6 def sound better than the h4.

 

[Josh Bass]

I can tell you that i just worked with a pro sound guy on a mid budget gig (i.e not just a one man band, full crew etc) who was using the oktava. That speaks pretty highly for it. However, i remember him saying he had several mods done to it which brought the cost up to $500 rather than the $350 or so they normally go for. Dont remember what all he had done. I believe one thing was some kind of articulating head so the capsules could bend at an angle to the mics body instead of the whole thing being rigid.

 

[drapeama]

You do realize that the ATM-650 is a dynamic mic, yes? [..] A dynamic hyper vs. a shotgun (condenser) is not a fair challenge at all.

Further, the four mics you used in the above video are about as improperly matched as you can get. [..] A cheap "shotgun" that has a switch to go from "wide" to "tele" is a joke. That's just a gain switch, and will bring up all the environmental noise as well.

1) Yes I recognize.
2) I used the mic I own personally. I don't have much budget to get as much gear as I'd want, so I used what I had on hand to do a test.
3) It was more meant to demonstrate what mic could perform under the same circumstances.
4) The cheap one is effectively a joke in itself, but it was the very first mic I got, back in 2002 when I start to learn more seriously the process of digital videos. I was a student, had not much money and invested 130$ for that at the time. Was pretty impressed with the results back then. Now, it was mostly used to demonstrate that it doesn't even worth the selling price on ebay!

Hopefully you recognize that the ATM650 is a dynamic instrument mic intended for close placement and loud sources.

Yes. That being said, for voice over it's performing well. I was happy with it in a video I've done once.


All in all, I'd like to compare more "similar" microphones, but as I said, this is a hobby for me and I don't have the money to justify buying all the gear it would involve to do a proper test.
And sometimes, it's hard to find "good" review/test online about a microphone. Especially if it's more specific, or not normally used for the purpose you're after, like the Audio Technica Alex pointed out.

 

[jthabel]

I've seen a couple recommendations in this thread for the Audix SCX/1HC. I'll offer a third. For the money, it's a great indoor dialogue mic. I got one off of ebay a few months ago for a few hundred bucks. Even at full price, it's a great value.

 

[MagicMountainMan]

I just got the Audix yesterday. Haven't been able to do much testing so far but will be on a shoot with it this weekend so I'm looking forward to using it. I got it because it seemed to be the "Dark Horse" of the mid-level audio world. Everyone usually defaults to either the AT 4053b or the Oktava Mk 012. To me, the AT just didn't sound 'great' and seems to be a bit overrated (IMO). And the Mk 012 is looked at a lot because it's so cheap, but the QC issues combined with buying it from a reputable dealer and dealing with all of its handling noise, the price wasn't much different from the AT or the Audix. So I ended up with the Audix and saved $100 by not getting the 4053b. Is this just me trying to rationalize why I ended up with the mic I did? Maybe... =)

I'll definitely post again regarding how it holds up this weekend.

 

[Doug_EX]

I just got the Audix yesterday. Haven't been able to do much testing so far but will be on a shoot with it this weekend so I'm looking forward to using it. I got it because it seemed to be the "Dark Horse" of the mid-level audio world. Everyone usually defaults to either the AT 4053b or the Oktava Mk 012. To me, the AT just didn't sound 'great' and seems to be a bit overrated (IMO). And the Mk 012 is looked at a lot because it's so cheap, but the QC issues combined with buying it from a reputable dealer and dealing with all of its handling noise, the price wasn't much different from the AT or the Audix. So I ended up with the Audix and saved $100 by not getting the 4053b. Is this just me trying to rationalize why I ended up with the mic I did? Maybe... =)

I'll definitely post again regarding how it holds up this weekend.

You'll love it! I sure love mine.

 

[Stephen Hall]

Yeah, I get the budget constraint. We've all got 'em.

But I have bought lower-end stuff so many times and have wound up realizing it just couldn't do the job. When I finally bought the *right* tool for the job, everything was smoother and better. I tell you, I have done lots of consignment sales of equipment where I tried to cut corners the first time out (Rolls mixer and a list of other stuff I won't mention).

The At-4035 a/b is a nice little mic for interiors. Having said that, I would say that the best mic I've ever owned for that is the Schoeps CMC641 set. Spendy, sure. But it's such a joy to hear for dialogue.

Of course, we all have to learn in our own way, and in our own time.

 

[paulears]

The ATM-650, as I've already mentioned, is dynamic and has no business being on the end of a boom pole or even atop a camera. And the ATR-55 shouldn't even be considered a shotgun mic. A cheap "shotgun" that has a switch to go from "wide" to "tele" is a joke. That's just a gain switch, and will bring up all the environmental noise as well.

Wow! Sweeping statements r us! If I need a hyper, then out of the two I have available, I rather like the Beyer 201 rather than the condenser. It sounds nice, is not too heavy and is dynamic. The only reason not to use one from a technical viewpoint is when you have a poor preamp following it, but that is not the fault of the mic. For what it's worth the mics with a wide/tele switch produce the extra directionality by having two mic elements so it's a little cleverer than just gain, but they are very poor audio wise.

 

[John Willett]

Wow! Sweeping statements r us! If I need a hyper, then out of the two I have available, I rather like the Beyer 201 rather than the condenser. It sounds nice, is not too heavy and is dynamic. The only reason not to use one from a technical viewpoint is when you have a poor preamp following it, but that is not the fault of the mic. For what it's worth the mics with a wide/tele switch produce the extra directionality by having two mic elements so it's a little cleverer than just gain, but they are very poor audio wise.

The M201 is, indeed, an excellent mic. - along with the Sennheiser MD441 is one of the best dynamic super-cardioids around.

HOWEVER

The use of a dynamic mic. for video use is debateable as it is often used at a distance from the sound source. A dynamic is far less sensitive than a condenser and the gain in the recorder would have it be turned up, increasing the noise.

So, I would say that a condenser super-cardioid or hyper-cardoid would be, by far, the better option for video use.

 

[ggrantly]

Wow! Sweeping statements r us! If I need a hyper, then out of the two I have available, I rather like the Beyer 201 rather than the condenser. It sounds nice, is not too heavy and is dynamic. The only reason not to use one from a technical viewpoint is when you have a poor preamp following it, but that is not the fault of the mic. For what it's worth the mics with a wide/tele switch produce the extra directionality by having two mic elements so it's a little cleverer than just gain, but they are very poor audio wise.

Another sweeping statement: In my experience, using dynamic mics with the cheaper recorders is a fools errand. I have tried to use several dynamics, including the hotted up RE50 N/D, with the DR100 and the original H4 with very mediocre results. If the speaker has a strong voice and eats the mic, it worked, but anything less was just crap. Add a decent mixer, and life is good. When I switched to a DR-680, life got much better. I really like the little DR100, but it has limitations. From most reports, the H4n is equal or worse in performance. This is of course, old news, but has to be re-hashed for new inquiries to the list. Now maybe the new H6 is different with possibly stronger preamps by some reports, but I will believe it when I hear it.

Grant