Ever use a Sony ECM-XM1 as a boom mic for an interior interview?

I

Imamacuser

Veteran
Has anyone tried using a Sony ECM-XM1 boomed for an interview? If so, what was the experience and the results like?

The communications department at work just got a XLR-K3M, which came with a ECM-XM1, and they were wondering about using it as a boom mic for a more rich sound than they get out of their current Sennheiser ME 2-II lavs.

I recognize that a hypercardioid, like an Audix SCX1-HC, would be better for interior interviews, but I am quite confident that they won't get budget approval for a hypercardioid condenser that doesn't have the versatility of lavs.

I know the ME 2-II can be improved with EQ, but with the propensity for last minute requests, it's best to eliminate extra steps.
 
People use much lesser microphones with great results which no normal ears would ever notice a difference in anyway, so it's likely A-OKAY (especially with ideal placement in a friendly low-noise environment).
 
Yes. On a boom and stand set about a foot above the head. Used it a few times in conjunction with the Sennheiser MKE2 lavs. It's perfectly okay. Not my favourite pick but for news type interviews it has done the job perfectly well on a number of occasions. It was the standard mic that came with one of the Sony PMW cameras. In a pinch, I have also used it as a handheld presenter/vox pop mic with a couple of meters of cable. Again it does the job in a workmanlike way. I feel they are a bit light on the bottom end but with a bit of low-end boost in post it all sounds fine. Nobody ever commented on the sound from it so generally that it means it made the grade. Still have it. Most of the time it does service on one of the cameras.

Chris Young
 
Thanks everyone. I was looking for some kind of mic holder, but couldn't find anything on hand that would work. It looks like a SmallRig 1859 Shockmount would work or maybe a Auray DUSM-1, but the ECM-XM1 is so short that you don't have much room to work with.
 
Why not just boom the mic with the adapter? Too heavy?

[You could still run a XLR from the mic down to anything else.]
 
The K3M will be attached to an A6600, and the included hot-shoe extension is only around 18-IN, so it wouldn't be feasible to put the K3M at the end of a boom.
 
Oh, true, true...I didn't realize you were still going to use it.

Honestly, that is one piece of hardware I never understood. I know the kit comes with a microphone which is a nice package, but it's mostly just a fancy adapter with phantom power and low-cut filters.

A $100 preamp from Beachtek would provide you crystal clean gain (what matters most) into the a6600 where you can get the internal camera's audio down to level 2-3-4. You can't do that with this adapter and you're essentially still using the camera's preamps, so don't you find the audio noisy at times in certain conditions?

Although if you've mostly been using it one way with sensitive lavs you mentioned above then probably not.
 
I agree, and personally use a JuicedLink RM222, but the people in the communications department aren't seasoned or trained in video, so they need simplicity and native compatibility.

The AVX wireless system outputs a clean hot signal, so the preamps aren't an issue there, but we'll have to see how they perform with the ECM-XM1.

For clarification, I'm not responsible for producing videos at work, I merely assist the communications department from time to time. I'm an AV Technology Specialist, which is basically the AV equivalent to IT desktop support.
 
Last edited:
Does AV and IT ever work together for any streaming setups for the employees?

{{{ I know, random question. }}}
 
I would do an interview with both lav and boomed then you’ll have a direct comparison to judge from. Seems odd though because it’s not easy getting a boomed mic closer than a lav while staying out of the frame. The closer to the source the deeper the bass. That’s why lavs have more bass. In my experience the bass and over all sound is more dependent on the subject. Sometimes a person’s voice will not be a good match to a mic.

I’d run a mock interview and use gaffer’s tape to temporarily mount the mic. Do they even have a proper boom?
 
Last edited:
They're not after more bass so much as a more natural reproduction to how the person would sound in a face to face conversation.

Certain lavs can sound too bright if they're not under clothing, and since we don't have conversations with our ear up to the other person's chest, lavs just don't sound as natural as a boomed condenser mic, which I guess explains why Hollywood still uses booms as opposed to giving all the actors a lav and Tentacle Sync Track E.

They have a mic stand with a boom arm, which works for tight shots, and there's also an overhead rail and articulating arms that could be utilized for holding a mic.



To answer NorBro's question, there's enough infrastructure in place that we're not generally working together during streams, but we coordinate with desktop support, network team, and IT integrator on others things.

I was surprised that IT didn't do much (in my estimation) to improve the home networks of the senior leadership during the initial stages of everyone working from home. To be fare, that isn't in their job description, and they offered 100-FT network cables so that people could connect directly to their router, but end-users needed someone with the technical knowhow to assess their network technology and recommend changes to improve the speed.

Around here, most people either have cable internet or DSL through their phone line; cable issues usually boil down to the ISP or a weak router, but a lot of DSL issues are tied to their home's daisy chained phone lines attenuating the signal strength, not to mention the DSL ISP being worthless to boot. The best option is to wire a CAT6 line from the phone-line box to your modem and terminate it with an RJ12 connector.

My role kind of defies definition, I'm under the facilities department, so I'll sometimes replace carpet tiles and swap out fluorescent tubes, but I primarily do testing and preventative maintenance on all the AV technology, provide AV support for meetings, and man the mixer during conferences.
 
Part of what makes lavs sound unnatural is they do such a good job isolating the voice from the ambient noise and sound reflections. Sometimes this is fine because you're going to add background music or yes it sounds like what it is an interview but that can be ok because whats most important is the clarity of the subjects voice.

Boomed mic will sound more natural but can pick up more noise, if the room doesn't have good acoustics, or you need a wider shot then you won't be able to position it at an optimal distance. The main reason movies use a boom is you just can't have a lav visible on an actor. Also remember that the audio you hear in a movie is highly processed. The result is seldom from just a boomed mic.

I'm not trying to talk you out of using a boomed mic. I use lavs and booms interchangeably based on what best for a given situation. With lavs I sometimes mix in an off camera mic for some ambience. Just comes down to how much you want to put into the sound.
 
Last edited:
Imamacuser said:
The AVX wireless system outputs a clean hot signal, so the preamps aren't an issue there, but we'll have to see how they perform with the ECM-XM1.
Click to expand...

Just be aware if that if you wish to use both the Senny AVX system's audio output in conjunction with the output from a cabled boom mic there is a quite significant time offset between the two recorded audio tracks. Used on their own I've experienced no problems with the AVX but when using them a part of a wireless/boom combo it sounds like reverb. I found it so annoying that I have always had to "slip" the AVX audio forward to line up with the boom's waveform. This requires sub-frame audio editing adjustments. Not all NLEs can do sub-frame audio edits.
Using the Rode wireless mics with their lower latency I haven't had to slip audio timings.

Check out the following for a brief outline of the issue. Quote:

"While 19ms is more of a delay than other wireless systems such as Sony’s UWP-D11 (0.35ms) and Rode’s Rodelink (4ms), it shouldn’t be too much of an issue when shooting video as the delay amounts to less than a frame in many situations. You can also always shift the audio on the timeline for perfect sync if it’s noticeable to you."

Chris Young

https://suggestionofmotion.com/blog/sennheiser-avx-wireless-review-performance/
 
I believe they were intending to try this on a single-person interview, with the ECM-XM1 as the main audio source, and the AVX as a backup. I'm aware of the latency, but I should mention it to the communications department's, as they probably aren't aware; thanks for the reminder. They're using Premiere, which supports sub-frame offset.
I wish Sennheiser would have included an option to disable the encryption to reduce the latency. :furious3:
 
Imamacuser said:
I wish Sennheiser would have included an option to disable the encryption to reduce the latency
Click to expand...

Yes, that's an odd one? The Rode's are running in the 2.4GHz band and the Senny's are running in the 1.9GHz band. I wouldn't have thought that would cause any differences with latency as both brands are running encryption. Wonder why such a difference in latency? The only reason that I can think of is that the AVX uses the 1.9GHz band to avoid any possible interference issues which can happen in the 2.4GHz band as that is the band and frequencies at which Wi-Fi standards 802.11b, 802.11g and 802.11n operate in. The supposed 1.9GHz benefits are:

"Clear operation and immunity to interference: there is no competition with 2.4 GHz Bluetooth and Wi-Fi devices like headsets, computer mice and keyboards, and wireless routers; as well as RF remote controls, portable phones and even microwave ovens.Clear operation and immunity to interference: there is no competition with 2.4 GHz Bluetooth and Wi-Fi devices like headsets, computer mice and keyboards, and wireless routers; as well as RF remote controls, portable phones and even microwave ovens."

Chris Young
 
I thought that the excessive latency was due encryption, but I guess there could be other reasons. I love the AVX system, but I wish it didn't have high latency, and that Sennheiser would make a higher capacity battery pack for the receiver.
 
OLD Thread alert! ?

So I bought a boom pole and fancy mount (for my lovely Sanken) and have been scratching my head on keeping something on top of my camera as a fast rebuild from boom to top mic is not fast.

The bits box I got this Sony ECM XM1mic that maybe came 'free' with my fs100 - but I never used as I already had the Sanken.

Do you think this mic might be ok on camera until funds allow an upgrade.

I use the camera mic to vox people with from 30cm on a 24mm or to get the chef chopping carrots with a 70. Or the odd angle grinder shot.
 
Might as well try out the ECM XM1, since you already have one. I wonder how the ECM XM1 compares to the Audio-Technica AT875R; going off memory, I think the AT875R is more sensitive.
 
The Sony (and the identical Panasonic) are OEM brand products - a very ordinary mic, branded with Sony or Panasonic and supplied for a long tike with very expensive cameras. There is a very similar JVC which I suspect is exactly the same.

What it is - is a very simple electret condenser with a slightly narrower pickup pattern than a cardioid. Not hyper with the different rear lobes, but just a bit tighter cardioid. Neutral sounding if maybe a bit bass light. If you have nothing else - then it's a perfectly usable mic - but not that similar to the AT875 Audio Technica - which is a proper line/gradient design. The Sony is a simple capsule at the end and very short interference tube - so not that effective.
 
paulears said:
...not that similar to the AT875 Audio Technica - which is a proper line/gradient design. The Sony is a simple capsule at the end and very short interference tube - so not that effective.
Click to expand...

Do you have any info that can back this claim? I'm looking at the AT875r and XM1 side by side and they are very similar. When held against the light the internals that can be seen at the bottom look identical, it also reveals exact same length and width of the "slit" in the inner tube despite the different external cutouts in the exterior to the tube. Same mesh material on the side, same on the tip. The interference tube is exactly the same length...They sound very similar too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top