If you are considering a shotgun/cardioid...

Thanks guys, glad to see this old article still has legs and is still relevant. Crafty, I still use the AT875r often with my C100 as well, I did on a series of interviews I shot at a golf resort this week. Still sounds great for the money.
 
puredrifting said:
Thanks guys, glad to see this old article still has legs and is still relevant. Crafty, I still use the AT875r often with my C100 as well, I did on a series of interviews I shot at a golf resort this week. Still sounds great for the money.
Click to expand...

I think it'll be good to use for awhile in the office kit until I can get them to pony up for an AT4053B :D I also have my Audix SCX1-HC I can bring in there if the ATR857r doesn't end up cutting it for interviews inside. Otherwise it's just going to live on the handle for all my b-roll shooting there.
 
craftyphotons said:
I think it'll be good to use for awhile in the office kit until I can get them to pony up for an AT4053B :D I also have my Audix SCX1-HC I can bring in there if the ATR857r doesn't end up cutting it for interviews inside. Otherwise it's just going to live on the handle for all my b-roll shooting there.
Click to expand...

You'd be amazed at what the 875r has been used on. I have used mine on two broadcast, award winning PBS feature docs, a Muhammad Ali doc I shot with it last year that will be on Netflix or Amazon this Summer and I am embarking on a new doc that will shoot in South America this Spring that I will use it on. It really is more about your skills as a sound mixer than the mic anyway. A cheap AT-875r sounds better 10" from a talent than a $2,500.00 Schoeps sounds 48" from the talent. Don't get dragged into gear fetish unless you are a pro sound mixer. Just like with everything else in our business, skill heavily outweighs gear quality.
 
puredrifting said:
You'd be amazed at what the 875r has been used on. I have used mine on two broadcast, award winning PBS feature docs, a Muhammad Ali doc I shot with it last year that will be on Netflix or Amazon this Summer and I am embarking on a new doc that will shoot in South America this Spring that I will use it on. It really is more about your skills as a sound mixer than the mic anyway. A cheap AT-875r sounds better 10" from a talent than a $2,500.00 Schoeps sounds 48" from the talent. Don't get dragged into gear fetish unless you are a pro sound mixer. Just like with everything else in our business, skill heavily outweighs gear quality.
Click to expand...

Definitely taking that into consideration :D For a little bit here I was fetishizing getting a Sennheiser 8060 for my personal kit, but I've since tempered that and I'm just going to go for an AT-875r and an AT-4053b to go with the Rodelinks and COS-11Ds. I certainly have no intention on becoming a professional mixer, and I'll be hiring out for any personal/freelance projects that would really benefit from that. I just want a nice solid base though for my own stuff that I can really learn the ins and outs of for when I'm shooting solo, which will be most of the time.
 
Don't get dragged into gear fetish
I'm sorry, your DVXUser membership has been cancelled.



My membership won't be canceled as I'm lusting after a Sennheiser MKH50. And I'm not even a sound guy. Already have AT 4053A and 4073A mics, but those aren't good enough. MUST HAVE MORE EXPENSIVE MIC. And for that matter, camera, lenses, computer, etc.
 
mainstreetprod said:
Don't get dragged into gear fetish
I'm sorry, your DVXUser membership has been cancelled.



My membership won't be canceled as I'm lusting after a Sennheiser MKH50. And I'm not even a sound guy. Already have AT 4053A and 4073A mics, but those aren't good enough. MUST HAVE MORE EXPENSIVE MIC. And for that matter, camera, lenses, computer, etc.
Click to expand...

Uh, oh, you've got it bad. Gear fetish is one of those diseases that totally depends on what you do with the gear. If you charge for it and it is paid for quickly, it's smart and it's generating you income. Nothing wrong with that. But if you buy high end gear with the hope that clients will just want to pay you more for owning and using it, you have a fantasy problem. Personally, as a business decision, I think non sound mixers buying $1,600.00 mics is not smart because they are mostly wasting their money. Good mics only really sing with a good mic-preamp into a higher end (like a Sound Devices, Zaxcom) audio recorder. Running a $1,600.00 mic into a .99 mic pre-amp in a video camera nets you some improvement but not enough to justify spending $1,600 on. Even if a videographer or one man band can afford a Sound Devices type recorder, why aren't they just hiring a pro sound mixer? There is so much to deal with with lighting, camera, directing, producing, writing, I am always puzzled when I encounter guys who one man band most stuff and own a $5k or $10k audio package, makes no sense to me. Sound is such a separate and distinct craft/science/job position. I just use the cheap stuff if the client isn't willing to give me enough budget to hire a pro. AT-875r, Countryman B6, Røde Video Wireless. If they want better stuff, give me $650.00 or $750.00 a day and we'll hire a pro who has $25k worth of gear and the skills to use it.
 
Last edited:
Seems if you are going to buy $10K worth of audio stuff for a short film, you could get a pretty decent sound crew for the same money; and you can write it off at 100%, instead of 20%/year.

When I got into professional photography decades back, I used to sneer at those guys who thought they could get by with used no-name gear. Sometime along the way, I realized that they were actually making a profit, when I wasn't. Then I realized that rentals were a billable expense, while the stuff I owned wasn't. But the real suprise was when I realized that to corporations $30/hr meant I was probably not worth hiring, while $100/hr meant I probaby was. So, in the end it was $104/hr plus expenses, and actually making a living.

There is a punch line to this: I retired to an expensive town to live in, and found that people around here think $10/hr is too much to pay.
 
graywolf said:
Seems if you are going to buy $10K worth of audio stuff for a short film, you could get a pretty decent sound crew for the same money; and you can write it off at 100%, instead of 20%/year.

When I got into professional photography decades back, I used to sneer at those guys who thought they could get by with used no-name gear. Sometime along the way, I realized that they were actually making a profit, when I wasn't. Then I realized that rentals were a billable expense, while the stuff I owned wasn't. But the real suprise was when I realized that to corporations $30/hr meant I was probably not worth hiring, while $100/hr meant I probaby was. So, in the end it was $104/hr plus expenses, and actually making a living.

There is a punch line to this: I retired to an expensive town to live in, and found that people around here think $10/hr is too much to pay.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I stopped buying $75,000.00 cameras and fancy edit bays. I owned both back in the day and you could bill a lot for the gear. Heck, I even ran rental rates I got for my DVX100A over the three year period for 2010 - 2012. I was working at a production company that had three of them and mine was number four so I would bill it out on my shoots becausr the other producers were usually using the other ones. That $3,800.00 DVX100A netted me, after paying for the camera, $28k over three years! Those days are gone, these days clients expect you to own $20k to $200k worth of gear and they barely are willing to pay you anything for any of it. That's why I don't own a C300 MKII, yet. The numbers have not yet penciled out. If they do, I will buy it, but if they don't, most of my clients are happy with my long paid off and long profitable C100 but a few are making rumbles about 4k. Cheap cameras are easy to pay off. But expensive mics, recorders, cameras, not as much anymore.
 
puredrifting said:
Cheap cameras are easy to pay off. But expensive mics, recorders, cameras, not as much anymore.
Click to expand...

I hear you; audio rental rates are getting hammered. But on the other hand, good audio equipment has a longer "useful" lifespan than (at least most) cameras these days...
 
Jim Feeley said:
I hear you; audio rental rates are getting hammered. But on the other hand, good audio equipment has a longer "useful" lifespan than (at least most) cameras these days...
Click to expand...

Definitely. Buying a new camera is an exercise in frustration these days. No matter what you buy, it's outdated almost immediately. I would never buy a camera that costs more than $10k these days, that's my ceiling. Most of my audio gear is at least a decade old, other than my new Røde Wireless mics. The only things I see that become outdated fairly quickly are the Sound Devices recorders, most of the sound mixers I hire have to buy the newest model about every two or three years, they need more channels/tracks, more buses, more sends for multicamera shoots where the producers want mixer sound on at least three cams for docu-reality stuff. But mics, cables, boompoles and quality wireless seem to be pretty good investments.
 
;~)

I was on a shoot last summer and they had low balled it quite a bit. Ironically the sound wasn't so bad a rate for what they said was required. I brought a lot of extra and backup just because and used every bit of it because they were WAY off in what was needed.

But the camera folks, who were my connection, got very low balled and the production insisted that they use a FS7, which is fine but more camera than they were paying for. That lasted about a couple of days, the head office didn't like the footage and the camera crew were essentially fired and a hot shot got hired and trucked his gear down (~8 hour drive) in the middle of the night to take over. This was a doc/reality show that at this stage was shooting on call 24/7 till the event happened. Anyway he was really good but he arrived in a package truck with a F55 and probably $500,000 of lenses and tons of stuff. We joked about what this was costing and he was quite clear he didn't do a discount. They apparently had tried.

My guess is he cost more for his day than me and the original camera crew put together, by a long shot.

Since I am rarely doing production except on micro budgeted stuff (you never see the set if you are in post) it was actually a lot of fun to watch this guy work. And I sort of became his assistant for the B roll since the sound was all set and in a holding pattern, and they of course had not hired anyone to help camera...
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
The only things I see that become outdated fairly quickly are the Sound Devices recorders, most of the sound mixers I hire have to buy the newest model about every two or three years, they need more channels/tracks, more buses, more sends for multicamera shoots where the producers want mixer sound on at least three cams for docu-reality stuff.
Click to expand...

I think they have a longer life than that. Two months ago bought another (used) Sound Devices 744T. That model was introduced about 11? years ago, and discontinued just last month; I wouldn't use a 744T on a reality gig (though not many of those around here), but sonically it hasn't been surpassed.

I'd say since the release of Sound Devices' 6xx series recorders, things have stabilized. Ya, some people have switched between models (and to/from Zaxcom), but like you say that's to get more channels, sends, etc. Audio-quality and basic functionality hasn't been passed as with cameras... And the new firmware automix update for the six-in 10-track 633 makes me think that model will have a long life (as a friend who records docs, commercials, and music says most of his gigs these days require either four or fewer tracks or more than 24). So we audio guys and gals might shift between and replace recorders to fit our job needs, but that doesn't mean that the other models are obsolete.

But we basically agree here...
 
This conversation has caused me to do something strange. I just roughly added up the cost of the stuff I use for video.

2 ancient Sony camcorders with a few extras (video tripod, on camera light, extra battery packs, etc: $449.

But on sound, I seem to have gone crazy: $1030. That just the stuff I bough for video use, I have other stuff for other audio hobbies. To be honest without the Zoom F4, which I just plain wanted, that would only have been $380.

I guess $1500 is not a lot to send on a hobby. Especially when I compare that to what I had in cameras back about 1980. About $10K just for the 35mm kit, plus medium format, plus large format, plus a darkroom, plus office equipment, plus, plus, plus...

I do not envy you pros.

In fact, if it weren't for the social problems (supervisors & coworkers), why would anyone work anything other than a decent 9-5 job?
 
I was a 9-5 automobile (Porsche-Audi) tech for six years. When my band started getting regular week night gigs, I quit and never looked back. (though I miss the road tests). I was single at the time naturally. Even as a auto tech, good tools were not cheap either. I had several thousand worth. The Snap-on rolling tool chest alone was around $1k as I recall.
 
Jim Feeley said:
Think of all the money you're saving on golf green fees!
Click to expand...

I just shot a series of videos for an national golf course management company. You don't see a whole lot of Hondas and Toyotas in the parking lots of those places. Greens fees are killer these days.
 
A few qualifiers here. First, I rarely if ever, work on other peoples productions, and do mostly small corporate and an occasional fun project. Usually, I record two tracks, and that is it, often to cam via a 302. I own enough decent gear to cover my own projects without renting. Some years ago, I purchased the 302, and to cover my occasional need for more, or for dual sound, I purchased a used 744t to replace my cheaper recorder. So the other day, I had a need for four channels. I was never happier with the results. Maybe that combo, or the older SD gear in general has fallen from favor, but I find it hard to believe that better quality could be produced by any newer gear. Certainly more tracks, all in one models, or maybe some features might be available on newer models. But how many recordists work on large TV productions over say small operators like myself?

Can anyone really say to me that the audio quality is any better with the newer recorders in any meaningful way? Again, I'm not being critical of those that need something specific in the newer gear, but otherwise, I think there is some new gear envy going on here. As long as I don't need more than four channels, or have a big gear failure, I figure I'm set for life, and happy with the outcome.
 
But how many recordists work on large TV productions over say small operators like myself?

Can anyone really say to me that the audio quality is any better with the newer recorders in any meaningful way? Again, I'm not being critical of those that need something specific in the newer gear, but otherwise, I think there is some new gear envy going on here. As long as I don't need more than four channels, or have a big gear failure, I figure I'm set for life, and happy with the outcome.
Click to expand...

The first is hard to say. A LOT of people work professionally around the country and you seem to limit you big users to folks working on TV shows. Think of all the TV/ Cable shows, all the local and national news shows, all the films, all of the Ad's and it adds up to a lot of people. Is that more than the hobby , no budget, micro budget crowd? Probably not since with pocket recorders you have tons of people running around calling themselves "sound" folks of various sorts. I also left off music which also has a huge number of people and that category I think the non professionals out number the professionals by a lot.

The second part. You have top tier gear. Until something changes you should be golden. I have no idea what is going to show up and change the world. I have no doubt that something will. Probably the next big change will be in storage but? It really wasn't that long ago that people were plunking down thousands to get a mono reel to reel portable recorder, and the low rent folks were using stereo cassette decks hacked to use crystal sync. That got killed by DAT which everyone thought would have a long run but ended up being THE thing for a bit over a decade. Recorders with hard drives and then removable media came in like a storm and the reliability and convenience, plus 24 bit and higher sample rates, took out DAT. 48/24 is still the main standard and I don't really see it changing till an equivalent to RAW for audio shows up. For some things you can get some advantage with higher sample rates and there would be some boost to go to 32bit floating point, but neither has had enough plusses to get past the installed user base.

But something like RAW where you can to some extent change recording parameters after the fact would probably be a big enough incentive. That would probably "obsolete" your recorder, though it wouldn't change the fact that you could still do great recordings. DAT is still a very acceptable recording quality, but you can't get tapes anymore, at least not reasonably available. So if some better storage comes along and everyone jumps on, what will kill your recorder is not that it doesn't sound up to snuff but that you can't find cards for it any more. Try finding a RLL hard drive these days...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top