I just started got started in filmmaking......zero experience what so ever. I've bough Barry's DVD set, but have no idea how to get audio into my cameras. I currently have the Canon HF G10, Nikon D7000, and a Canon 5DmII that are available for me to use. I saw that lots of people use the H4n...so I bought that, and the Seinheisner g3 b/c it came cheap as a package with the Zoom. I thought I had it figured out until I watch Barry's video. Now it seems like I need a hypercardioid and a shotgun mic. Would someone help me clarify a few things. First I thought that the mic, which ever I chose, goes into the H4n for recording, with a duplicate copy going to the camera. Is that it? Am I missing a mixer or preamp or something?
I'm lost....help me with my audio please
- Thread starter HereinCS
- Start date
Richard Crowley
Veteran
There are many different ways of micing and recording audio. Easily more options that you probably have for shooting the pictures.
The decision about what kind of microphone to use for a particular scene is dependent on many factors, not the least of which is what resources you have. That would include what equipment you have available and what is your budget (if any) for equipment acquisition or rental.
So it sounds like you have several cameras, but none of them are particularly suitable for recording serious sound tracks.
And it sounds like you have a Zoom H4N recorder and a Sennheiser G3 wireless transmitter/receiver. Is that correct?
The Zoom H4N almost certainly records sound better than any of those cameras, so it would be a better choice during production. But whatever sound is captured by the cameras is very useful for synchronizing the H4N sound to the video during post-production (editing).
Certainly there are some situations where a clip-on lav mic (like the Sennheiser) is the ideal (or quite workable) choice. But there are other situations where it wouldn't have any reasonable chance of capturing the sound properly.
Many people use microphones connected directly to the Zoom H4N, so you are not limited by not having a mixer.
However you appear to be significantly limited by not having some kind of microphone you can use from a boom (like a shotgun for exteriors, or hypercardioid for interiors, etc.) But, of course, that depends on what kinds of things you are shooting (which you have not revealed here).
The decision about what kind of microphone to use for a particular scene is dependent on many factors, not the least of which is what resources you have. That would include what equipment you have available and what is your budget (if any) for equipment acquisition or rental.
So it sounds like you have several cameras, but none of them are particularly suitable for recording serious sound tracks.
And it sounds like you have a Zoom H4N recorder and a Sennheiser G3 wireless transmitter/receiver. Is that correct?
The Zoom H4N almost certainly records sound better than any of those cameras, so it would be a better choice during production. But whatever sound is captured by the cameras is very useful for synchronizing the H4N sound to the video during post-production (editing).
Certainly there are some situations where a clip-on lav mic (like the Sennheiser) is the ideal (or quite workable) choice. But there are other situations where it wouldn't have any reasonable chance of capturing the sound properly.
Many people use microphones connected directly to the Zoom H4N, so you are not limited by not having a mixer.
However you appear to be significantly limited by not having some kind of microphone you can use from a boom (like a shotgun for exteriors, or hypercardioid for interiors, etc.) But, of course, that depends on what kinds of things you are shooting (which you have not revealed here).
Looks like you've picked up some surface info, but haven't really concentrated in-depth on this stuff. First, check through the information in Audio 101:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?247260-Audio-101-Helpful-links-and-information
Second, audio is not as simple as having one, wireless mic system and a recorder. There are different mics for different purposes. Generally speaking, shotgun mics are for outdoors and hypercardioids are for indoors. Both should be mounted on a fish pole (boom) with proper suspension (shock mount) and windscreening. Lavs are great for seated, "news-style" interviews.
Wireless is a last resort. It's great for some things but the adage is, "Whenever able, use a cable." Wireless will fail. Period. That's just the nature of the beast. Plus, due to companding, wireless has a bit of a squashed dynamic range. Due to placement, a lav is also a much drier, less "natural" sound.
As for the mixer and pre-amp, putting a mixer in front of your recorder will increase the quality of your results tenfold. A good mixer will have pre-amps that outperform the pre-amps in the H4n. That said, you can use the H4n without a mixer.
And for getting the audio into your cameras, well... DSLRs require certain workarounds to get audio into them. Typically, they have 1/8" stereo inputs that require mic-level signals, but they also have pretty lousy audio quality. The HF G10 also takes 1/8" stereo mic-level input. Of note, the Sound Devices MixPre-D has a special output designed specifically for feeding DSLR cameras. Of course, if you are recording to the H4n or any other external recorder, it isn't absolutely necessary to record to camera as well. You'll get better results with an external recorder.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?247260-Audio-101-Helpful-links-and-information
Second, audio is not as simple as having one, wireless mic system and a recorder. There are different mics for different purposes. Generally speaking, shotgun mics are for outdoors and hypercardioids are for indoors. Both should be mounted on a fish pole (boom) with proper suspension (shock mount) and windscreening. Lavs are great for seated, "news-style" interviews.
Wireless is a last resort. It's great for some things but the adage is, "Whenever able, use a cable." Wireless will fail. Period. That's just the nature of the beast. Plus, due to companding, wireless has a bit of a squashed dynamic range. Due to placement, a lav is also a much drier, less "natural" sound.
As for the mixer and pre-amp, putting a mixer in front of your recorder will increase the quality of your results tenfold. A good mixer will have pre-amps that outperform the pre-amps in the H4n. That said, you can use the H4n without a mixer.
And for getting the audio into your cameras, well... DSLRs require certain workarounds to get audio into them. Typically, they have 1/8" stereo inputs that require mic-level signals, but they also have pretty lousy audio quality. The HF G10 also takes 1/8" stereo mic-level input. Of note, the Sound Devices MixPre-D has a special output designed specifically for feeding DSLR cameras. Of course, if you are recording to the H4n or any other external recorder, it isn't absolutely necessary to record to camera as well. You'll get better results with an external recorder.
Last edited:
A mixer is, effectively, multiple pre-amps bundled together. The pre-amps in the H4n, while much better than what your cameras offer, are not the best. Adding a good mixer gives you better pre-amps, allowing you to send a stronger signal to the recorder and effectively bypass the pre-amps in the recorder. The challenge there is that the H4n can't actually take a proper line-level signal, so you still have to go through its pre-amps. By sending a stronger input signal to the recorder, the input gain can be lowered which will also lower the amount of noise that the H4n's pre-amps can add to the signal.
Having more than two channels (such as with the 3-channel Sound Devices 302, or the 5-channel Sound Devices 552) means that you can use more than two mics at a time.
The other benefit of a mixer is signal routing. A field mixer will have pan control either through hard L-C-R switching or through rotary pan control. This allows you to send a mic to one channel or the other, or to both. This means that you can go straight from using a single mic sent to both record tracks, to using two mics sent to separate record tracks, simply with the flip of a couple of switches.
Respectfully, I don't think a mixer will increase the quality of your audio tenfold. That's a pretty big number. I never use a mixer when recording unless I need more than 24 tracks. But of course at some point that audio will get mixed down, usually on a computer. I also don't hear a difference of more than say, 5-10 percent in the preamps of a reasonably good flash recorder like the the Fostex FR2LE and very expensive gear costing thousands of dollars. Others are firm believers in preamps. I have maybe 10-12 stereo preamps I don't use any more. One box to rule them all.
However--audio is very personal, just like wine tasting, and everyone has their likes and dislikes about preamps, headphones, AD converters, and so on. And that is the way it should be.
So if you really want to see if there is a difference, you must "taste test" the gear yourself.
Practically, if one were worried that, down the line, a mixer should be employed, the Tascam DR680 has excellent preamps, flash recording and a basic mixer built in. There certainly are occasions where a mixer comes in handy, like providing a stage monitor, but I don't see any reason not to just track the audio, 24 bit, one mic per channel. If you think you might need it someday, no reason not to go for the Tascam, as it is a great budget recorder. As much as possible, try to imagine all the situations you will be in, and then see what gear you will need.
Microphone placement will affect the sound of your final product more than most other factors.
As Richard says, "There are many different ways of micing and recording audio"--and some people rely on mixers, and some don't. Just don't buy one unless you need it, and hey, you may need it. I have a friend who does sound for Broadway shows, and he always uses his mixer.
As Alex says, "You'll get better results with an external recorder." But I also know ppl who take very expensive mics and run them line level to the camcorder. Lots of ways to go.
There is so much good information on this site, just read through it patiently (see the links Alex posted), then decide what works for you.
However--audio is very personal, just like wine tasting, and everyone has their likes and dislikes about preamps, headphones, AD converters, and so on. And that is the way it should be.
So if you really want to see if there is a difference, you must "taste test" the gear yourself.
Practically, if one were worried that, down the line, a mixer should be employed, the Tascam DR680 has excellent preamps, flash recording and a basic mixer built in. There certainly are occasions where a mixer comes in handy, like providing a stage monitor, but I don't see any reason not to just track the audio, 24 bit, one mic per channel. If you think you might need it someday, no reason not to go for the Tascam, as it is a great budget recorder. As much as possible, try to imagine all the situations you will be in, and then see what gear you will need.
Microphone placement will affect the sound of your final product more than most other factors.
As Richard says, "There are many different ways of micing and recording audio"--and some people rely on mixers, and some don't. Just don't buy one unless you need it, and hey, you may need it. I have a friend who does sound for Broadway shows, and he always uses his mixer.
As Alex says, "You'll get better results with an external recorder." But I also know ppl who take very expensive mics and run them line level to the camcorder. Lots of ways to go.
There is so much good information on this site, just read through it patiently (see the links Alex posted), then decide what works for you.
Last edited:
Wow...those sound devices are expensive! Still have to buy the boom mics so I'll have to stick with the h4n alone for a while. I do notice that most super cardioid mics that are in my price range are mono.....Do I need some sort of stereo adapter or will I just duplicate the sound to the other channel in software?
Last edited:
That was also hyperbole, and not intended as a factual number. But, the fact is that the pre-amps in the Zoom H4n are, in the grand scheme of things, pretty lousy. Not as lousy as those in the DSLR cameras that the OP is using, but still not as clean as something from Sound Devices.
Also, the H4n pre-amps are a bit weak, and struggle to drive certain microphones. For example, users of the NTG-2 often pop up on the forum talking about how the H4n's input level must be cranked almost all the way up just to get audio that's somewhere close to -12dB. At that point, with the pres wide open, the self noise is even worse.
24 tracks? Are we talking about studio recording or dialog for film/video? In the world of film and television, mixers are very, very handy. No, they're not always necessary, but this is a specialized field where mixers are quite common.
Why would a mixer be needed?
- For some EFP shows, especially like the ones I've worked on for several cable networks, we're in the field with a small sound kit and a camera. Recording straight to camera (previously BetaSP, then DBeta, now Sony CineAlta or similar), we'd be at a house or in a restaurant or other business with a program host and two homeowners/business proprietors. At that point, I'm dealing usually with three wireless lav systems and only two record channels. The mixer allows those mics to be split up so that the host is iso'd, and the two homeowners/proprietors are on the second channel. The latter must be mixed during production to avoid things like phase cancellation.
- On film sets, even with an 8-track recorder (or larger), the mixer will do just that: mix. There's often a stereo recorder, or the last two tracks of the multi-track recorder, keeping a stereo mix. And again, on a set that's using multiple mics, the mixer must keep an ear on the mix to avoid phase cancellation and other problems.
- For multi-cam production that as produced as-live, all sources must be mixed and recorded to the master reel, even if cameras are backed up to iso reels and mics are tracked individually.
- Even on the simple shoots where only one mic is needed, a mixer allows more flexible signal routing to send one mic to two record channels. If the mixer has rotary pan control, as opposed to hard-switched L-C-R, the mixer also allows configuring of the safety track by panning the mic's input off-center, to about 10:00. When using only one mic, it's a good idea to have that safety channel just in case. With only two mics, the mixer acts simply as dual pre-amps and sends the mics on to separate record channels.
Having even a compact mixer is about flexibility.
Sound for a Broadway show vs. dialog to camera is comparing apples to bicycles. Those applications are drastically different. As for recording mics line-level to camera, well... that requires three things. First, the mic has to be brought up to line level before being sent to the camera, which requires a pre-amp, which a mixer can do. Second, it requires a camera that can accept line-level signals. In the context of the OP, we're talking about cameras that offer only 1/8" mic-level input. Third, it requires that the camera has decent audio recording. There are plenty of cameras out there that don't require second-system sound for good results, but DSLR cameras are still challenged in that department as are many of the consumer-level (or semi-prosumer) camcorders/palmcorders.
Last edited:
Most mics are "mono". In fact, while there are stereo mics out there (which are really just two mic capsules housed together in one device), they are not suited for on-camera dialog use.
The H4n has a mono sum feature in the menus that will allow you to record one mic to two channels. When it comes to post, however, generally only one of the recorded tracks will be used in the mix. The stereo files from the H4n would be split into two mono files. There's no need to use both.
And yes, the Sound Devices gear is pretty pricey... but you get what you pay for.
Steve House
Veteran
Addtional reasons to use a mixer ahead of the recorder - beyond increased flexibility, allowing the use of more than 2 mics, and the better preamps a mixer typically provides over those found in inexpensive consumer recorders like the H4n - would include more accessable level controls allowing the operator to better ride gain during the take, superior metering, and vastly superior limiters to better prevent clipping.
Steve House
Veteran
When people speak their voices come from a single location in space. Stereo is for sources that are spread out and have some left/right dimensionality such as, say, a band on a stage. Because the voice is a point source, dialog, interviews, standups, etc are typically recorded in mono. In post the single mono track is panned equally into the left and right stereo channels so it appears centered in the screen, thus centred in the audience's field of attention.
Thanks everyone for the inputs. I'll proceed with my newbie questions if you don't mind. I read here and there that people ask which mic to match with which.... I'm getting a shotgun and a hypercardioid, do they have to be tonally matched? For instance, top on my list is the AKG blue/93 for the hypercardioid and an at875r for the shotgun. Do these match reasonably? By matching is it the tonal quality or the mic sensitivity that I should look for?
People talk about matching them tonally. It's about continuity throughout a production, from indoors to outdoors. You won't be intercutting the two mics within the same scene, and it's not a terribly crucial detail since moving from indoors to out or vice versa refreshes the viewer's perspective. As long as the mics are both decently balanced in tone, audio post production can smooth everything out. What you don't want to do is try to work with a shotgun that sounds rich and full and a hyper that sounds thin and tinny, or the other way around.
The CK93 and the 875r are going to be a bit off, but I'm not sure how much it will really matter for you in the end. There are better shotguns out there than the 875r, but if you don't have a pre-amp (mixer) in front of your H4n then your options are limited... the 875r seems to be one of the few that plays nice with the H4n's pres.
The CK93 and the 875r are going to be a bit off, but I'm not sure how much it will really matter for you in the end. There are better shotguns out there than the 875r, but if you don't have a pre-amp (mixer) in front of your H4n then your options are limited... the 875r seems to be one of the few that plays nice with the H4n's pres.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Kind of, not really. Stereo is for recording something in context, to pick up the whole sound field and not just what you point at. You will be doing dialog in mono because you want to, as much as possible, record only that dialog and not the rest of the "world". Whether it's a band spread out across the stage or a single singer in the center, IF your goal is to capture the "experience" stereo is a better choice. In narrative film your going to create the "experience" when you edit the film, not capturing it when you shoot.
There are a few practical reasons also but the bottom line is you want to record dialog in mono 99.999% of the time. There are times when you might want to go stereo but you really need to think it out because your adding problems down the line so you need to make sure it's worth it. It almost never is.
Is there a better tonally matched set of boom mics? I've looked at the Oktava mk12 'fim edition'. Is there a difference between the film edition and the bella negro edition? Would I be better off changing from the AKG to the Oktava? Or is it easier to change the shotgun? Is the 416 or the ntg-3 a better match? My budget is not huge, but I'd rather get it right the first time. Seems every time I tried to save money, I end up spending more anyways.
Bingo! Buy right, and buy once. There are some projects where budget is non-existent and they aren't intended to be career-builders (home videos and such). But if quality and professionalism matter, yes, you should get it right the first time.
The NTG-3 is a splendid shotgun. So is the 416, which has been an industry standard for a long time. In fact, the RØDE NTG-3 is good enough that it took a big chunk out of Sennheiser's 416 sales (pretty much the same quality for half the price), prompting Sennheiser to drop the price of the 416. Sennheiser also has a new player in the game, the MKH 8060, that's filled the original price point of the 416. It's new, and I've not worked with it, but it is reported to be quite nice.
As for the Oktava, the only difference between the standard MK012 and the Bella Nero version is that the Bella Nero is painted black. My understanding is that the "Film Edition" was a marketing step before they came out with the Bella Nero. They're all the same MK012 hypercardioid inside. You can get the Oktava instead of the CK93, but it's not necessary if you can afford either. You might also consider the Audio Technica 4053b.
I called my local music store and here's the quotes I got:
1. AKG/93 ~$380
2. Otaktava. only online: Film edition which is what the seller recommended to reduce handling noise: $345. Apparently handling noise is a big issue with the Oktava
3. NTG-3: $675
4. 416: $785
All these can be worked into my budget, but is there a combo that works better than one or the other?
1. AKG/93 ~$380
2. Otaktava. only online: Film edition which is what the seller recommended to reduce handling noise: $345. Apparently handling noise is a big issue with the Oktava
3. NTG-3: $675
4. 416: $785
All these can be worked into my budget, but is there a combo that works better than one or the other?
Steve House
Veteran
Agreed - was just trying to simpliify the discussion a bit to the general case. There are certainly situations where you want to capture the context of the sound or the space in which it occuring - an acoustic performance, for example, or perhaps as-it's-happening reportage sound for a doco. But in most narrative film the space in which the scene takes place is a construction of post-production. The object on set is to get clean dialog that can be freely intercut with other takes and placed where desired in the acoustic space being created. Certainly voice-over should be free of any sense of the space it which it was captured - by definition it is isolated from the reality portrayed within the frame, commentary on the scene rather than a part of it.
I'd be suspcious of a 416 that's selling for $785. Most reputable dealers have them for $999.
As for the Oktava, handling noise is an issue but is tamed with proper shock mounting. A Rycote InVision 6 lyre system is going to take care of that, along with proper decoupling of the XLR cable. Windscreening is the other issue, and a Baby Ball Gag is probably the best thing you can put on the front of a hypercardioid. The best place to get an Oktava (Bella Nero) is: http://www.sound-room.com/inc/sdetail/474
Which two mics to get? That's really up to you. If you have some one local who has them, see if you can demo them for a couple hours. See which sounds better to you. I used a 416 for years. I now run mostly with an NTG-3.
Honestly, at this point my ears are not trained to detect the tonal differences between any mic. I've tried listening to some on youtube, and within a certain group, say shotguns, I can tell a bit of difference. But there is nothing good that compares say an oktava with a ngt-3. I kinda have my heart set on the AKG because most of the reviews here seem to favor it over the Oktava. Not much difference in price. Will that go well with the NTG-3?