Is the Oktava MK 012 actually still a bargain?

W

WonJohnSoup

Active member
So I'm looking to get a hypercardioid or cardioid for indoor dialogue filming on a boom pole operated by christened on the spot amateurs (no budget type productions for the web). Everything on the web and Barry & David's DVD points to the Oktava MK 012 as a good budget choice, but it looks like everything written on it came from many years ago when it was selling for $70 - $130. Right now (Nov 2013) it's hovering around $280 at the low end with a hypercardoid cap. I dunno, I get the impression that the MK012 is basically a piece of garbage that Oktava got lucky with, for a lack of a better description. I have no problem with that (if anything, that's awesome), but if it was sought after only because it was a great bargain for the price, does that hold up anymore?

I'm looking at something like this, which is $129 http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/audio-technica-pro-37-review/
Or this, $199 http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/C1000Smk4/

I'm looking to keep the price super low but not have to deal with silly hissing or other non-sense. I'm kind of imagining most of the budget in the begining going to a good boompole and windscreen protection. I already have a Zoom H4n with a good XLR cable. I have a shock mount that came with my Rode NTG-2. It's the rubberband kind, which I know isn't great. Again, these projects will have boompoles manned by hobbyist level operators with 10 minutes training. I keep hearing that the Oktava MK 012 is super sensitive to operator handling so that kind of crosses it off the list by itself.

Any good suggestions for a hypercardioid or cardioid mono condenser mic that can be mounted on a boompole for indoor (and maybe outdoor) dialogue shooting? Is it really that huge of a difference? What's the problem with the hyper picking up audio from behind the mic? Why would they even design it like that? Thanx for any help.
 
Last edited:
For $280, the Oktava still offers decent bang for the buck. The quality in the past was a bit spotty, but I think if you buy from the more reputable dealers, that is a non-issue at this point. Others will disagree with that statement.

Probably in your case, the silly hissing has more to do with the weak preamps on your cheapo Zoom recorder than the mic. Especially so if you are using novice help. There is a skill level in this, and your results will be proportional to the skill and effort you put into it. Although you will lose isolation, a cardioid cap will be more foregiving to a novice. Are you monitoring your audio as it is recorded? How or who is riding the audio levels? You must consider the entire audio chain, or you will get crap. Would you let one of the same novices run your cam and expect to get anything worthwhile. Super low priced audio isn't so cheap when it ruins your product.

I can't speak to your other mic choices, but the Oktava is still a fair deal in the economy class.

Grant
 
I have posted about this before but I work on "real" sets with professional sound people all the time. Twice in the last couple months the sound guys have been using the Oktava, when they could use anything they wanted. Be aware they they have some special mod to it where many of the components are replaced with much nicer ones, brings the price up to about $500.
 
Thanx for the input, guys!

I actually haven't gotten any hissing with my equipment so far, sorry for the confusion. I work with an NTG-2 shotgun 5% of the time and with the onboard mics 95% of the time (we are super run and gun and hiding the microphone in the shot has been almost a necessity). With careful placing we usually haven't had a problem. I did get hiss once when I purchased a $15 Radioshack lav mic setup for fun. I've read about "comparable mics" to the Oktava Mk 012 like the Behringer B-5 ($75) having a hiss, but otherwise having similar audio qualities, so it concerned me that maybe a new $125 mic would possibly have a hiss, too.

We don't usually monitor the audio with headphones since we usually don't have enough hands on set for a sound guy (SUPER......run & gun, lol), and again, it's usually the onboard mics hidden in the frame. I usually do an audio levels check before and after the take and try to keep the peaks to about -6dBs, and now I just recently learned I should be keeping it lower than that.

The occasional times I've had a shotgun used on set, we would get the cable clinking onto the painter's pole and the boom op wildly trying to spin the mic around during the middle of a line to "chase the dialogue," leading to the actor's dialogue fading up in volume. I'm thinking the shotgun requires too much skill for them. I was hoping that with a hypercardioid it would be more forgiving for a hobbyist level operator and had really considered the cardioid even above the hypercardioid. The only real hold up is that EVERYONE kept saying you needed a hypercardioid because of some reflection properties, which I don't fully understand (I mean, intuitively, you would think NOT having the rear pickup as a good thing to avoid relection). The Oktava's rep for being finicky to poor boom operating is my biggest concern as of now. So I'm leaning towards one of those listed cheap hypercardioids/cardioids mounted on an expensive internally coiling boom pole.

I do understand I'm compromising on audio half (all?) the time with poor boom op. It's something I've accepted. Luckily we mostly do martial arts action shorts on youtube, and the main draw there for our audience isn't high quality dialogue recordings. So yeah, I'm looking for something that's forgiving above all. Thanx again.
 
Last edited:
Everyone will tell you regardless of your budget, there's no excuse for not monitoring your audio via phones. You have NO idea what you're getting otherwise! Levels only tell part of the story. . .you'll never hear distortion/hiss/whatever until it's too late without phones.

What you're looking for doesn't exist. . .there's no mic that can pick up everything in the room without being close to or pointed at anything specific. No matter what pattern you use, if the speakers aren't really close to the mic it's no good. You might look into wireless mics; that way you won't have to chase anybody. Those come with their own set of issues in addition to the cost of each mic being a problem.
 
Thanks, Josh. You're totally right on the monitoring issue. We've had issues with finding out an entire track being completely unuseable in post even after levels check. Occasionally I plug in a pair of earbuds (I can picture every audiophile blowing a blood vessel right now) after a take at a location to check for anything big, but even then we've had issues with having a super terrible track to work with and releasing. We chug along, though, because it really is an issue sometimes of having a project that's terrible or not having anything at all. Most of my crew being hobbyists, I've learned to compromise on a lot of things, audio only being one.

On that note, I'm basically looking for a setup that's the least terrible of several terrible options. Right now I'm thinking of going with the cardioid Audio Technica Pro 37 combined with a K-tek Avalon internally coiled boompole. One of my concerns with a cardioid (tell me if I'm wrong), is that it has the same drop off as a shotgun, but with less "blinders" on. So we'll pick up some echoing and unwanted ambient, but the distance to the speaker needed to get strong dialogue should be the same as the distance with a shotgun. Does anyone know if this is right or is this very particular to specific microphone models with large differences between? I'm hoping for a setup where the boom op can be instructed to "just float the ball above and in front of the speaker" or "just keep it between the two speakers" and get something useable (not really expecting actual GOOD audio without an experienced op). My other concern is that the Pro 37 is only mentioned on forums and reviews geared specifically towards instrument and sung vocal recordings. I'm looking at the frequency response spec and it seems to match the Oktava here: http://recordinghacks.com/pdf/audio-technica/pro37_english.pdf Should I be concerned that this is very bad for dialogue somehow?

I should mention that I have a photography/cinematography background and one of the most irksome things I get told every time we go shoot with a new camera op is, "Don't worry, just tell me where to point it," as though it's really that simple. Last thing I want to do is give off the same vibe when it comes to audio, which is still voodoo to me. Trust me, I fully understand that I'm trying to make the best of a poor situation and not expecting it to actually be GOOD until we finally assemble a crew with an audio person actually dedicated to the job as it deserves.
 
I'm no expert but I believe with cardioids people will have to be CLOSER than with a shotgun or hyper. Yes, you do get a wider pickup pattern, but unlike with a hyper no rear lobe. The local sound guys I mentioned above also used the cardioid capsule with the Oktava on those shoots, apparently sometime better indoors.

One thing to keep in mind with all this is that it's pretty well-proven that audiences will put up with poor cinematography before they'll put up with poor sound. They may not know when something's badly lit or composed, but they can tell when they can't understand dialogue 'cause it's too distorted, too noisy, too quiet, or too something else I'm forgetting, and they'll quit watching (if you youtube etc.) or tune out (if at a festival) when that happens.

Basically, there's no sound equivalent to "available light." Just doesn't work that way.
 
What's the problem with the hyper picking up audio from behind the mic? Why would they even design it like that? Thanx for any help.
Click to expand...
It's a consequence of physics, so every (true) hyper has it. The hyper picks up much less sound from the sides compared to a cardioid, which for isolation is more important than the existence of a rear lobe (which is usually pointed straight up, not directly at a sound source).

One of my concerns with a cardioid (tell me if I'm wrong), is that it has the same drop off as a shotgun, but with less "blinders" on. So we'll pick up some echoing and unwanted ambient, but the distance to the speaker needed to get strong dialogue should be the same as the distance with a shotgun. Does anyone know if this is right or is this very particular to specific microphone models with large differences between?
Click to expand...
This, as you suspected, is wrong. "Strong dialogue" is mostly about signal to noise (electronic noise or background level), and a cardioid picks up more background sounds than a shotgun, so it need to be closer for the same level of isolation. The wider pattern makes it much easier to boom with though, which seems to be your priority.

I would go for a cardioid, but not the pro37. It has a SNR of 65dB, which would suggest a self-noise of 29dB, which is pretty bad (not a problem for close-micing of instruments, which is what it's made for). The C1000 is big and heavy, so I wouldn't want to boom with that either. I don't have a good suggestion for you, as I've only used an Oktava in that price range (hyper and cardioid). There's a good chance of there being something cheap and good out there, since cardioids are much more common than hypers.

I would buy a decent cardioid on the used market, try it out, and if it doesn't work for you then sell it at the same price.

...and you really should listen to the audio as you're recording (even if it's on earbuds).
 
Last edited:
Jema said:
It's a consequence of physics, so every (true) hyper has it. The hyper picks up much less sound from the sides compared to a cardioid, which for isolation is more important than the existence of a rear lobe (which is usually pointed straight up, not directly at a sound source).


This, as you suspected, is wrong. "Strong dialogue" is mostly about signal to noise (electronic noise or background level), and a cardioid picks up more background sounds than a shotgun, so it need to be closer for the same level of isolation. The wider pattern makes it much easier to boom with though, which seems to be your priority.

I would go for a cardioid, but not the pro37. It has a SNR of 65dB, which would suggest a self-noise of 29dB, which is pretty bad (not a problem for close-micing of instruments, which is what it's made for). The C1000 is big and heavy, so I wouldn't want to boom with that either. I don't have a good suggestion for you, as I've only used an Oktava in that price range (hyper and cardioid). There's a good chance of there being something cheap and good out there, since cardioids are much more common than hypers.

I would buy a decent cardioid on the used market, try it out, and if it doesn't work for you then sell it at the same price.

...and you really should listen to the audio as you're recording (even if it's on earbuds).
Click to expand...

Thanx, Jema. I guess I'll hold off on the Pro37. I read up some more on the SNR and self-noise stuff. Sounds like the minimum standard for film dialogue work would probably be in the low 20s with a preferable value in the mid to high teens? I'm looking at the used market right now and after some hunting and comparison of the specs, this one seems good, maybe almost too good: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...g&matchtype=&gclid=CLHfoebTj7sCFQNqfgodiSgAJA

I've also read about some manufacturers giving numbers too good to believe so I wonder about this one. On the upside it has hyper and cardioid caps so I guess we could experiment with it.
 
IMO, the Oktava 012 is not a good mic for the inexperienced.
They are extremely susceptible to handling (and wind) noise. In addition, it's low output level usually requires very quiet pre amps, or noise could be an issue. There are many other infamous 'issues' with this mic that a buyer should be well aware of prior to laying down money... The attractive price may turn out to be not such a great deal after all. They can sound very good though, and the cardioid capsule should not be overlooked either.
 
I have the akg se300b/blueline mic with the hyper attachment (another modular system like the oktava). That bundle cost me $386 or so altogether. They also have a cardioid attachment that should work for your purposes, though i havent tried it.
 
Cardioids are sort of "the world is yours" right now; you can get some really great mics as Asian manufacturing has improved. Or look into companies like ADK, with bodies and capsules asian-made from their US designs, and US assembly and circuitry. You can get their SD-1 for under $100, good sounding cardioid. Keep in mind the explosion in these mics is due to home studio use, where SPL is much higher and mics are placed much closer than dialogue-on-set scenarios. But I've used the ADK for mic-on-a-stand, run & gun-ish group interview kind of stuff.

Hypers still are a little rare. I spoke to ADK about making a film-specific boom mic for under $200 to fill a gaping market hole (they do make some really amazing pro-level mics), they sort of raised their eyebrows with a "hmmm, didn't know that" but nothing yet. Wish they'd do it.

I'd say a good hyper is pretty much a must-have if you need a small sound kit when you're shooting solo. I'd bite the bullet and look into the AKG, get the Oktava, or keep your eyes out for a used AT4053 which (far as I know) is the best value out there, but $500-$600 new. (I got one for $150 used but that was a total fluke). It's a stellar mic though.
 
First off the Oktava's are not the amazing value they were but they are still very good microphones and a good value.

But I would not recommend them for you.

Judging by what you want to do and what you have been happy with I would not spend a lot on a mic. Maybe later when you feel the need to up the game come back and look for some "better" equipment, but for now I would recommend looking at a CAD CM217. You can get a pair for $60 and they are pretty decent. It's cardioid and decently quiet, very small and light so easy to boom. A pair will give you some flexibility in using them as plant mics or booming two people. They are better than the built in mics you are happy with and they are an extremely good "bang for the buck".

They don't have a lot of bass, but your doing dialog so not really a problem and when you move up they will still be useful for plant mics or FX recording etc. They are cardioid so you will need to be fairly close but really no closer than a hyper. You will pick up more "room" so you do need to be aware of that but the room is more "natural" sounding than the "room" picked up by a shotgun so it tends to be less objectionable and not "echoey", unless of course the room IS echoey (but then you are screwed either way).

They are also very handling noise tolerant. Partly because they don't have a lot of bass.

For a shoot with little or no sound post and inexperienced sound operators/ booms cardioid is probably the better choice.

You could spend a few grand on a really nice mic but running it into a zoom and booming it with an inexperienced operator... You would probably get worse results than with the CAD. High end mics need to be treated well.

You don't want to learn how to drive in a Ferrari.
 
Wow, thanx for the tip, Scott!

Those CAD CM217 characteristics certainly check off the boxes I'm after. I was bidding on an Avantone CK1 since it had three capsules, but lost out.

A voiceover sample here (at 1:12) sounded very bright and tinny to my untrained ears:


It's certainly nothing I can't use (and the H4n sounds kind of overly bright to me, too) so it's top on my list as $25 to learn off of sounds fine to me. It seems to also have a very low SNR. Would it sound incredibly bad at a distance of 4 feet from the talent?

It looks like the AKG Perception 170 is being discontinued and can be had for $80. This voiceover sample (at 7:30) almost sounds TOO low, though. Is it just me?

 
Last edited:
Would it sound incredibly bad at a distance of 4 feet from the talent?
Click to expand...

No mic is going to be "good" at that distance. There is also really never a good reason to be that far away, at least not for dialog. If your DP is framing with four feet of dead space over the heads they are either shooting a wide master shot and you are going to need to use the dialog from the close ups (and you will be able to because they are so far away) or they don't know what they are doing. The third choice is that there is some arty shot going on but most "arty" shots are actually #2, they don't know what they are doing.

That is a bit over stated because I'm sure that someone can pull up some great shots where a mic can't get close and they fully thought it out in advance. Robert Altman for instance likes to do shots with a ton of discrete tracks of iso dialog all going at the same time. But he has the budget for lots of tracks of wireless and multi track recorders. Part of the "art" of filmmaking is understanding what you have to work with and making a great film within those limits. You don't have a bunch of wireless mics so one of your limits is you need to get the mic in to 18 inches or closer of the actor. You can still do those wide shots but all you will record then is scratch track to help line up the sound from the close ups.
 
Last edited:
Noiz2 said:
No mic is going to be "good" at that distance. There is also really never a good reason to be that far away, at least not for dialog. If your DP is framing with four feet of dead space over the heads they are either shooting a wide master shot and you are going to need to use the dialog from the close ups (and you will be able to because they are so far away) or they don't know what they are doing. The third choice is that there is some arty shot going on but most "arty" shots are actually #2, they don't know what they are doing.

That is a bit over stated because I'm sure that someone can pull up some grate shots where a mic can't get close and they fully thought it out in advance. Robert Altman for instance likes to do shots with a ton of discrete tracks of iso dialog all going at the same time. But he has the budget for lots of tracks of wireless and multi track recorders. Part of the "art" of filmmaking is understanding what you have to work with and making a great film within those limits. You don't have a bunch of wireless mics so one of your limits is you need to get the mic in to 18 inches or closer of the actor. You can still do those wide shots but all you will record then is scratch track to help line up the sound from the close ups.
Click to expand...

Thanx, Scott. Sounds good. I think I'm just going to get the CADs you recommended and see where it goes. One last note: any thoughts on the Behringer C-2s? There's a local used seller willing to let them go for $30 for a pair. Heard the self-noise is really bad with the hiss.

Thanx again, everyone! I'll try to report back with the results and update this thread for other folks in the same boat.
 
Behringer is all over the map so? They make/ made some very decent gear and they make some Cr%^. The mics are almost certainly rebranded Chinese knock offs so they could be OK or they might be dodgy. The one thing that has been consistent in my experience with Behringer is that their QA is almost nonexistent. I have opened packaging to find parts of the equipment rolling around inside. I got a box where 1/2 of the XLR connectors were no longer bolted on and the nuts and lock washers were loose IN SIDE the box. So while I would not coss them off out of hand I would only buy IF you can return for refund/ replacement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top