Mic on hotshoe??

Ryder, the JuicedLink mixers are switchable between mic and line, so you're good. The 1/8" cable that goes to the camera is so short that hum is not a problem. It's when you get long cable runs that you get interference with your signal. That's why we use XLR. But if you watched the first guys 2 videos, he said he got hum with one cheap cable, but didn't on a better cable.

Do any of these ideas help you? You have not stated things we need to help you like what your budget is. What are you willing to save for, what do you plan on using, or borrowing as far as mics go? What mics do you have now? Exact model numbers so we know just where you stand.
 
Justyn, getting into an M/S situation here is really beyond where we're at. We're just trying to get the basics covered. I like the concept though!
 
Justyn said:
Some good points. I personally like to record all of my talent with my M/S mike. Gives me the mono option but also with stereo imaging when they get off axis. This is how the BBC records a lot of their audio.. especially for run and gun reality stuff. It works very well.
Click to expand...
A person speaking is a point source of sound, their voice coming from a single location in space, not a broad, spread-out source like a symphony orchestra. A point source is by definition a mono source and hence any recording of it is a mono recording. All recording stereo of a person speaking does is widen the pickup field so that superfluous environmental sounds and reverb, etc, are even more likely to interfere with the speech. You get more ambient noise in the recording but have no benefit for the speech itself. Since the objective of location dialog recording is to capture the voice as cleanly as possible, eliminating environmental sounds completely if it's possible to do so, recording dialog in stereo is self-defeating. Enironmental sounds, "atmos," to establish the reality of a scene are added in the controlled environment of post-production, not recorded with the voice out in the field. You might want to use M/S stereo in a reality show in order to capture the atmos without going to a separate recording in the interest of reducing post-production audio work, but one needs to remember that such a shortcut will inevitably compromise the quality of the speech recording itself. Remember too that dialog is always mixed centred on the screen. A two-shot with Bill screen left and Mary screen right with not be mixed with Bill's voice on the left channel and Mary's on the right. Instead both with be mixed equally left and right so the sound is centred on the screen. That way the soundfield doesn't jump about confusing the audience experience as the shots are cut from the establishing shot to reverse on Bill, then reverse on Mary, then back to Bill etc. If you want a certain sound to be a little left or right of centre as the shots intercut, it's a simple little twist of the pan-pot on that actor's channel coinciding with the cut to move its position in the final stereo mix. Also, if you record stereo in the field, where do you point the mic? You don't want the soundfield itself to be twisting and turning in space like you were falling down the space warp surrounding a black hole. That means the stereo mic has to be kept pointed in a single fixed direction and the talent moves about in its pickup field. No following Bill with the mic as he moves from screen left to screen right - the mic is always pointed to screen centre in the establishing shot and it doesn't move away from that position when you go to the closeups and reverses.
 
Last edited:
Chadfish said:
Do any of these ideas help you? You have not stated things we need to help you like what your budget is. What are you willing to save for, what do you plan on using, or borrowing as far as mics go? What mics do you have now? Exact model numbers so we know just where you stand.
Click to expand...

Yes this has been very helpful. Right now the only sound equipment that I have is the Zoom H1 recorder. Mine has the battery drain defect, so I will return it and put the money towards audio gear that I can learn from and that will serve me in the long run.

Based on the advice I have so far, I would like to start with a good mono mic and mixer feeding into the camera. Ideally I would like the option to plug the mic directly into the camera for times when the mixer is not available. I don't know whether it's feasible to have a converter that converts XLR into 1/8", or if this means I need two mics. Eventually, when I get a recorder I would use the mic directly in the camera for backup or additional channels.

Do you think it's wise to have a mixer before having a recorder?

I am upgrading from Nikon D90 (which of course has no mic input) to either Nikon D7000 or Panasonic GH2. Depending on the camera I choose, I should have between $500 (with GH2) and $800 (with D7000) to spend on audio after I return the Zoom H1. (The reason I have more left after buying a D7000 is that I already have lenses for it; with the GH2, I'd be getting the kit lens).

I believe that both the D7000 and the GH2 have the option to turn off AGC.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much for explaining this to me!

Steve House said:
A person speaking is a point source of sound, their voice coming from a single location in space, not a broad, spread-out source like a symphony orchestra. A point source is by definition a mono source and hence any recording of it is a mono recording. All recording stereo of a person speaking does is widen the pickup field so that superfluous environmental sounds and reverb, etc, are even more likely to interfere with the speech. You get more ambient noise in the recording but have no benefit for the speech itself. Since the objective of location dialog recording is to capture the voice as cleanly as possible, eliminating environmental sounds completely if it's possible to do so, recording dialog in stereo is self-defeating. Enironmental sounds, "atmos," to establish the reality of a scene are added in the controlled environment of post-production, not recorded with the voice out in the field. You might want to use M/S stereo in a reality show in order to capture the atmos without going to a separate recording in the interest of reducing post-production audio work, but one needs to remember that such a shortcut will inevitably compromise the quality of the speech recording itself. Remember too that dialog is always mixed centred on the screen. A two-shot with Bill screen left and Mary screen right with not be mixed with Bill's voice on the left channel and Mary's on the right. Instead both with be mixed equally left and right so the sound is centred on the screen. That way the soundfield doesn't jump about confusing the audience experience as the shots are cut from the establishing shot to reverse on Bill, then reverse on Mary, then back to Bill etc. If you want a certain sound to be a little left or right of centre as the shots intercut, it's a simple little twist of the pan-pot on that actor's channel coinciding with the cut to move its position in the final stereo mix. Also, if you record stereo in the field, where do you point the mic? You don't want the soundfield itself to be twisting and turning in space like you were falling down the space warp surrounding a black hole. That means the stereo mic has to be kept pointed in a single fixed direction and the talent moves about in its pickup field. No following Bill with the mic as he moves from screen left to screen right - the mic is always pointed to screen centre in the establishing shot and it doesn't move away from that position when you go to the closeups and reverses.
Click to expand...
 
You should look at the Canon 60D. It has manual audio levels and an articulating screen - great for video.
 
Steve House said:
A person speaking is a point source of sound, their voice coming from a single location in space, not a broad, spread-out source like a symphony orchestra. A point source is by definition a mono source and hence any recording of it is a mono recording. All recording stereo of a person speaking does is widen the pickup field so that superfluous environmental sounds and reverb, etc, are even more likely to interfere with the speech. You get more ambient noise in the recording but have no benefit for the speech itself. Since the objective of location dialog recording is to capture the voice as cleanly as possible, eliminating environmental sounds completely if it's possible to do so, recording dialog in stereo is self-defeating. Enironmental sounds, "atmos," to establish the reality of a scene are added in the controlled environment of post-production, not recorded with the voice out in the field. You might want to use M/S stereo in a reality show in order to capture the atmos without going to a separate recording in the interest of reducing post-production audio work, but one needs to remember that such a shortcut will inevitably compromise the quality of the speech recording itself. Remember too that dialog is always mixed centred on the screen. A two-shot with Bill screen left and Mary screen right with not be mixed with Bill's voice on the left channel and Mary's on the right. Instead both with be mixed equally left and right so the sound is centred on the screen. That way the soundfield doesn't jump about confusing the audience experience as the shots are cut from the establishing shot to reverse on Bill, then reverse on Mary, then back to Bill etc. If you want a certain sound to be a little left or right of centre as the shots intercut, it's a simple little twist of the pan-pot on that actor's channel coinciding with the cut to move its position in the final stereo mix. Also, if you record stereo in the field, where do you point the mic? You don't want the soundfield itself to be twisting and turning in space like you were falling down the space warp surrounding a black hole. That means the stereo mic has to be kept pointed in a single fixed direction and the talent moves about in its pickup field. No following Bill with the mic as he moves from screen left to screen right - the mic is always pointed to screen centre in the establishing shot and it doesn't move away from that position when you go to the closeups and reverses.
Click to expand...

very well said.
 
Rider said:
Based on the advice I have so far, I would like to start with a good mono mic and mixer feeding into the camera. Ideally I would like the option to plug the mic directly into the camera for times when the mixer is not available. I don't know whether it's feasible to have a converter that converts XLR into 1/8", or if this means I need two mics. Eventually, when I get a recorder I would use the mic directly in the camera for backup or additional channels.

Do you think it's wise to have a mixer before having a recorder?
Click to expand...


I think it's better in the long run to get an XLR mic, like the NTG-2. It can run on phantom, and has about 6db less noise when running on phantom, but it can also run on a single AA battery. It is advisable to put it through a mixer like the AGC defeating Juicedlink, however you can also plug it straight into an 1/8" jack on a DSLR using this cheap adapter that takes the mono signal and puts it in both channels:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/158476-REG/Hosa_Technology_XVM_101F_Mini_Stereo_Male_to.html

With that and a simple shock mount that can be used either in the camera's hot shoe, or on a boom pole, you would be covered in most situations:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/398316-REG/Rode_SM3_SM3_On_Camera_Shockmount.html

Actually, looking at this package I see you save 50.00 on buying these things separately:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/481528-REG/Rode_NTG_2_Condenser_Shotgun_Microphone.html

I still think a mixer will give you nice meters, and clean phantom power, and some gain to allow you to have your camera levels lower, resulting in less noise.

http://www.juicedlink.com/audio-preamps-mixers-etc-c-66/jl-dt454

700.00 total roughly for everything I just mentioned. Using a mixer is better than going straight into a recorder, or a camera, so It's up to you whether you want a mixer before a recorder. Since that JuicedLink has both mic/line output, you could theoretically use the simple Zoom H1 for 100.00 more with all your gear, and be recording 24 bit audio in 2 channels. I can't say anything about how good/bad the Hi is as a recorder used this way, but with some careful attention paid to levels it should work just fine.
 
Going back to the initial thought in this thread, you have to realize the purpose of a mini-plug shotgun. They are there simply to give you a better option than using the built-in microphone.

It all depends on what you're shooting. If you're making a narrative film, you're going to want to have a mixer, a recorder, and some good location mics - and a person there to operate that equipment who knows what they're doing.

If you use a mini-plug shotgun mic mounted on top of your camera for a narrative film - your film is going to suffer. Your audience will notice, if in fact your poor sounding work ever finds an audience (with Paranormal Activity being an exception to this rule).

That said, buying a mini-plug shotgun mic isn't pointless. I own a complete location sound kit, yet I still want to buy a mini-plug shotgun mic.

I want one to carry in my camera bag. I plan on picking up either a 60D or a GH2 in the next few months, and I want a small shotgun in my bag so I can shoot videos with better sound. That's why these kinds of mics exist.

After exhaustive research, I plan on buying a Sennheiser MKE 400. However, I also plan on buying either the Sennheiser MZW400 "hairy" windscreen, or the Rycote Mini Windjammer that they make for the MKE 400. Here they are:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/541886-REG/Sennheiser_MZW400_MZW400_Wind_muff_and_XLR.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/564871-REG/Rycote_055364_Mini_Windjammer_for_Sennheiser.html

Using a shotgun outdoors without a fuzzy windscreen is like using a fast lens with a wide aperture in a snow covered landscape with six suns shining overhead at high noon.

If you're intimidated by XLR cables, I don't think that jumping into a DT454 is the best way to start out. That XLR adapter is actually really deep, audio knowledge wise. It's a good recommendation, but you must know that it's also a steep learning curve. An MKE 400 with a proper windscreen will get up up and running in a snap. But, if you're shooting a real film, you need to dig deeper. For "everytime I pick up my camera" type of shooting, a little shotgun often makes more sense.
 
Looks like the benefit of that Sennheiser is the small size. Sounds like the benefit of the VideoMic is the sound quality.

 
I'm not into the sound of the Rode Video Mic. It's got more lower mids than the MKE 400, but to my ears, the high frequencies sound like they're inside a plastic box. The highs are present, they just have too much of a noticeable shape.

Yes, smallness is the true benefit of the MKE 400, but its size would be irrelevant if it didn't sound good. Like the Rode Video Mic, the MKE 400 also isn't natural sounding. But the sound that it captures is really impressive considering its size.

Compactness aside, another area that the MKE 400 wins in is its build quality. Its body is metal, and the Rode Video Mic is plastic. I'm convinced that the integrated plastic shockmount and wobbly rubber band suspenders wouldn't last as long as the MKE 400. I plan on carrying around the mic and the camera in a small bag not every day, but regularly. The MKE 400 fits the bill better for my needs, but I still think it's the better sounding mic for video.
 
I guess if you're looking for a simple mic for point & shoot recording on a DSLR the Senn would be fun due to it's size. Personally I like the low end on the VideoMic, though even the NTG-2 (same capsule) is darker than I prefer But if I were making a film I would use neither. I like a mic sound somewhere between the two.
 
Thank you both again! I am surprised that the characteristics of the different mics show up even on the internet (I'm referring to Chad's test of the different Lavs as well as the Videomic v. Sen MKE 400 comparison). Do you ever try to add "depth" in post if for some reason the recording didn't have it?

I will stop by B&H sooon, maybe before the weekend. A couple of minor follow-ups before I do:

(1) Chad said that NTG-2 was "dark" sounding. I was wondering what that means.

(2) Although the NTG-2 and Videomic have the same sound capsule, they don't have the same freq response (20 Hz on the low end for NTG-2 v 40 Hz for the videomic) or the same signal to noise ratio (76 db v, 74db). Is this due to the NTG-2's XLR connector, and if so do you lose that advantage once you attach a 1/8" adapter?

(3) The simple AGC defeating trick that doesn't work with the Videomic--I wonder whether it would work with the NTG-2 1/8" adapter.

(4) If the camera I choose does not have AGC and maybe even shows levels (such as the GH2), would you recommend one of the other Juicedlink mixers that do not have the extra DSLR features?

(5) I have shot video with awful AGC hiss already. I am experimenting with Soundbooth to see how I can get rid of it. I haven't had success getting rid of it completely yet.

Thanks again. This has been very educational.
 
You may have some sucess removing background noise from AGC, but it will never sound as if you just didn't use AGC. When I say the NTG-2 sounds "dark" I mean there is less high end than say, the NTG-3 which I love. Ty Ford on the other hand has said to me that he preferrs the NTG-2 as it sounds more natural to him. It's up to your preference, byt I like the sound of the NTG-3 and the extra sensitivity, as well as the design that rejects RF and humidity. Anyway, "Dark" is more bass heavy with less highs, and "bright" has more high end the way I use the terms.

The Canon 60D has manual audio levels, but no level meters (I think). I plan on getting that camera. It also has an articulating screen - a must for me. You do not need the special AGC JuicedLink mixer if your camera has manual audio, but you do want one with phantom power. One thing too though, is that the AGC defeating mixer also has level meters. That's important to me. Of course your ears are important too - always wear headphones. Just look at the JuicedLink site for the mixer you want. There is one 2 channel mixer with phantom doe 300.0 or so dollars. The cheaper ones do not have phantom. Even if you don't need phantom yet, it's good to have it. If you ever get a pro mic you'll have to buy another mixer then, so just pop for the extra 100.00 bucks now and be prepared.

I don't know why the VideoMic has a 40hz low end, vs the NTG-2's 20hz. I'd get the NTG-2 man. You can get the 9.00 cable to go from that to your DSLR (Just like the VideoMic), yet still have a more pro mic to use with XLR cables whe you want to grow. I say stretch your budget a little now, and save having to replace things for even more money later. A mixer, IMO, is not an option when recording into a camera with consumer audio like a DSLR. You got to get that sound right.
 
Rider said:
(2) Although the NTG-2 and Videomic have the same sound capsule, they don't have the same freq response (20 Hz on the low end for NTG-2 v 40 Hz for the videomic) or the same signal to noise ratio (76 db v, 74db). Is this due to the NTG-2's XLR connector, and if so do you lose that advantage once you attach a 1/8" adapter?
Click to expand...

They are two completely different mics, so they're going to sound totally different. You can't really learn very much about mics when you look at and compare specs.

Rider said:
(4) If the camera I choose does not have AGC and maybe even shows levels (such as the GH2), would you recommend one of the other Juicedlink mixers that do not have the extra DSLR features?
Click to expand...

Yes. The CX231 is a good choice.
 
Rider said:
...
(2) Although the NTG-2 and Videomic have the same sound capsule, they don't have the same freq response (20 Hz on the low end for NTG-2 v 40 Hz for the videomic) or the same signal to noise ratio (76 db v, 74db). Is this due to the NTG-2's XLR connector, and if so do you lose that advantage once you attach a 1/8" adapter?

...
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "adapter." If you're plugging into a Juicedlink or into a mixer, you don't lose the balanced XLR advantages. But if it's a simple adapter plug or cable, unbalancing any part of the cable unbalances everything from the mic down.

There's no inherent signal quality difference in balanced versus unbalanced or XLR versus TS or TRS. XLR is used for pro gear because of its reliability and ruggedness. It doesn't sound any different.
 
Rider said:
With the CX321, I'd have to make sure the camera or other recorder has a headphone jack for monitoring, correct?
Click to expand...
'

Yes. Having a headphone jack on the camera is a critical feature that you're pretty much giving up completely when you use a DSLR for video. I believe the Magic Latern frimware for the Canon 5DmkII turns that camera's AV I/O jack into a proper headphone output, but as far as I know this is the only exception for headphone outputs on DLSRs.

The juciedLink DT454 has a headphone output, but you have to keep in mind that the headphone output is going to give you an idea of what your audio sounds like inside of the DT454. It does not tell you what the audio that's being recorded inside of sounds like. It could sound fine in the headphone output of the DT454, but in the worst case scenario you may not be recording any audio at all into the camera.

If you like the headphone output aspect of the DT454, you can add it to the CX231 by adding a DN101.
 
Exactly Sam. That's why we have pro mixers like the Sound Devices gear, where you take the headphone out of the camera, and run it into the "tape return" of the mixer, so you can monitor the camera from the mixer. The more you compromise, the less functionality you have in your workflow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top