Mic suggestions

B

BackwoodsTerrorMovie

Member
Hi, I have an Azden SGM 2x that I recently used, but is too much of a broadcasting sound and feel, like it would belong on a news camera. I'm filming a full length horror movie, and want a mic that will have great sound for a cinema series of movies, rather than a broadcasting/documentary quality to it. Does anyone have any ideas of what I should get or do? I'm using a JVC H100 if anyone is wondering. There is a trailer at www.theragefilm.com of the same camera that I have, but their sound is excellent, as mine sounds like some cheap local news coverage. It is very clear, but it doesn't sound like a movie.
 
usually the mic attached to the sound man and both attached to sound designer and composer - very strange chain if you ask me :-)
the problem is usially not the mic ( not that i cant agree that azden is not exactly one i'lld like to work with ) but how you use it .
find the first chain and he would find the mic
 
Azden is a pretty bad sounding mic. I tried to sweeten some audio done with an Azden recently, just god awful. Even so, when someone complains about a "TV or broadcast" feel to sound, it was done with the mic on camera or too far away. You want good sound, get the mic to within a foot or two of speakers mouth.

Cheers
 
No I had the mic as close as possible. Does anyone know if either a SENNHEISER ME66 or an Audio-Technica AT835 are any good? Like I said, I need a cinema quality mic, something that will pick up a lot. My Azden just didn't have a good thick sound to it at all. The perfect example is the trailer at www.theragefilm.com it's shot on the same camera I'm using, but their sound quality is great. Sure it is most likely an expensive mic, but something close to that sound would be great.
 
BackwoodsTerrorMovie said:
No I had the mic as close as possible. Does anyone know if either a SENNHEISER ME66 or an Audio-Technica AT835 are any good? Like I said, I need a cinema quality mic, something that will pick up a lot. My Azden just didn't have a good thick sound to it at all. The perfect example is the trailer at www.theragefilm.com it's shot on the same camera I'm using, but their sound quality is great. Sure it is most likely an expensive mic, but something close to that sound would be great.
Click to expand...

The simple answer is no. They are not good.

Now read the sticky at the top and then go read the New To Audio thread and all your questions are answered.

-Jeremy
 
you need to read the many threads on here about what mics to get.

or just go out and get a sennheiser mkh-416 or a sanken cs3

but if you want the sound to sound REALLY good and even a little bit close to what you hear in hollywood movies your going to have to read almost every message on here, read 3 or 4 books that i can recommend and spend another $5,000 on a mixer, a boom and shockmount for the camera and a lot of other little things.

the other suggestion most people will make is to find a local sound person and just pay them. you can learn a lot by watching them and what they do.

but to really learn how to get the sound to sound like what you want it to your goinig to have to spend many months reading, testing etc.

matthew
 
The single hardest point for everybody to wrap their mind around is just how close a mic has to be to sound really full. When somebody says you need the mic within a few feet AT THE MOST of the speaker's mouth people always say that they ARE that close... then you shoot with them and it's like, "no that's more like 5 feet away dude... that's why it doesn't sound cinematic".

When you see proper booming you'll be shocked at how close the mics are... you would SWEAR that the mics MUST be in every shot, but they're not... the mic should be just skirting the frame... I mean RIGHT there at the edge of the frame. That's why they make boom poles in many lengths.

But as Yankee and others have said... you'll be doing yourself a disservice if you don't set aside some time and read the sticky... and perhaps a couple of other threads. New guys come in all the time thinking that they have a unique situation regarding sound, but they don't... just because you want perfect sound from your creepy killer so the audience is pulled in... that doesn't make the technique any different then some other guy who wants perfect sound from Romeo and Juliet... it's all the same.

You're standing on the tip of the iceberg with audio... if you read the stuff that's been suggested to you then your audio will improve exponentially over what you've been expecting even from the gear you already have. All you gotta' do is read up a bit... I would get some different mics... but the first thing you need to do is read... if you don't want to do that then hire a soundguy.
 
one thing the others here didnt mention, and its a golden rule: you get what you pay for. dont expect an ME66 or at835 to sound great, because they dont, and the price is an indication of that. if you want to know what a great mic costs, look at the most expensive mics you can possibly buy (probably a schoeps CMIT, or other schoeps mics, then probably followed by the cs-3e or something). middle of the range pricing is middle of the range quality.

the only mic we know of round here that really surpasses its price point drastically in terms of performance is the oktava mk012. everything else COSTS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.

this post is merely to illustrate that spending $200 more than the azden cost wont make your audio sound like Lord of The Rings. That takes money.. and much more importantly, skill. But skill has been adressed by the clever people above me.
 
yes!

the whole distance from mouth to boom thing should be mentioned more often!

i have finally put together a setup so the boom op can hear it for him/herself.

one of the tomlinson holman books has a cd where he is talking into the mic and he moves it from half a meter to a meter then 2 meters etc.

it is a great demonstration of the inverse square law...if you double the distance from the sound the sound pressure level/volume will only be 1/4 as much

i wonder how much sound is lost because the person monitoring it has the headphones turned up and is getting a false impression of the level?

matthew
 
timapter said:
the only mic we know of round here that really surpasses its price point drastically in terms of performance is the oktava mk012. everything else COSTS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.
Click to expand...

Look at this amazing post you got going... All the regulars peeping in like the commercial where someone says cake and all the heads pop up out of the cubes.

Now, I'm gonna get dirty.

Tim, my good friend, you're wrong and you f*cking know it.

You forgot about the AT4073a. This really shines above it's price point. I think for $500 it sounds pretty close to the 4073a.

Then again, I'm saying that the 4073a should be $800 and that the Oktava should be $600, so we're 3x'ing the Oktava and only 1.7x'ing the AT4073a, but still Tim... you should know better :)

-Jeremy
 
You meant that the 4073a sounds like the 416... and if it didn't I wouldn't know that that's what you meant to say.
 
matthewd5 said:
i wonder how much sound is lost because the person monitoring it has the headphones turned up and is getting a false impression of the level?

matthew
Click to expand...

Oh my God is this ever a good point!

Do NOT make the mistake of giving a totally green boom op a mic and mixer and then let him stupidly ride the levels at the headphone instead of the input! This happens with new ops all the time unless you make a HUGE deal out of it! They need to understand the meters more then what they hear! The phone jack is for adequate levels so that they can evaluate the sound... make sure a new guy understands NOT to be fooled by the phone jack. This happens on amature stuff all the time. People are not used to the quality and gain of the phone jack on something like a mixpre or 302... they will be fooled unless you see to it that they are not.
 
MattinSTL said:
You meant that the 4073a sounds like the 416... and if it didn't I wouldn't know that that's what you meant to say.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I meant, but not what I typed, but I'm an idiot sometimes and that happens...

Everyone knew what I meant, right?

-Jeremy

EDIT:
And I'm being a man and not going back and changing my mistake because I still want Matt's comment to make some sense.
 
you're right, the 4073a is also in that league of worth more than you pay. but I actually prefer the oktava to the 4073. i use my oktava much more, and thats how i personally measure the value..

one thing i love about the 416, and that the 4073a is still too new to be compared with, is the build quality. the 416 is a tank, and its so well established and widely used that im actually not so sure that the 4073 is cheaper than its worth so much as the 416 is priced MORE than its worth due to its reputation of being "industry standard" or whatever.

if i had a choice between used 416 and new 4073a (quite close in price depending on where you get em), Ill pick the 416 every single time.

thats why i consider the 4073a as slightly less of a bargain than the mk012, but i wont argue, you're right, it is still worth more than what you pay.
 
matts (both of you), that whole volume equals good placement thing is a good thing to bring up, lots of idiots out there thinking loud means perfect.

its amazing how just because the volume is up loud people can miss that the mic is facing the wrong way around.
 
Ok, what about end use? If your video is destined for a theatrical release, isn't the mic quality more important than with a video that'll be watched on DVD or, worse, as a QT clip on the web?

I just finished a DVD documentary using only a humble ME66/K6, and the only scene that sounds lacking in quality to me (on a mid-level home theater system) is the one shot in a reverberant room that I didn't do enough to correct. Do I just have to hear the difference to know what I"m missing?
 
thats an entirely debatable point, but im fairly sure that one of the top end mics would give better sounding audio across the spectrum from theatrical to streaming video.

the logic of using a "worse" mic because the product will be viewed on lower quality systems doesnt quite work, i dont think. then you just get bad sound thats played back over a bad system, as opposed to good sound played over a bad system.

i dunno.. much like keeping higher bit rates from the beginning with a view to dithering audio onto lower bit depth mediums, keep the standard as high as possible for as long as possible and you will notice an improvement...
 
its not impossible to get good or even great results with a 66, but imagine what you would have got with a better mic.

ah, thats what keeps me spending. :)
 
timapter said:
...is the build quality. the 416 is a tank, and its so well established and widely used...
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!
That's one of main reasons why I like the 416 so much; a mic this robust and good sounding really is a joy to work with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top