Mic to handle background noise

B

BlinkingEyey

New member
Quick question. I do a lot of on the street event interviews. I have been using a RODE shotgun mic but I still get too much noise from the surrounding crowd.

Please direct me to a shotgun mic or an on-person mic that will help knock down some of the background noise and not break the bank.

Thanks ahead of time.

- Craig
 
There is no "magic mic" that eliminates background noise. You have to aim the mic precisely and you need to get the mic in close.

If you are doing quick interviews a handheld mic may be an option; do you have an interviewer? I don't think you'll be wanting to wire lavs onto your interviewees....
 
At least as much of the quality of your recordings depends on TECHNIQUE as it does on EQUIPMENT. Without a complete discussion of HOW you are using the mic, it would be foolish to try to recommend some other mic. For that matter you haven't even told us which "Rode shotgun" mic you are using now. This is not the kind of discussion where we can ignore necessary information.
 
An on person mic you might consider is the dpa 4080.... In its BM config you can use it with a Sennheiser G3 pack.
Sound quality is superb....

EDIT: Silly me... the BM config is not for Sennheiser, it's a microdot. You can get an adapter on the side for the 4080 BM that will enable it on the G3. If you have a recorder with built-in phantom power, you can also get an XLR adapter for the 4080 so you can plug it directly into the recorder... kind of like the Rode lav system, only DPS is a step beyond Rode ;)
 
Last edited:
Richard Crowley said:
At least as much of the quality of your recordings depends on TECHNIQUE as it does on EQUIPMENT. Without a complete discussion of HOW you are using the mic, it would be foolish to try to recommend some other mic. For that matter you haven't even told us which "Rode shotgun" mic you are using now. This is not the kind of discussion where we can ignore necessary information.
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. This is the mic I am using. Sometimes camera mounted (four or five feet away) and sometimes pole mounted. Admittedly, many times technique for sound is lacking as this is run and gun shooting, many times. Below is an example of the product. I have tons of great footage I can't use due to background sound.

Current mic being used >>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/820756-REG/Rode_VideoMic_Camera_Mounted_Shotgun.html

Example >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBVxgn5vH-E
 
BlinkingEyey said:
OK, fair enough. This is the mic I am using.
Example >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBVxgn5vH-E
Click to expand...
Could have been worst.
The setup I'm using is rougly 100$ and gives decent results. Nothing professional, but as a starter kit, would perform better than your actual configuration.
Azden EX-503 Lavalier. (might not be the favorite brand around, but for the price it worth it)
Tascam DR-05. The Zoom H1 might be prefered as it's smaller and fits more in a pocket.

Here's a quick test I've done using the EX-503 and recording directly into my T2i:
 
Very nice production! I really enjoyed viewing the video. It makes me want to go there next year. :-)

The Rode Videomic is not really up to the kinds of demands you are putting on it. I guess that was gratuitous as you have amply demonstrated that for yourself.

"Camera mounted" is very convenient, but RARELY produces acceptable audio except under ideal conditions (max ~3ft/1m in quiet ambience). "Four or five feet away" is completely unrealistic, IMHO, especially when you are shooting in noisy surroundings.

Note carefully how news reporting is miked. When you see an on-screen reporter, they are holding a microphone 6-12 inches from their mouth. Or they are wearing a clip-on lav mic. And when they are interviewing someone, they are typically holding a microphone up to the mouth of the subject. Or, if they are using a camera-mounted shotgun (quite a bit bigger than your Rode Videomic), they are 2-3 feet away.

To be honest, "4-5 feet away" is unrealistic for ANY microphone at ANY price. While you can get very nice images from distances and from creative angles, the laws of acoustic physics prevent us from doing the same with audio pickup.

I would consider engaging the services of an on-camera "reporter" who can interview the subjects AND hold a microphone in an appropriate place to pick up the audio properly. Perhaps the communication person from the museum or someone associated with (or selected by) the event. Consider also that creating a custom "mic flag" would benefit the event or the institution (or YOU) as a visual element in the frame.

Mic-Flag.jpg

You didn't mention a budget for this. If you want to record decent "run-n-gun" street inverviews, plan on getting a much more substantial (read: longer and heavier) microphone that may preclude on-camera mounting, particularly on a small camera like a "handycam" or a DSLR. You also didn't reveal what camera(s?) you are using. I would consider sonething ike the Rode NTG-2 at minimum. I really like my Rode NTG-3. But it is NOT an "on-camera" solution. Remember also that a proper shotgun mic will require a shock-mount to isolate handling noise, and wind protection in the form of a blimp and a furry cover "dead cat".

View the short video tutorials on the Rode website (and other places online) to see the tried-and-true "tribal knowledge" about microphone selection and use-cases.
 
Last edited:
Lots of good advice here.

The Rode VideoMic is definitely not good for what you're doing. I would think at the very least you'll want a hypercardioid, not a supercardioid. That would help some, but it's not going to solve the problem by any means. Especially if, for instance, you're shooting over-the-shoulder of the person speaking. Or off to the side.

If it's feasible, best bet is a wireless lav mic. That would probably give you the best sound, but would require some setup before shooting. If the kind of work you're doing doesn't allow for stopping people, strapping a wireless mic to them, interviewing them, then removing the wireless mic, then you've got a problem.

If you're in a situation where you HAVE to use the mic attached to the camera, then get the camera in CLOSE. As close as you possibly can. That mic has to be as close to their mouth as humanly possible. And it needs to be a hypercardioid.

If you're able to use a boom pole, then make sure your boom operator knows what he's doing. He still needs to get that mic CLOSE -- as close as possible. Just outside the frame of the shot. And not over the subject's head, as I've seen time and time again. It needs to be in front of the subject, with the end of the mic pointed directly at the subject's mouth. If he can get the mic closer to the subject's mouth by holding it under, rather than over, the subject's head, then he should do so. (Be aware that this can sometimes cause the voice to sound more bassy, but that can be corrected if need be.)

Keep in mind also that the microphone is going to pick up noises in a straight line PAST the subject's mouth. Hopefully that will either be the ground or the sky.

Good sound is a challenge and an art. I certainly haven't mastered it. But these are some of the things I've learned from hanging out HERE. :-)
 
BlinkingEyey said:
...get too much noise from the surrounding crowd.
Click to expand...

It's all about signal to noise ratio. You want more signal and less noise, yes? You do that primarily by getting the mic closer to the signal. And you do that by getting the mic off the camera and closer to the mouth of the person speaking.

This is why we have "reporter mics" in the first place. The two biggies are the Electro-Voice RE50N/D-B, and the Sennheiser MD46. The first is an omni, the second is a cardiod. If you are sticking this in the hands of the interviewee, I'd go with the omni, and tell them to bend their elbow and get the mic 4-6" from their mouths. If you're in really loud ambient noise conditions (like the Super Bowl), go with the Sennheiser, but be aware that it has to point directly at the speaker's mouth, again from no farther than 6" away. Turning heads will be audible as the mouth moves out of the sound field.

Just about every local and national newscast uses one of these two mics. Watch them and you can easily pick up the proper technique for their use.
 
The closest to a mic that reduces background sound is a dynamic. The physics of how they work seem to make sounds drop out faster over distance. However this also means they have to be CLOSE. Most of the reporter hand-helds are dynamics.

As others have said there is no solution that doesn't involve getting the mic close. What you might consider is a wider lens so you can get closer. At some point your going to be too close and make the interviewee uncomfortable but you should be able to get with in three feet and that will help.

ENG/ run-and-gun traditionally uses a cameraman AND a sound person. The exception is when you are all handheld, but then you have a cameraman and the "talent" so you are still a two man operation.
 
Noiz2 said:
The closest to a mic that reduces background sound is a dynamic. The physics of how they work seem to make sounds drop out faster over distance. However this also means they have to be CLOSE. Most of the reporter hand-helds are dynamics.
Click to expand...

But that really only comes down to SENSITIVITY. Put a pad on a condenser mic and you can simulate the lower sensitivity of an EV 635A.
 
Like Bruce says, you want a mic in close so the wanted to unwanted ratio is high. Then you can go with the Omnis he suggests (and maybe my favourite, the M58) and with the long handles, for this very purpose, the omnis can go close in and not suffer from proximity effect pushing up the bass. A directional mic on the camera needs to aim at the mouth - and if this isn't centre frame, then whatever noise source is, gets heard. Crowd noise, vehicles, aeroplanes - anything at all.

Good audio needs as much effort as good images, yet everyone thinks it's a case of buy something, point it vaguely at the talent and it will work by magic. It doesn't!
 
paulears said:
Good audio needs as much effort as good images, yet everyone thinks it's a case of buy something, point it vaguely at the talent and it will work by magic. It doesn't!
Click to expand...
If one thing I've learning since my first videos, is that audio is a DEDICATED department even when you can't afford it! It's something you must master and it's time consuming, in both learning/testing and applying it with available gear.
 
Richard Crowley said:
But that really only comes down to SENSITIVITY. Put a pad on a condenser mic and you can simulate the lower sensitivity of an EV 635A.
Click to expand...

Somewhat but not totally. The mass of the diaphragm and voice coil is MUCH higher with a dynamic so it is sensitivity but it's not linear. Soft sounds are a lot less likely to change the diaphragms movement than louder sounds and the drop off is more logarithmic than linear. Where just adding a pad is a linear drop and affects loud sounds as much as quiet ones.

So in a just "where do you start to hear it" test it will probably seem more linear but when someone is talking the quiet backgrounds will have noticeably less presence because the diaphragm cant react fast enough and the loud sound is running the show.

A condensers diaphragm as almost no mass compared to a dynamics and is able to react very fast to even small changes. So the quiet BG will be imposed on the loud sound much more than is possible with a dynamic.

If you do a side by side with a condenser and a dynamic in a noisy environment you can hear the difference. It's what helps condensers seem more "open" and dynamics more "intimate".

For the OP it might be a bit of help but only if he goes to a handheld mic. It's no help unless what you want is a lot louder than what you don't want.
 
Noiz2 said:
Somewhat but not totally. The mass of the diaphragm and voice coil is MUCH higher with a dynamic so it is sensitivity but it's not linear. Soft sounds are a lot less likely to change the diaphragms movement than louder sounds and the drop off is more logarithmic than linear. Where just adding a pad is a linear drop and affects loud sounds as much as quiet ones...
Click to expand...

Sorry, this is a misconception. Sensitivity is linear, frequency response is not. The situation you describe, more sensitivity to higher volumes, is the definition of harmonic distortion. Harmonic distortion is almost non-existent in properly functioning microphones.

Fran
 
Yes - that's what I was always taught - the mass of the larger diaphragm attenuates it's travel as the frequency gets higher, producing the HF rolloff dynamics exhibit as compared to condensers.
 
Fran Guidry said:
Sorry, this is a misconception. Sensitivity is linear, frequency response is not. The situation you describe, more sensitivity to higher volumes, is the definition of harmonic distortion. Harmonic distortion is almost non-existent in properly functioning microphones.

Fran
Click to expand...

Maybe there is some terminology I used incorrectly. Higher frequencies have less energy than low feq. sounds. A larger mass as more inertia and will require more work to make it move or change course. The high frequency roll off is a result of this. But this also results in lower level sounds of all frequencies having a harder time moving the diaphragm. You are probably right that the response is linear. We are actually talking theoretical responses here since no microphone is actually linear. But the point is that because of the lower mass of a condenser diaphragm small signals can impose on larger ones more easily than can happen with a larger mass diaphragm.

If you punch a balloon it's going to travel a ways. Punch your can and it's not going to budge. Friction is part of that but mostly it's an energy VS mass situation. If a truck is pushing your car and you punch it, again no real change in trajectory. If the truck is pushing a big balloon and you punch it you will make a significant change in trajectory.

So it's linear but the practical result is the same. Put a condenser and a dynamic in a noisy environment and have your talent talk into them and the condenser will record more of the ambience mixed with the dialog than the dynamic will. how big a difference probably has to do with exactly what "noise" is in the BG.
 
Another thing that "on-camera" mic users seem to forget - many mics have significant pickup from the rear of the capsule. (And my understanding at least) shotguns moreso than hypers.

Booming from above is usually the best angle to record from when filming - but (outdoors) it also gets the rear of the mic pointing at where there's (hopefully) the least sound waves. On on-camera mic with some rear-lobe bump is pointing at street-level noise. Blocked a bit by the operator, but still there.

I avoid wireless unless absolutely needed. I have gotten very good results with a $50 sony wired lav that runs on watch batteries. But I try to have a boom mic going regardless.
 
Get an EV RE50. It's a great handheld mic for man on the street interviews. It's rugged, and it doesn't pick up BG sounds unless they are loud. It's a dynamic mic, so you have to be right on it. It has a little built in suspension for the actual mic capsule inside it. I love it.
 
There's many other Omni-directional dynamic mics to consider. The RE50 however seems to be the defacto standard TV reporter's mic in the USA... (and gets more air time than Seinfeld reruns) Sennheiser's MD-42 and 46 are highly regarded as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top