need blimp / zep recommendations
- Thread starter J Davis
- Start date
The RODE Blimp is a really good value. The Rycote system is more expensive, but has a much better lyre-type suspension.
A Sound Devices MixPre would also be a good consideration, since that will give you signal routing to record the one mic to both channels. That allows you to set the second record channel a few dB lower as a safety in case of sudden peaks.
A Sound Devices MixPre would also be a good consideration, since that will give you signal routing to record the one mic to both channels. That allows you to set the second record channel a few dB lower as a safety in case of sudden peaks.
No, though what type of "hiss" are you talking about? "Hiss" typically refers to self-noise in the audio circuits, which is a matter of signal:noise ratio and proper gain staging, assuming your equipment is reasonably quiet. As for ambient noise, it's always going to have the same relative level to the dialog. A zepplin will absorb some high frequencies, but it won't eliminate background noise by any means.
The ratio of room tone to dialog ratio is going to determined by two factors:
1. The pattern of the shotgun and the proper aiming and distance to the subject
2. The amount of reflective surfaces in the room.
A blimp will have little impact of isolating dialog from room tone.
That being said, here's been my experience with shotgun mics and their ability to affect this ratio.
While the polar pattern chart can tell you something about the mics behavior, the polar pattern should have different lines depicting different frequencies.
As an example I recently did a non-scientific test with three shotgun mics:
Sennheiser Me-66
Sennheiser me-80
AKG Blueline CK-93
I put the mic on a boom stand and pointed it toward my sitting position with the mic about 24" from my mouth, and about 20" above. The couch was leather, and the walls sheetrock.
90 degrees to my right was my TV which I had turned on at a somewhat normal listening level.
The air conditioner was turned on and venting about 4 ft. above my head. The refrigerator was running.
I recorded my voice, saying the name of the microphone, reading a bit about each mic. I did this with each of the three microphones.
I then took the three audio files, adjusted so their levels were the same (the me-66 was much hotter than the other two).
I then asked my fiance to listen to the recording and rate each of them on two criteria.
1. How natural did my voice sound. She hears my voice all the time and could make a fair assessment.
2. How DISTRACTING was the sound of the tv and other sounds in the room.
Of the three mics, the most natural sounding was the me-80, followed by the me-66, followed by the ck93. She rated the recording made with the me-80 as having the least distractive sounds, the ck-93 next, and then the me-66.
The cool thing was that she wouldn't know a me-66 from a ck-93, from an me-80 and had no vested interested in which mic was which.
Wanna guess which mic lives on my boom?
1. The pattern of the shotgun and the proper aiming and distance to the subject
2. The amount of reflective surfaces in the room.
A blimp will have little impact of isolating dialog from room tone.
That being said, here's been my experience with shotgun mics and their ability to affect this ratio.
While the polar pattern chart can tell you something about the mics behavior, the polar pattern should have different lines depicting different frequencies.
As an example I recently did a non-scientific test with three shotgun mics:
Sennheiser Me-66
Sennheiser me-80
AKG Blueline CK-93
I put the mic on a boom stand and pointed it toward my sitting position with the mic about 24" from my mouth, and about 20" above. The couch was leather, and the walls sheetrock.
90 degrees to my right was my TV which I had turned on at a somewhat normal listening level.
The air conditioner was turned on and venting about 4 ft. above my head. The refrigerator was running.
I recorded my voice, saying the name of the microphone, reading a bit about each mic. I did this with each of the three microphones.
I then took the three audio files, adjusted so their levels were the same (the me-66 was much hotter than the other two).
I then asked my fiance to listen to the recording and rate each of them on two criteria.
1. How natural did my voice sound. She hears my voice all the time and could make a fair assessment.
2. How DISTRACTING was the sound of the tv and other sounds in the room.
Of the three mics, the most natural sounding was the me-80, followed by the me-66, followed by the ck93. She rated the recording made with the me-80 as having the least distractive sounds, the ck-93 next, and then the me-66.
The cool thing was that she wouldn't know a me-66 from a ck-93, from an me-80 and had no vested interested in which mic was which.
Wanna guess which mic lives on my boom?
Polar response charts from the manufacturer are rarely accurate to how the mic actually responds.
There are several problems with this test.
1) Shotguns indoors are notoriously poor performers (unless in a very large and very non-reflective room). They are much more susceptible to secondary reflections and often result in muddy dialog, or dialog that sounds like it's in a can.
2) 24" is pretty generous, and is on the edge of the effective range for any of these mics in a real working environment. 12" is a more realistic distance. No matter what kind of mic you're using, closer is better.
3) The AKG CK93 is not a shotgun. At all. It's a hypercardioid, which is much better for interior use. It's also a much different response pattern than a shotgun.
4) Angle of rejection is drastically different between a shotgun and a hypercardioid. Having them mounted in the same spot, and angled in the same direction, says little to nothing about rejection. Part of effectively using any mic in any situation is knowing that mic's individual characteristics, especially rejection, and aiming it accordingly.
There is no single mic that can do it all and do it well. The best solution is to have a decent stock of different mics for different situations. A shotgun and a hypercardioid make a great, two-mic starter kit that will cover the vast majority of what you may encounter.
Last edited:
Mark A. Beal
Well-known member
I use the Rode at work and it's very solid. I was shooting outdoors recently on a fairly windy day and was shocked when I started editing to find there was no wind noise at all. For my personal gear I have a Rycote S-series and love it for its ease of use.
Thank you for your critique. I did preface the experiment with calling it an un-scientific test.
I used the microphones I had on hand. Rather than rely on second hand information, I decided to try each one, in the same environment and evaluate the results by using an inbiased listener.
I've read many of the discussions regarding hypers being the mic of choice for indoor work. So, I was just as surprised by these results.
And interestingly enough, the CK93 was the microphone capturing the most room ring.
Closer is always better, but very, very often, I am required to mic from outside the "optimum" distance. This is my "real world" and that's what I was trying to evaluate. I'd say that I am far more often closer to 24" than to 12" in the shots that I've been called to boom. And this is with dialog with the camera op..."am I in, am I in, am I in????"
I absolutely agree with you that because of each mic's characteristics, the only way to properly evaluate a mics performance is to use it, monitoring it in action and looking for it's "sweet spot".
I do disagree that the idea of having each mic mounted in the exact same location and angled the same says nothing about rejection. In fact, that is the most apparent difference recorded between each of the mics. Granted, the location may not be optimum for each of the mics, but it does, indeed, present a direct comparison regarding their ability to reject off axis sound.
I am no expert, and in fact, a newbie when it comes to location sound. That is why I try to balance what I read to what I experience. That was the whole reason for this little experiment.
But again, I'm no expert. In fact, I encourage anyone to perform their own tests. Borrow some stuff and put it thru it's paces.
I come from the live sound arena where today, mixing engineers are being taught to run their faders to 0, then adjust input trim until the level is where they want it. This is actually being taught in schools, including Full Sail, and it flies in the face of proper gain staging. So, just because it's popular, and so "pros" are doing it, doesn't make it correct. I beginning to discover this about the hyper mic craze. I just don't see how the back lobe helps to reject the room. And my experiences are agreeing with this. Granted, using a highly directional mic poorly presents all kinds of problems, unwanted room sound is just one of them.
I used the microphones I had on hand. Rather than rely on second hand information, I decided to try each one, in the same environment and evaluate the results by using an inbiased listener.
I've read many of the discussions regarding hypers being the mic of choice for indoor work. So, I was just as surprised by these results.
And interestingly enough, the CK93 was the microphone capturing the most room ring.
Closer is always better, but very, very often, I am required to mic from outside the "optimum" distance. This is my "real world" and that's what I was trying to evaluate. I'd say that I am far more often closer to 24" than to 12" in the shots that I've been called to boom. And this is with dialog with the camera op..."am I in, am I in, am I in????"
I absolutely agree with you that because of each mic's characteristics, the only way to properly evaluate a mics performance is to use it, monitoring it in action and looking for it's "sweet spot".
I do disagree that the idea of having each mic mounted in the exact same location and angled the same says nothing about rejection. In fact, that is the most apparent difference recorded between each of the mics. Granted, the location may not be optimum for each of the mics, but it does, indeed, present a direct comparison regarding their ability to reject off axis sound.
I am no expert, and in fact, a newbie when it comes to location sound. That is why I try to balance what I read to what I experience. That was the whole reason for this little experiment.
But again, I'm no expert. In fact, I encourage anyone to perform their own tests. Borrow some stuff and put it thru it's paces.
I come from the live sound arena where today, mixing engineers are being taught to run their faders to 0, then adjust input trim until the level is where they want it. This is actually being taught in schools, including Full Sail, and it flies in the face of proper gain staging. So, just because it's popular, and so "pros" are doing it, doesn't make it correct. I beginning to discover this about the hyper mic craze. I just don't see how the back lobe helps to reject the room. And my experiences are agreeing with this. Granted, using a highly directional mic poorly presents all kinds of problems, unwanted room sound is just one of them.
Part of the problem was claiming to compare "three shotguns" when, in fact, one of them was not. It's really important to make those distinctions, especially if doing any kind of comparison.
Shotgun mics use an interference tube design, which helps to reject most of the sound to the sides and rear. The capsule isn't completely enclosed and still has a little bit of response to the sides, though it rejects most sound to the rear. What's not rejected is low-end, due to the same interference tube design that helps reject everything else. This is why shotguns used in reflective interiors, and even some reflective exteriors, can end up having less-than-useful dialog. The lack of low-end frequency rejection tends to muddy that water, and there's no way to angle the mic to get rid of it.
With a hypercardioid, yes, you have a small lobe on the rear. As opposed to a straight-up cardioid, the rejection is just off 180º. Unlike a shotgun, the mic is not as susceptible to the low-end reflections off-axis. That also makes for a tighter pattern on-axis. Angle the rear of the mic away from a reflective surface and you have some really nice rejection.
Since you are a self-proclaimed newbie in this area of sound, please understand that this is not based on the newest trends in the sound-for-film schools. In fact, there are lots of us on these boards who never went to school for sound but rather learned hands-on and from long lists of mistakes. This is tried and true advice that comes from years of experience with these mics.
The advice about hypercardioids is not a new "craze." It's been a round for a long time in major motion picture. The reason it's gained such fervor in the last couple of years around these forums is that there are now some really affordable options for budget-minded film makers, between AKG and Audio Technica and Oktava. Since it's now affordable to have the hyper option in a budget kit, there's lots of discussion on why there should be a hyper in the kit.
Of course, we've gotten way off track from the OP's question about getting a blimp for his mic...
Shotgun mics use an interference tube design, which helps to reject most of the sound to the sides and rear. The capsule isn't completely enclosed and still has a little bit of response to the sides, though it rejects most sound to the rear. What's not rejected is low-end, due to the same interference tube design that helps reject everything else. This is why shotguns used in reflective interiors, and even some reflective exteriors, can end up having less-than-useful dialog. The lack of low-end frequency rejection tends to muddy that water, and there's no way to angle the mic to get rid of it.
With a hypercardioid, yes, you have a small lobe on the rear. As opposed to a straight-up cardioid, the rejection is just off 180º. Unlike a shotgun, the mic is not as susceptible to the low-end reflections off-axis. That also makes for a tighter pattern on-axis. Angle the rear of the mic away from a reflective surface and you have some really nice rejection.
Since you are a self-proclaimed newbie in this area of sound, please understand that this is not based on the newest trends in the sound-for-film schools. In fact, there are lots of us on these boards who never went to school for sound but rather learned hands-on and from long lists of mistakes. This is tried and true advice that comes from years of experience with these mics.
The advice about hypercardioids is not a new "craze." It's been a round for a long time in major motion picture. The reason it's gained such fervor in the last couple of years around these forums is that there are now some really affordable options for budget-minded film makers, between AKG and Audio Technica and Oktava. Since it's now affordable to have the hyper option in a budget kit, there's lots of discussion on why there should be a hyper in the kit.
Of course, we've gotten way off track from the OP's question about getting a blimp for his mic...
Last edited:
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and informative reply.
Point taken regarding referring to all three as shotguns.
I do understand the principles involved in interference tube design as well the the lack of directivity in the lower octaves. Perhaps have the high-pass filters on each mic turned on helped mask the low-end build up you describe. Coming from a live sound environment, I am very familiar with the mud that can build in a room and destroy clarity.
Newbie I am, and responses like yours help greatly in increasing my and others understanding of the whys behind the whats.
Back to the OP:
I still don't think a blimp is going to help with off-axis rejection of room tone.
Thanks again.
Point taken regarding referring to all three as shotguns.
I do understand the principles involved in interference tube design as well the the lack of directivity in the lower octaves. Perhaps have the high-pass filters on each mic turned on helped mask the low-end build up you describe. Coming from a live sound environment, I am very familiar with the mud that can build in a room and destroy clarity.
Newbie I am, and responses like yours help greatly in increasing my and others understanding of the whys behind the whats.
Back to the OP:
I still don't think a blimp is going to help with off-axis rejection of room tone.
Thanks again.
maranfilms
Veteran
I have the rode now, but before i made a DIY and it works just as well as the rode blimp. cost about 10 bucks to make.
J Davis
Veteran
I'm down with conversations' direction – in fact its relevant !
A blimp might be the wrong way to go in improving my signal to room tone ratio.
So my NTG2 even pre-amped with sound devices might not be the best for that situation? I was recording in a 12x15 ft room with an average amount of furniture.
If I was to select a mic to put on a boom in the same room what would you choose given a budget of $300-400 for the mic?
Deciding factors - field of view means mic can live 3 ft above actor on wides, 1 ft above actor on CU's.
No background audio to compete with, just room tone.
Again, it's not going to isolate any sound, but it's still a necessary investment if you're going to be doing anything outdoors.
A 3-foot working distance is really pushing things with any mic. But then, lavaliere mics are usually the backups for wide shots where a boom just can't get close enough.
Now, the general rule is that shotgun mics are poor performers indoors. That doesn't mean they'll never work. It really depends on the room. Sheetrock is a giant reflector, so unless there's lots of stuff on the walls and a whole lot of absorbent furniture, you're probably not going to get the best results. But I can't hear the room you're working so there's no way to say for sure. A 12x15 room is a small box, and may work against your NTG-2.
Given your budget, I'd look at either the aforementioned AKG CK93 (just under $500) or the Oktava Bella Nero with hypercardioid capsule ($250-ish).
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
J Davis... in response to your PM I gotta' say I couldn't offer any better advice then C2V has been generously giving throughout this thread. I read it all and it's a stream of consistently good information... starting with the very first reply.
I had an MM1 and my only issue is what that thing costs, for how limited it is. (My biggest gripe is the pot clicks through stops instead of smoothly attenuating. That, and a used mix-pre isn't much more then a new MM1.) I ended up selling mine (still virtually brand new) to a friend of mine (that had a few bucks + a lot of other top-end gear) to replace it with a mix-pre... which was an addition to a 302 (for a net 5 channels)...
Anyway... what I'm getting at... is C2V covered it. Totally. I would first suggest that you consider a blimp, if you shoot stuff outdoors. Otherwise, I'd first move to a hyper, if you can mic CLOSE, indoors. 3' is crazy... NO mic will sound very good at that distance indoors unless you're in a perfect studio environment or on a soundstage. If I had to go to 3' away I'd have a lav on everybody.
The unscientific test? I have no problems with somebody relating personal experience, but at the same time... it's quoting impressions based on a conversation among people we don't know. If someone is giving input based on a test, they really need to share the test with the rest of us... and mainly, you'd never want to have a TV on (or any unnecessary extra sound) when recording! That's not a good way to determine anything... especially in a (what is to the rest of us) a random room of unknown variables, again, UNLESS you show us that room by showing the test. To the tester... you may or may not already know this, but when you see a bar scene, or party scene, or any other scene in a movie, tv show, etc. and it appears that a few people are having a conversation in a crowded area full of people... when that scene is shot the ONLY people talking are the characters. Everyone else that appears to be talking at that bar, or whatever, is only "mouthing" words... not making sound. Later they mix in all the mumbled atmosphere in post.
A hyper SHOULD pick up off-axis sound better then a shotgun. That's what makes it a more forgiving mic and more usable when the acoustics and mic distance allow it. Also... the most sensitive mic, indoors, will hear MORE of a room regardless of how good it's polar pattern is... the ck93 (and me66) are going to hear way more of everything... echo, that tv, whatever... then the me80 because of all the reflections of the room.
So... in some cases... a lower sensitivity mic may sound better in a given situation... because it hears less of everything. When you have more unwanted sound trying to ruin the audio (in this case a TV on in the room, etc.) it's no surprise that you'd get what you perceive as the best performance from what should be the worst mic.
If you turn on the news tonight you'll see SOMEBODY with an RE50... guaranteed... holding it right at their mouth, and the audio will be totally acceptable even if they're in a crappy acoustic environment, but put that thing 24" away and you won't hear their voice at all... it will totally blend in with the environment (which will all be so low-level as to hardly hear it).
This is the point of the db cut switch on mics... You can make the mic less sensitive, and gain up at the mixer, cam, whatever... and you'll get progressively increased isolation on your subject if you can continuously move the mic closer to compensate.
Hmm... what else? J Davis... I'd consider a new purchase in this priority; a hyper first, blimp second, and mix-pre after that. (few guys can one-man band with a mixer, so if you're a DSLR shooter I wouldn't prioritize one... you'll probably rarely be able to actually "MIX" when you're shooting anyway... certainly not with a DSLR unless it's on a tripod and you're only watching the mixer).
What I can tell you about the Rode Blimp compared to the Rycote is that the Rode is a little heavy, the fur doesn't look as nice-uniform-wispy as the Rycote fur, the blimp itself looks just as nice... if it's not equal, or at least 90% as effective in use then I can't tell... and it's HALF the cost. For a budget shooter looking for a great tool, which you'll use for the next decade or more... that one's an easy choice.
I had an MM1 and my only issue is what that thing costs, for how limited it is. (My biggest gripe is the pot clicks through stops instead of smoothly attenuating. That, and a used mix-pre isn't much more then a new MM1.) I ended up selling mine (still virtually brand new) to a friend of mine (that had a few bucks + a lot of other top-end gear) to replace it with a mix-pre... which was an addition to a 302 (for a net 5 channels)...
Anyway... what I'm getting at... is C2V covered it. Totally. I would first suggest that you consider a blimp, if you shoot stuff outdoors. Otherwise, I'd first move to a hyper, if you can mic CLOSE, indoors. 3' is crazy... NO mic will sound very good at that distance indoors unless you're in a perfect studio environment or on a soundstage. If I had to go to 3' away I'd have a lav on everybody.
The unscientific test? I have no problems with somebody relating personal experience, but at the same time... it's quoting impressions based on a conversation among people we don't know. If someone is giving input based on a test, they really need to share the test with the rest of us... and mainly, you'd never want to have a TV on (or any unnecessary extra sound) when recording! That's not a good way to determine anything... especially in a (what is to the rest of us) a random room of unknown variables, again, UNLESS you show us that room by showing the test. To the tester... you may or may not already know this, but when you see a bar scene, or party scene, or any other scene in a movie, tv show, etc. and it appears that a few people are having a conversation in a crowded area full of people... when that scene is shot the ONLY people talking are the characters. Everyone else that appears to be talking at that bar, or whatever, is only "mouthing" words... not making sound. Later they mix in all the mumbled atmosphere in post.
A hyper SHOULD pick up off-axis sound better then a shotgun. That's what makes it a more forgiving mic and more usable when the acoustics and mic distance allow it. Also... the most sensitive mic, indoors, will hear MORE of a room regardless of how good it's polar pattern is... the ck93 (and me66) are going to hear way more of everything... echo, that tv, whatever... then the me80 because of all the reflections of the room.
So... in some cases... a lower sensitivity mic may sound better in a given situation... because it hears less of everything. When you have more unwanted sound trying to ruin the audio (in this case a TV on in the room, etc.) it's no surprise that you'd get what you perceive as the best performance from what should be the worst mic.
If you turn on the news tonight you'll see SOMEBODY with an RE50... guaranteed... holding it right at their mouth, and the audio will be totally acceptable even if they're in a crappy acoustic environment, but put that thing 24" away and you won't hear their voice at all... it will totally blend in with the environment (which will all be so low-level as to hardly hear it).
This is the point of the db cut switch on mics... You can make the mic less sensitive, and gain up at the mixer, cam, whatever... and you'll get progressively increased isolation on your subject if you can continuously move the mic closer to compensate.
Hmm... what else? J Davis... I'd consider a new purchase in this priority; a hyper first, blimp second, and mix-pre after that. (few guys can one-man band with a mixer, so if you're a DSLR shooter I wouldn't prioritize one... you'll probably rarely be able to actually "MIX" when you're shooting anyway... certainly not with a DSLR unless it's on a tripod and you're only watching the mixer).
What I can tell you about the Rode Blimp compared to the Rycote is that the Rode is a little heavy, the fur doesn't look as nice-uniform-wispy as the Rycote fur, the blimp itself looks just as nice... if it's not equal, or at least 90% as effective in use then I can't tell... and it's HALF the cost. For a budget shooter looking for a great tool, which you'll use for the next decade or more... that one's an easy choice.
jambredz
Veteran
i'll chime in and say honestly my RODE blimp sucks. I read alot of reveiws and luved Matt's own especially...however i ordered mine from dvestore and when it came it was busted crap. Meaning it was missing a bolt, the lever that adjusts the slide thingy snapped like it was brittle...the xlr jack would not stay in the handle so during shots it would slip out and hit againts the boompole. the bolt thing that u screw the boompole into would not stay in...Just crap. So i had to to get it replaced (not an cheap thing when u live where i do) and the new one still has that xlr problem. And dont get me started on my rode boompole..jeez..horrible from day one. The sections u tighten just keep turning sometimes.
I luv my ntg2..and i'm sure they make good mics...and from the reviews of their other gear it seems they do a decent job...but my experience wasnt good. i guess i happened to get the duds.
I luv my ntg2..and i'm sure they make good mics...and from the reviews of their other gear it seems they do a decent job...but my experience wasnt good. i guess i happened to get the duds.
Last edited:
manglerBMX
Veteran
off topic, drives me nuts when i see a photo of someone booming indoors with a full blimp. especially on a c-stand for talking head interview when obviously its not a guy from an 80's metal band with a fan blowing his hair.