Oktava still a good choice?

I think a good mic on a boom sounds better (Boom vs Lav by Thom Shafer).

I would avoid lavs as much as I can get away with.

  1. They look like a bug sitting on your shirt. Granted, this is not a big deal and is my perfectionistic tendencies talking.
  2. Their volume goes down when the wearer turns their head. Granted, this is just when the lav is clipped on too high. It needs to be at heart level.
  3. It sounds like the South Pacific when the wearer touches their chest.

We talked about this at length in another thread I started some time ago: Why a lavalier instead of a boom on a stand?

I will also grant you that a lav is terribly convenient when you're a one-man band doing a walk and talk (like Meet The Gaffer #19: Scenery & Props - Part 2
by Luke Seerveld).
 
Last edited:
Looking forward to the video later. I said that half joking. I watch a lot of YouTube videos basically of everything, political, camera reviews, and whatever. I'm very sensitive to bad audio which usually amounts to using the mic on their laptop. For interviews I really prefer lavs. I've done some instructional videos using a Rode video mic, Lav and a zoom H5, and I much prefer the Lav. I just don't like to pick up room noise. I'm sure there are situations where you need a boom.
 
Lavs are very useful in certain situations. If you have ever done a corporate style video when someone walks off podium you will know the importance of a lav. It is there for insurance. And yes for walk and talks they are extremely useful as insurance or if you don't have the budget or the personel for a boom op for your walk and talk. Sanken COS 11-D lavs have incredible presence if paired with the right wireless unit. Lavs are a useful tool and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
 
graywolf said:
The Isk Pearl appears to be one of the fake Oktavias, not labeled as an Oktavia. $30 each last time I looked.

Here is a review over on gearslutz-- https://www.gearslutz.com/board/reviews/1033203-isk-pearl-sdc.html
Click to expand...

According to the linked review, the iSK Pearl is much better than the Oktava.
I have no experience with the iSK Pearl, however, I have experience with the iSK Little Gem, which sounds very good, natural, uncolored: https://www.iskproaudio.com/collections/microphones/products/little-gem , cost $55 and has 3 capsules.
 
Michael Thames said:
Looking forward to the video later. I said that half joking. I watch a lot of YouTube videos basically of everything, political, camera reviews, and whatever. I'm very sensitive to bad audio which usually amounts to using the mic on their laptop. For interviews I really prefer lavs. I've done some instructional videos using a Rode video mic, Lav and a zoom H5, and I much prefer the Lav. I just don't like to pick up room noise. I'm sure there are situations where you need a boom.
Click to expand...

Rode video mic is an on camera mic - no wonder you're hearing room tone...Try a decent hyper cardioid (normally better inside) or shotgun mic (normally better outside) and place them within 2 foot of the speakers mouth and you will in my experience get a nicer sound than a lav
 
ade4all said:
Rode video mic is an on camera mic - no wonder you're hearing room tone...Try a decent hyper cardioid (normally better inside) or shotgun mic (normally better outside) and place them within 2 foot of the speakers mouth and you will in my experience get a nicer sound than a lav
Click to expand...

I use the Rode video mic on the C100 as a scratch mic when I take the handle off.... LOL! I also use it at times for a quick, lazy video..... sounds a little better than the built in mic on the C100.

I have a pair of Schoeps MK4's and to tell you the truth have never used them for any kind of dialogue, only for recording music with my Metric Halo ULN-2 which requires a more elaborate set up via interface into my computer, the ULN-2 isn't a self contained recording device. I always figured the audio suffered through the low quality of the recording capabilities on camera. Perhaps though I should try it, I've had my C100 for around 3 years and have never once plugged in a mic to the XLR-s.

When I bought my Schoeps the decision was down to the mk41 and the MK4 capsules cardioid vs hyper cardiod. Since my main purpose was for recording guitar I went for the MK4. Not sure a hyper cardiod mk41 basically a shot gun mic, was the sound I was looking for. That said, I do know some friends that swear by the Mk41 for guitar recordings with excellent results.

I'm not going to be recording interviews with the POTUS or for broad cast news, so the easy quick set up of a Lav is generally the sound I like most. Not to mention I'm a one man band.

BTW, anyone have experience with plugging in a couple Schoeps into a Zoom H5, how does the Zoom compare with something like a ULN-2?
 
Last edited:
Michael Thames said:
Looking forward to the video later. I said that half joking. I watch a lot of YouTube videos basically of everything, political, camera reviews, and whatever. I'm very sensitive to bad audio which usually amounts to using the mic on their laptop. For interviews I really prefer lavs. I've done some instructional videos using a Rode video mic, Lav and a zoom H5, and I much prefer the Lav. I just don't like to pick up room noise. I'm sure there are situations where you need a boom.
Click to expand...
I have shot thousands of interviews, thousands. Boom nearly always sounds better if you can get it close enough.
 
Liam Hall said:
I have shot thousands of interviews, thousands. Boom nearly always sounds better if you can get it close enough.
Click to expand...

You have me thinking to try a boom. June 20th a world renown guitarsits is coming to do a series of videos. I want to do some interviews between myself and him. I only have one Lav! So looks like I have no choice other than two Schoeps. Problem is I don't have a boom pole or anyone to hold it, so I'll have to use a couple of mic stands and hope I can position them out of the frame.
 
Getting the damn thing close enough is always the key. On a wide shot with a lot of headroom sometimes I will shoot the interview with the mic/boom/stand in shot then shoot a clean plate and remove the audio kit in post.
 
I often stick a C100 on my Kessler second shooter. Last year I did some guitar recordings with video. After play back the guitarist said he could hear the motors on the Second shooter which was abou 6 feet inback of the Schoeps mk3. I was surprised the cardiod would pick up the sound of the motors. He could hear them on play back, but I couldn't hear them. I have to point out my hearing is getting worse every year, but he is a lot younger than I.

He said the motor sound was acceptable for YouTube or Vimeo, but not for a CD, which was what we were recording.
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
Getting the damn thing close enough is always the key. On a wide shot with a lot of headroom sometimes I will shoot the interview with the mic/boom/stand in shot then shoot a clean plate and remove the audio kit in post.
Click to expand...

Yea, amazing how a few inches makes a huge difference. That's why for myself, I always reach for the Lav.
 
I would avoid lavs as much as I can get away with.

They look like a bug sitting on your shirt. Granted, this is not a big deal and is my perfectionistic tendencies talking.
Their volume goes down when the wearer turns their head. Granted, this is just when the lav is clipped on too high. It needs to be at heart level.
It sounds like the South Pacific when the wearer touches their chest.
Click to expand...

The fist two are entirely eliminated by properly placing the lav, the last is getting people to not do that. Other than Tarzan most people don't hit their chests on a regular basis.

On the boom side you have the inability to get the mic close enough, if you don't have a boom operator then you will also have the volume change and the quality change as they turn their heads and go off axis. And of course you will have some big booms if they reach out and hit the mic.

The reason to go boom is because it will sound better IF you have a boom op who knows how to swing a mic OR your subject is going to remain very consistently in place. In both cases it's still hard to get close enough in anything but a CU so if you can do "gear removal" in post you can get better tracks.

The big reasons to go wireless is that you don't have a boom op and your subject is not going to be in a fixed location. It also gives you a great opportunity to record folks saying things they shouldn't...

Sonically I prefer good boom tracks, but on a LOT of low budget shows your option in post is wireless that is OK or boom that is not good.
 
I think the cinema focus of this board is showing here.

Why would a visible mic matter in an interview? The classic interview is a reporter with a handheld microphone. Next is a visible lav. In a sit down a mic on a low stand between the interviewee and reporter works fairly well. In fact the visible mic makes it clear that what the viewer is seeing is an interview, not some made up fantasy.

Now in commercials, and films no one wants to see a microphone, they are distractions from the suspension of disbelief. Expert boom operators or carefully concealed lav's are what is needed here.

Also, contrary to most of the views here a camera mounted shotgun (with a decent shock mount), works pretty well for a lot of run and gun situations, if the environment is not too noisy. Mic's built into the camera body, however, only seem good for Suzy's 2nd birthday party type shots done by proud parents.
 
graywolf said:
I think the cinema focus of this board is showing here.

Why would a visible mic matter in an interview? The classic interview is a reporter with a handheld microphone. Next is a visible lav. In a sit down a mic on a low stand between the interviewee and reporter works fairly well. In fact the visible mic makes it clear that what the viewer is seeing is an interview, not some made up fantasy.

Now in commercials, and films no one wants to see a microphone, they are distractions from the suspension of disbelief. Expert boom operators or carefully concealed lav's are what is needed here.

Also, contrary to most of the views here a camera mounted shotgun (with a decent shock mount), works pretty well for a lot of run and gun situations, if the environment is not too noisy. Mic's built into the camera body, however, only seem good for Suzy's 2nd birthday party type shots done by proud parents.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with you there. Visible mics are fine in live TV or the news, but for everything else, lose the damn thing. Hiding microphones is a core craft skill everyone should have.
 
graywolf said:
I think the cinema focus of this board is showing here.

Why would a visible mic matter in an interview? The classic interview is a reporter with a handheld microphone. Next is a visible lav. In a sit down a mic on a low stand between the interviewee and reporter works fairly well. In fact the visible mic makes it clear that what the viewer is seeing is an interview, not some made up fantasy.

Now in commercials, and films no one wants to see a microphone, they are distractions from the suspension of disbelief. Expert boom operators or carefully concealed lav's are what is needed here.

Also, contrary to most of the views here a camera mounted shotgun (with a decent shock mount), works pretty well for a lot of run and gun situations, if the environment is not too noisy. Mic's built into the camera body, however, only seem good for Suzy's 2nd birthday party type shots done by proud parents.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Funny..... ever since this discussion about lavs vs booms, I can't help notice Fox News uses lavs on their guests and the hosts too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top