Parabolic Dish for lav mics - opinions?

Parabolic reflectors are older than you are. Nothing new here. The frequency response is directly related to the diameter of the reflector. With such a small diameter reflector, we would expect it to sound quite "tinny" even for high-frequency sounds like bird-calls. Even "large" reflectors (18 inch/500cm) are barely adequate for speech frequencies. My opinion is that is just another gimmick to con people who don't know any better.
 
They tend to be only used for bird effect gathering or on the american sports circuit as their bandwidth is limited, put your head inside a plastic bucket and you will hear an general idea of the results! :2vrolijk_08:
 
Richard Crowley said:
Parabolic reflectors are older than you are. Nothing new here. The frequency response is directly related to the diameter of the reflector. With such a small diameter reflector, we would expect it to sound quite "tinny" even for high-frequency sounds like bird-calls. Even "large" reflectors (18 inch/500cm) are barely adequate for speech frequencies. My opinion is that is just another gimmick to con people who don't know any better.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: The perfect answer - you beat me to it. :thumbsup:

Though a small omni will also pick up direct sound as well at that reflected from the dish.
 
OldCorpse said:
What do you guys - the pros here - think of this product:

Sound Shark Audio Mini Parabolic Dish for Lavalier Microphones

"better sound rejection from the sides and better pickup at longer distance than a shotgun mic" - that's a very bold claim, and admittedly has me intrigued. Of course, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, but I'm willing to listen. So what do you guys and gals say?
Click to expand...

The report you reference is from a conference/tradeshow called WPPI, Wedding and Portrait Photographers International. With 'weddings' in mind, the use of this device would probably be adequate for some situations where lavs are not really an option, as in 'getting random wedding guest comments/impromptu utterances', or the like.

Weddings are mainly a bag of compromises between getting 'something' and 'nothing'... the latter usually ends up yielding very disappointed customers.

In the same setting, on camera lights either flash for stills or continuous for 'moving pictures' is also a compromise... so, the criteria is can one live with the compromises to get as much of the day/event captured.
 
I questioned the frequency response/ dish size so I looked it up and I was kind of right in my thinking but that didn't change the fact that you are correct.

I was thinking that whatever comes in will bounce back to the mic and that is true, but for lower frequencies that is a direct bounce and offers no boost over pointing the mic directly at the subject. Higher frequencies though get boosted so the response curve goes up.

The upshot is that there is a boost of about 6dB per octave for all dishes and there is no boost for any frequencies that have longer wavelengths than the dish diameter.

To get down to 20Hz it would take a dish 56 feet in diameter and one that is three feet in diameter only gets you down to about 100Hz.

I knew from hearing recordings and talking to people who actually used one that parabolic mics were very "bright", I just never thought about why.

Anyway, OP this would not be a very good replacement for a shotgun. What it would have going for it would be that it is VERY directional, but at a rather high cost in fidelity.
 
I don't know...with an omni lav? I don't really see the point. Physics says this isn't really viable.
 
davefisk said:
I don't know...with an omni lav? I don't really see the point. Physics says this isn't really viable.
Click to expand...

For many of the types of filming that people here do, there is no 'benefit'.

However, given my experiences at weddings, and other similar 'party' events, having a mic that has narrow directionality, does not involve handing a mic to someone, or attaching a mic, but better than a camera mounted shotgun,
is something of a benefit.

While the Wife and I never did 'motion picture' coverage... we interacted and watched a number of videographers cover the events, and so I can 'see' how having everything on the camera, would benefit.
I can understand 'zero setup' interviews, where one doesn't have to give the speakers anything to capture their audio. With the parabola, there may be more directivity than a shotgun, so as to allow for 'zooming' in on a speaker and reducing off axis 'whatever' that could interfere...

That of course is a theoretical claim... and I have no interest in working a wedding to find out...

In that regard, I would often shoot the ceremony from a balcony or distant location to 'cover' the couple and the minister. These were not the wonderously 'personal/intimate' shots the wife would get, if she was allowed to approach the alter area... but if she wasn't, the 250mm shots did give coverage to that portion of the event.
 
I have a Telinga Parabolic microphone http://www.telinga.com/products/pro-series/microphones/parabolic/stereo-dat-mic/. I use it for wildlife mostly. You can hear sounds from far off. However, it is not easy because you need to point it carefully at the source of sound. Else, it will pick up sounds some hundred feet behind your subject. So if you want to record some people talking and mix with your wedding footage, then you may be able to do it. However, from your link that mini parabolic looks small and it is mounted on a camera which is not the best place.

As far as use of lavalier in a parabolic microphone is concerned, there used to be a product from Crystal partners called Big ears and Lil' ears using a sennheiser MKE2 or some such lavalier. It was some 3000 usd, if I remember correctly.

Try the product and see if it is of any use to you. Your ears are your best friend.
 
That is an interesting mic. I wonder though since one of their dishes "folds up" how well it works. The dish needs to keep very tight tolerances or the response goes out of whack.

THIS LINK is to another companies site, they sell them so it's probably a bit biassed but still a lot of interesting info.

Two problems with the product the OP linked to are that as said the dish is very small and so the boost over all is not going to be great plus the low end of where you start getting a boost is going to be quite a ways into the vocal range. But also they are using an omni mic which means they are going to be picking up from the front and the short bounce from the dish. This should create phase issues in the higher frequencies. Their demos are not particularly well done but I'm pretty shure I'm hearing some of that in them. Or maybe it's just the compressed encoding of the video? Neither demo sounds very good and I certainly wouldn't plunk down money based on them.

This thing reminds me a bit of another device that was marketed to OMB DSLR shooters. It looked like a pair of Mickey Mouse ears that had mics in them that you stuck on your camera to give you "amazing 3D sound".

I think the problem they are both trying to solve is not sound but the fact that some people might not know that you are a "filmmaker" if you are just shooting with a DSLR and these "billboards" on your camera let them know you are not just taking snapshots. And it's easier than dragging a directors chair with your name on it around with you while shooting.
 
Whenever you see broadcasters using them, it's always outside and always with loads of LF rolled off to get rid of the wind noise. The reason for omnis is the lack of rear lobes, which will be nearly facing the noise source. No point having a directional feature if you get extra unwanted sensitivity at angles other than straight ahead!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top