Prosumer Mic Set up

M

MeAgain

Carbonite Member
Hey, I've been reading the stickies around here and see that mics are a much covered topic, done to death. I'm not going to ask which mic I should get, just trying to clarify some minor details. I'm shooting with the DVX100 and just want a decent, mid range prosumer package. As mouth watering of a good deal as the NTG3 is at dvestore, I think it'd be overkill for what I need...

So, question 1:

I'm either going with the Oktava 012 or the Rode NTG-2. Now, I know the Oktava is much more sensitive to handling noise, but is the sound quality technically better? Because it's slightly more expensive and has the nice ability of the switchable capsules.

I'll be using an inexperienced boom op (who I'll coach some, but still), so my two worries are: even with protection, the Oktava will suffer from handling noise- BUT, since the NTG-2 is a shotgun, doesn't this limit things? Won't the boom op need to be much more accurate than in the case of a hypercardroid? Or is the NTG-2 more forgiving as I've read? I should say some of my scenes may have some improvisation, so lines may come out of nowhere that need to be caught somewhat (not exact, but audable). Will this be a problem with the NTG2 since it's a shotgun?


question 2:

I'm not splurging on a microphone because I also want to buy the h4n, mostly for mobility purposes, but also for better pre-amp. How big of a difference in clarity will I hear between a h4n recording and one directly into my DVX100? Is it a HUGE HUGE difference?

Ok, thanks guys. Sorry for being reptitive, just want to know your opinions on these little details. Mostly worried about the accuracy of my boom guy in those improv scenes.
 
The reality is that all microphones sound different, not always better. If you have a large arsenal of different types, you can select the one you know will capture the best for an individual circumstance. Most people won't have access to a large range, so end up choosing one that will then be used for everything.

What is for certain is that the more directional your microphone is, the need for a better pole operator becomes. Vague waves in the right direction may produce simply awful sound. Give the op access to headphones and then with good ears, they can make small, subtle adjustments - often not to improve the wanted sound source but to try to reduce the unwanted sound.

As for the quality of your camcorder. In all honesty, I've never come across a truly bad one at any price range when used with mid to loud sounds. The snags seem to be that if the audio input level is low, then the camera ramps up the gain, bringing with it noise in the form of hiss, but also noise that just seems to make the sound 'rough'. In extreme cases, the internal rubbish generated inside the camera gets amplified alongside the wanted signal.

A modest microphone, used on decent level sound sources will generate sound that is perfectly usable. It's those unusual events that ruin it, when you can't get the mic close enough, or need to cut out random room noises. If you can get any mic close in, they sound better than the ones built into the cameras - which are in almost every case - pretty simple electret designs.

When you start looking at the top end of audio acquisition, then differences can be very small - and 'quality' often becoming personal preference. You can have audio as uncompressed ultra high sampling rate digital, or you can have an MP3. One is obviously bettter, but it's what it sounds like to you that helps you assess which is actually 'better'. Some folk cannot stand the MP3 sound, citing compression and audio artefacts that are so easy to hear (which they are, of course) - however, MP3 is stacks better than many other old recording formats, and people are still listening to those without throwing a wobbly.

If it sounds good, it is good. We've all got preferences in audio and as we get accustomed to a particular sound, it becomes the standard - for us. Newcomers just starting off will go through many standards as their wallets expand with age!
 
Whether you would be better off with a hypercardioid (Oktava 012) or a "shotgun" (Rode NTG2) depends more on things like what you will be shooting and where. You gave us a hint when you said "improv scenes". May we assume that this is indoors? You also mentioned an inexperienced boom operator, and improv implies that the dialog is unscripted (i.e. unpredictable).

The Oktava 012 and Rode NTG2 are not interchangable. There are different kinds of mics and each is better at different things. Hypercardioids like the Oktava are preferred indoors because "shotgun" mics (like the NTG2) cannot perform properly when there are nearby reflections such as from walls, ceiling, etc. Rode has a video online in the "Rode University" website which is a good illustration of why even great shotguns like NTG3 are not as good as simple cardioids indoors.

Hypercardioids are not as directional as good "shotgun" mics, and this may be an advantage in cases where you have inexperienced boom operators or unpredictable dialog. And you implied that you have BOTH. That would make a stronger argument for the hypercardioid, IMHO.

All mics are sensitive to handling noise because that is the nature of the beast. Some are more sensitive, but all are usable with the appropriate shock mounts. Letting handling noise determine which mic is like saying you are trying to decide between buying an SUV and a sports car, but the sports car has better suspension. If you have to haul a little-league team around, the sports car is NOT the right choice no matter how good the suspension.

If you need a portable recorder like the H4N, then get it. But it is not valid to use the excuse that it has better mic preamps. Perhaps you missed the other thread in this category with the title "ZOOM h4n preamps are crap". Now H4N preamps are NOT as that headline describes, but they are not in design or execution of a higher class than the mic preamps in most mid-to-upper-end camcorders. You will not hear a "HUGE HUGE" difference between the two mic preamps, all else being equal. You would be lucky to hear ANY difference in real-world applications.

If it were me, I would rather have both of those mics in my kit and live without the H4N. It would make a much more significant difference in the final sound track to have a selection of mics appropriate for the situation than any kind of different mic preamp. Mic preamps are not a magic potion. The best mic preamp in the world won't make any difference if you are using an inappropriate mic and/or in the wrong way.
 
Thanks a bunch guys, it's been really helpful. I was thinking about the Oktava for a while, but the strong sound from some test videos of the NTG-2 started to make me doubt it.

Also good to know about the h4n. From what I read, I thought the sound would be MUCH MUCH cleaner with the h4n.

But what I also like about the h4n is that I'm going to be recording a lot of sound effects outdoors. My dialogue is all indoors, in a very reflective room. However, all of my outside stuff is either ambient or just close up sound effects. Now, the rode would surely help me here (with the close up sounds), but I figure I have more leeway since these will be just sound, no picture.

So if i sacrifice getting the h4n, it will just mean I'll have to lug around my DVX to record individual sounds to tape, which isn't attractive to me, but oh well. Tight budget is tight budget, and if the h4n isn't necessary right now, I might use the 300 bucks for another mic or just capsules for the Oktava.

Anyway, thanks again. I was thinking of getting the NTG-2 package at dvestore- are there any sites with similarly good sound packages concerning Oktava (in other words, mic plus ball gag/boom, etc.)?
 
Indoors (and I'm assuming by that you do not mean a large sound stage) the boom op really has to watch for reflexions. Even with a hypercardioid like Bob mentioned. Moving the mic around on the boom listening for noises is a must.

Pointing the mic towards the sternum instead of the face will allow better tone for dialog and absorb some reflections as the high gain area of the mic will be pointing at the body.

Using a mic that has a far "reach" when the mic is placed 6 inches above the talents head could mean it's optimal pick up area will be near his knees if you use the wrong mic. On the other hand if you op has the mic several feet above the talent then using a mic with a short reach could mean you are picking up more ambient noise as the gain will have to be louder.

So, it really is situational and you really need more than one type mic.

I also suggest Dean Miles book. Available here: http://www.locationaudiosimplified.com

Here's an excerpt pertaining to what i just mentioned:

KNOW YOUR MICROPHONES

I’ve briefly covered the patterns of the various mics used for location audio not because I wanted to fatten the book, but because you need to understand their limitations. When I say you must stay within the mic's range, you MUST! Jamming the mic (booming closer then the mic's minimum distance) or booming beyond the mic's range will result in poor recordings.

E.G. If you use a Short shotgun mic (range 2’ to 4’) and you boom 6” away from talent, the mic will be focusing somewhere around the talent's butt! You’ll end up with washy sounding dialog. By booming too close, the voice ends up entering the cancellation ports as well as the pick up pattern of the mic, causing all kinds of weird sound effects and possibly cancelling the dialog out. I’ve heard some pretty weird stuff when the boom op jams the mic’s range.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
That's interesting, I've read that "too close is impossible", which I guess I misinterpreted, because too close is actually quite possible according to mic. The sternum thing is also really interesting. I'm not looking for a studio sound in this piece anyway, a bit rough is OK (since all the improvising scenes sort of lend themselves to that aesthetic). I just want clean, audible audio, but it's OK if it sounds "real" and rough.

So Oktava hyper cardriod it is. I'll be sure to run tests. Hopefully I can afford the NTG-2 as a nice back up.

Thanks again everyone.
 
A shotgun mic is NOT necessarily the best choice for collecting ambient sounds. In many cases an omni-directional (i.e. non-directional) or cardioid mic is much more effective.

Microphones do no "focus" at particular distances. However many (most) directional mics have a distinct "proximity effect" where lower frequencies are accentuated when the mic is used very close. Several microphones (notably the ElectroVoice "Variable-D" models) are specially designed to counteract this effect. Perhaps the author of that book was trying to create a memorable visual image, but it is not a technically accurate description of how microphones work.

Check the discussion titled "Oktava MK012A" where this "movie set package" is mentioned: http://www.oktava-online.com/shop/view_prod.php?id=110
 
Last edited:
Richard Crowley said:
A shotgun mic is NOT necessarily the best choice for collecting ambient sounds. In many cases an omni-directional (i.e. non-directional) or cardioid mic is much more effective.

Microphones do no "focus" at particular distances. However many (most) directional mics have a distinct "proximity effect" where lower frequencies are accentuated when the mic is used very close. Several microphones (notably the ElectroVoice "Variable-D" models) are specially designed to counteract this effect. Perhaps the author of that book was trying to create a memorable visual image, but it is not a technically accurate description of how microphones work.

Check the discussion titled "Oktava MK012A" where this "movie set package" is mentioned: http://www.oktava-online.com/shop/view_prod.php?id=110
Click to expand...

Like I said, you have to pick your mic for the application. I was not saying "use a shotgun" (if your comment was directed at me Richard).

I'm sure Dean was trying to create an oversimplified memorable image. The average person has a hard time mentally picturing how microphones pick up sound. I wouldn't knock Dean. He's one of the best location sound guys I have ever met.

While there is technically no "focus", using a gun 4 inches from the actors face will result in shi*ty sound, as will using a cardioid or omni from 10+ feet away. Anyway, I understand what he means, I am just not good in describing it technically. :)

I wish there was a way to see the pick up pattern in realtime 3d while using the mic at any given gain level. It would help people understand microphone characteristics.
 
Last edited:
Here are a couple of "cases" of my own that illustrate how proximity and mic type can influence sound:

Case #1 (a year ago) while shooting a 45 minute movie, I had a scene that took place in a pizza restaurant with a table full of people, mainly closeups. I had an Octava MC-012 on a boom stand, since no one was moving around. We scheduled the restaurant for Sunday at 3:00, figuring almost no one would be eating (since we were no budget and could not shut the place down). Got everyone seated, ready to shoot, when in walks a middle school soccer team and coach, fresh off a winning game. The place went from 20 db to 80 db ambient sound in 20 seconds.

Had no choice but to go ahead and shoot. Positioned the Octava about an inch above frame (framed tightly on faces), or 10" away from the mouth. Later in editing, the noise was so consistently loud there was no problem with cuts. The dialogue came through loud and clear , in perfect relation to the BG noise and is some of the best sound I have ever captured (considering the circumstances) . The scene ended up very believable as a result. Moral of the story is you can't get the Octava too close - it thrives on it.

Case#2 (this fall) shot a full length feature. First and last scenes were of a class reunion. Location, a carpeted room in our church which had good acoustics. Got the footage home and was shocked to find consistent "cavelike" echo throughout. Had post guy try to reduce it by EQ'ing the bass frequencies, with limited success. The only consolation I had was that this was a dream sequence, and often reverb is used in moderation to convey that feeling.

When doing the behind the scenes I found out why all the echo - In all the hustle, without realizing it I had grabbed the AT 4073 (shotgun) instead of the 4053 hyper. I normally monitor sound myself but that day wanted to concentrate on shooting and handed the phones to an intern, who was not told to listen for echo, just sound being present. Moral of that story is NEVER use a shotgun inside - you will regret it.:Drogar-KnockedOut(D
 
Last edited:
mainstreetprod said:
Here are a couple of "cases" of my own that illustrate how proximity and mic type can influence sound:

Case #1 (a year ago) while shooting a 45 minute movie, I had a scene that took place in a pizza restaurant with a table full of people, mainly closeups. I had an Octava MC-012 on a boom stand,...
Click to expand...

Oktava MK-012 is only the amplifier part. Which capsule were you using? Hypercardioid? Cardioid? Omni?

Perhaps everyone here (DVXuser) assumes hypercardioid? I do almost as much audio production as video production and I use all three varieties for location audio production depending on the application of the moment.

Good anecdotes. Thanks for shaing them with us. Any possibility of posting some clips to show off how you made them work?
 
That seems to make the differences between Oktava and more high-end mics clearer to my untrained ears. The AT was on the blond girl then? Because it sounded much more detailed than the Oktava. Could have just been how they were facing in the clip.

THe Oktava still sounded good for what I need though. Anyway, thanks for the clips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top