Proximity VS Transparent Lavalier

J

jonleerichfilm

Member
Hey everyone!

So I have read some about lavaliers and have learned that they breakdown into categories of being either Proximity microphones or Transparent microphones. Proximity have a big drop off when a subject is too far away and transparent stay sounding natural with a greater range from subject/subjects.

I've also heard Lavaliers broken into the category of omnidirectional and directional microphones. At first I thought that proximity and transparent were just other words for omidirectional and directional but the more I read the more it seems these are seperate categories.

Take a look here if you'd like: https://www.audio-technica.com/en-u...echniques-video-selecting-right-lavalier-mic/

2 questions and a bonus if you have time...

1. Are these terms able to be conflated? Is transparent just a synonym for omni and proximity for directional?
2. If not, how can I determine which mic falls into which camp?
3. (bonus) Do you have any recommendations for a good (somewhat afforadable) transparent and omnidirectional microphone?

Thanks so much! I really appreciate the help.
 
Usually when you hear "transparent" used in audio terms, it means that the audio is not being "colored"(i.e: warmed, bass added, etc.) by the microphone or speakers or anything else in the chain.

3) (Define affordable) Sanken COS-11's are pretty much the de facto industry standard, right now, and have been for probably at least 5-10 years.
 
If the price of the COS-11Ds scares you, consider the Oscar Sound Tech 801 or 802. OSTs are not considered a standard in the industry, but are regarded as decent by professionals. Note that one thing COS-11Ds do is provide RF immunity, which is a very important feature.

With regard to proximity and transparent, the author of the article you read said he made those terms of for the purpose of the article. But yes, there is such a thing as he describes. I've noticed it on mics, but I can't tell you which ones are 'transparent' and which aren't. I do know that I found the Tram TR-50s to be 'proximity' mics, but he disagrees in his article.

https://www.studentfilmmakers.com/s...and-rigging-by-fred-ginsburg-c-a-s-ph-d-mbks/
 
Yep - I tend to think you've got sidetracked. Like in the other topic, I think it also could be transparent meaning invisible - which is a common request, but proximity is not at term that really applies to lavs, as virtually all the popular ones are omni - so they don't have the proximity effect that causes a tip up in the bass response as they get closer. It means that changes in the head position don't change the tone.
 
paulears said:
Yep - I tend to think you've got sidetracked. Like in the other topic, I think it also could be transparent meaning invisible - which is a common request, but proximity is not at term that really applies to lavs, as virtually all the popular ones are omni - so they don't have the proximity effect that causes a tip up in the bass response as they get closer. It means that changes in the head position don't change the tone.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are right about the terminology. Very confusing... I saw someone in another forum say the following: "It is important to choose a lavalier capsule that is "transparent", which is a term referring to a mic with a lot of reach and minimal drop-off -- such as a Sennheiser MKE-2 or Audio Technica AT899. Lavs such as the Countryman, or Sony ECM44 both offer maximum rejection of background noises, but their reach drops off considerably at only several inches away."

It's so confusing because all of the microphones he mentions are omidirectional but apparently he feels some have more drop off than others. It's very important for my purposes to not have drop off so I'm just trying to make sure I purchase the right microphone.
 
I just googled that quote about "transparent" lavs. It's from a post by Fred Ginsburg, the guy who wrote the article Paul F linked to and (most likely) the Audio-Technica article you linked to (see my comment in the parallel thread).

So it could very well be that ALL the internet uses of the terms "transparent" and "proximity" for lavs come from Fred (or someone who read Fred). But he's a mixer, so perhaps his recommendation is decent (though note that one of the mics he recommends is sold by a company that he's done work for, though I think I've heard it's a pretty decent lav and I generally like AT mics for the money).

Again, keep Fred's recommendations in the back of your head and go see what wedding videographers do when they want to capture both parties in a wedding through a single lav.
 
Jim Feeley said:
I just googled that quote about "transparent" lavs. It's from a post by Fred Ginsburg, the guy who wrote the article Paul F linked to and (most likely) the Audio-Technica article you linked to (see my comment in the parallel thread).

So it could very well be that ALL the internet uses of the terms "transparent" and "proximity" for lavs come from Fred (or someone who read Fred). But he's a mixer, so perhaps his recommendation is decent (though note that one of the mics he recommends is sold by a company that he's done work for, though I think I've heard it's a pretty decent lav and I generally like AT mics for the money).

Again, keep Fred's recommendations in the back of your head and go see what wedding videographers do when they want to capture both parties in a wedding through a single lav.
Click to expand...

It's all just been Fred!? That makes me feel kind of dumb but at the same time you have to start somewhere with gaining knowledge. Thanks so much for your help. I'm going to shift my focus towards finding a quality omnidirectional microphone and not worry about those other terms because I assume if it is a good omni mic it won't have the proximity effect.
 
The whole proximity/tranparency thing feels weird to me. But Fred gives away a lot of knowledge based on a lot of experience. So overall, I think he's a useful resource and worth reading... And in this instance, maybe he's onto something...
 
He's definitely onto something. I've experienced exactly what he is talking about in a studio situation. We had TR-50s and some other brand I don't remember. When we did a particular broadcast, besides the two hosts, there were about 20 other people in the studio all talking without concern about being heard over the air. The Trams worked very well at isolating the hosts. The other brand didn't perform nearly as well. Both were omnis.
 
Yeah when I read op I was like what transparency, proximity...what?

Lav mic threads have been popping up a lot recently. In some respects it's simple 95% of lavs used and sold are omni. As far as price there are 2 ranges: inexpensive $50 for non paying projects, $200+ pro level. Placing lav properly is the most challenging part.

Curtis Judd has a good video on the subject. https://youtu.be/tXb7Ov-S6dc
 
Sony stated ECM 50 and 55 to be 'proximity' mics (not to be confused proximity effect, which cardioid mics are subject to). Both were omni, but attenuated extraneous noise well, unfortunately they are huge by today's standards.
The OST 801/802 are very similar in sound to the TR-50, which was once considered a standard. The OSTs are exactly the same size and shape and the accessories are even interchangeable. The OSTs are less costly than the Tram, made in the USA and highly regarded by most folks. OST's customer service is top self as well. The OST TL-40 end-fire lav, has a flatter response and is good as a stringed instrument contact mic and for edgy voices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top