Re: Best indoor boom mic (XLR)

You will be told pretty firmly by many that a hyper-cardioid is best - mainly because a shotgun type also makes a small, hard surfaced space sound boxy. Others will maintain, a clip on omni is by far better - and if the space is full of noise then simply getting the mic in close will often be better.

I do tend to use a short shotgun indoors, when the room will work for me - but in most cases, an omni clip on lav type does sound more controlled.
 
I am one of those people who thinks that a clip-on lav is ALWAYS better than ANY boom mic ("shotgun" or hyper-cardioid) for a sit-down interview.

Let's get with the times here, people! Why are we still using our grandfather's technology (hanging a mic from a boom) from back when a microphone was the size of a football? We have really excellent-sounding mics nowadays the size of a match-head!

Here are my criteria for using a boom mic:
1) Period piece where the sight of visible microphones is banned. (Or the actors are nude and no place for a mic!)
2) Talent/subjects come and go quickly (like a man-on-the-street interview, etc.) And there a hand-held may be better than boom anyway.
3) The talent is in a hostile environment (i.e. cavorting in the surf) where you don't want any expensive electronics.
4) TRUE "run-n-gun" breaking news coverage where you are chasing the disgraced politician up the steps of the federal courthouse.
5) Film-style (one camera, detailed setps) shooting of SCRIPTED dramatic action where the boom operator knows who/where the next dialog will be. (i.e. big-time Hollywood film/TV production)

FURTHERMORE: Mounting a microphone (ANY microphone, shotgun, whatever) ON top of the camera is NEVER a good place for it. Camera-mount is ALWAYS a 3rd-rate kludgy compromise and will yield inferior results.
 
Last edited:
I will counter the OP's question with one of my own......."What is the best camera for an indoor sit down interview?"

ectobuilder.......there are many mics to choose from, and yes, many times you pay for what you get. But the real determining factor on what is "best"........actually comes down to how you use it, and the environment you will be shooting in.
 
I'll have to disagree with Richard here. For sit downs we generally use both a Lav mic and a boom recorded to separate channels and will pick between the best sounding of the two in post. Sometimes it's the Lav, sometimes it's the boom, useually depending on the room. But more times than not we choose the sound of the MKH-50 over any of our Lav mics.

All the Best!

Dave
 
Richard Crowley said:
I am one of those people who thinks that a clip-on lav is ALWAYS better than ANY boom mic ("shotgun" or hyper-cardioid) for a sit-down interview.

Let's get with the times here, people! Why are we still using our grandfather's technology (hanging a mic from a boom) from back when a microphone was the size of a football? We have really excellent-sounding mics nowadays the size of a match-head!

Here are my criteria for using a boom mic:
1) Period piece where the sight of visible microphones is banned. (Or the actors are nude and no place for a mic!)
2) Talent/subjects come and go quickly (like a man-on-the-street interview, etc.) And there a hand-held may be better than boom anyway.
3) The talent is in a hostile environment (i.e. cavorting in the surf) where you don't want any expensive electronics.
4) TRUE "run-n-gun" breaking news coverage where you are chasing the disgraced politician up the steps of the federal courthouse.
5) Film-style (one camera, detailed setps) shooting of SCRIPTED dramatic action where the boom operator knows who/where the next dialog will be. (i.e. big-time Hollywood film/TV production)
Click to expand...

Obviously there nothing wrong with your opinion if it works for you but I couldn't disagree more.
To compare the sound of a quality condenser boom with a electret lav with a diaphragm the size of a gnat isn't even in the same ballpark.

Added bonus is they look amateur (my opinion) on screen and if you hide them you open a huge can of worms with the issues involved.

One of my best clients of recent years sent me and another sound mixer around the country doing interviews. At the time (a number of years ago) he was their go to guy.
He proceeded to use lav's and I used booms (yes we should have coordinated in advance but that's neither here nor there). In the edit they had a direct comparison of quality and needless to say
since then I am their go to guy.
 
I admit that if I had the choice of a $1000 hyper and the option of decent acoustics and a camera frame that would accommodate a fixed-mount microphone at an acceptable distance I might consider that option. But I virtually NEVER have the luxury of those conditions. So a clip-on lav is the next best solution and virtually always yields excellent results.
 
I usually prefer the sound of a 'proper' boom mounted mic over a lav, however due to framing, sometimes a boom mic is not an option. For sit-down interviews I'll use both. The caveat there is that some idiot will combine them together.. trashing both.
Nothing wrong with a lav though.
 
Cost is NOT the issue, or every TV programme would go back to using Fischer booms! A lav is convenient, and has a known sound that remains constant, because the mic to mouth distance is constant. You can apply eq to tailor the sound. A boom changes perspective, and you don't want that.

Use whatever you like, the only rule is there is no rule!

As for professionally, the lav clipped to your presenter can look right or wrong - depends on context!
 
paulears said:
A boom changes perspective, and you don't want that.
Click to expand...

Obviously depends on the situation but changing audio perspective is hardly a bad thing, just as a wide and tight shot visually
tells 2 different stories and lets the viewer understand the space the talent is in audio absolutely does the same.
I'm not talking about major shifts in ambiance on every shot but perspective.

Watch old films where they had to rely much more on booms and plant mics and in my own opinion
those tracks sound so much better than that constant flat buried under the clothing lav.

A perfect example is 2 people walking down the beach and are 100ft away yet their audio sounds like they are 2 ft away.
Changing perspective is absolutely something you want as opposed to the statement "you don't want that."
 
Totally disagree.


In most cases, for the edit to work the perspective should remain the same. Two cameras in one room is the worst example - one closer than the other. People cut sound and picture frequently, because it's easier - and each camera has it's own sound. Sound rubbish cut. The example on the beach would be the same for me. If the audio sounds close it's because it's not been treated properly, because open spaces have hardly any reverb, so the close mic really does the job. It just needs sensitive eq to make it 'sound' as if recorded at a distance, which is so much more easy to control.

Perspective needs to change when the visual perspective demands it - the wide shot on the beach needs to sound right, and eq'd lavs give the best audio, when the next shot is a tight two shot, then the more natural eq is reverted to, and the usual drop in ambient noise to fit.

A boom used at a constant distance retains perspective, but far too often it is worked too far away, getting thin weak and weedy.

With the boom set for a wide shot, sometimes I just don't understand why it gets so close in for the tight take - proximity effect comes on pretty suddenly with the longer mics and then needs extra work to balance it out.
 
To put things back into perspective... The OP is shooting an interior sit down single person interview.

Anyone that has worked this scenario a number of times knows from experience that while a Lav might be a good choice, any number of things can happen due to an inexperienced interviewee, from arms rubbing the mic to a simple head turn in an off direction, or a look down while talking introducing plosives or overload. Which is why many of us choose to double mic with both a Lav and a boom. As to the OP's question... Best indoor boom mic? I'll question the OP as to if he really wants the BEST, or if he realistically has a set budget for a mic he needs to stay within? As we see a number of posts asking for the best, and when suggested, the poster seems to reply... Well I can't afford the best, what's a good mic for around $200.
 
Last edited:
Two cameras in one room you are no longer trying to get the perspective of one camera or "one" perspective so I dont know how that pertains to anything I said.
Also perspective does NOT always mean distance or volume. I also think you are confusing perspective with as you said "thin and weak, weedy(?)...
What you describe is poor quality sound. That has nothing to do with perspective.

paulears said:
Totally disagree.


In most cases, for the edit to work the perspective should remain the same. Two cameras in one room is the worst example - one closer than the other. People cut sound and picture frequently, because it's easier - and each camera has it's own sound. Sound rubbish cut. The example on the beach would be the same for me. If the audio sounds close it's because it's not been treated properly, because open spaces have hardly any reverb, so the close mic really does the job. It just needs sensitive eq to make it 'sound' as if recorded at a distance, which is so much more easy to control.

Perspective needs to change when the visual perspective demands it - the wide shot on the beach needs to sound right, and eq'd lavs give the best audio, when the next shot is a tight two shot, then the more natural eq is reverted to, and the usual drop in ambient noise to fit.

A boom used at a constant distance retains perspective, but far too often it is worked too far away, getting thin weak and weedy.

With the boom set for a wide shot, sometimes I just don't understand why it gets so close in for the tight take - proximity effect comes on pretty suddenly with the longer mics and then needs extra work to balance it out.
Click to expand...
 
We'll have to agree to disagree. I hear sound in the same way I see things through the lens. Increase the distance and the microphone, like a lens hears more, and that difference I'm happy to call audio perspective. I spend a LOT of time in less than ideal spaces trying to make what is seen match what is heard. It is NOT poor quality vs high quality sound. It is sound that is different. Thin, weak, weedy, lacking substance, distant, diffused - call it what you like, but you can hear closeness. Outside, on a still day, with nobody around, then upping the gain can give very good sound at a distance. try it indoors, or in a street, then reflections give the game away. Audio perspective means changes in distance, and volume from the wanted source drops as the distance increases. Increase the level and the reflections come up too, meaning the perspective does not change. Having the reflections remain constant and the direct sound go up gives the impression the distance has reduced.

Reflections, especially early reflections help form the sound field, and in well recorded stereo, you can hear distance - especially when it changes. As I said, editing the two reveals discontinuities, that need sorting out.

We have different opinions. I can live with that, but I'm very comfortable with what I know sounds good, and what sounds like a mistake. After listening to large numbers of recordings made in less than ideal conditions, audio perspective is something I'm quite practiced at noticing. Especially when done badly!
 
To answer (with my own humble opinion) the best boom mic for an interview, and assuming it is indoors, that would be the hyper Oktava MC-012 (also assuming you are looking for affordable, around $300). This only applies if you are using a fixed boom pole holder, as could be used in most interviews. If held by a boom op, something like the hyper AT-4053 B would be a good choice, still under $600. This mic will have much less handling noise, especially with the low cut engaged. If outdoors, you would want to go with either the AT-4073 or one of the great Rode shogun mics. And wind protection.
 
One of my favorite pet peeves is the question that always starts with "What is the best...", when in reality nobody who asks that question is ever going to pay for THE BEST of whatever it is they're asking for. Everybody wants to be told that "the best" also happens to be just a few bucks more than the cheapest.

The best boom mic for a sit-down interview? If you can only buy one mic that needs to do everything (not just sit-down interiors), get a Sanken CS3e. If you ONLY do interior sit-down interviews and you want the best for that alone, get a Schoeps CMC6/MK41.

I suspect you wouldn't ask for the best, if those options were within your budget... or else you'd probably already know that answer... so... speaking to budget. I prefer a hyper-cardioid to a shotgun for most interiors, but a shotgun actually works okay for many interiors anyway (even though, theoretically, it shouldn't). For a cheap shotgun, an NTG2 is a really solid choice... and if you only use that for interior interviews, you're going to be occasionally disappointed. (in any "live" space, for instance). IF you have more $$$ to spend then that, and have your other stuff covered... i.e. stands, boom, etc. then I'd look at a used 416, or a new NTG3. These are all shotguns, but they'll all work... boomed close... in a decent interior space.

For a hyper-cardioid? I've been using a C480b/CK63 for a while now... and I still like it (more or less... but it annoys me that it's sensitive to humidity, like a Schoeps, and it takes about 30 seconds for it to stabilize when I first switch on phantom power... little pops, etc)... but you wouldn't need to spend that much on a hyper. There are a lot of other hypers that would serve you well... but I'd choose a small-diaphragm model... i.e. something that looks like all the other mics we're talking about... like a shorter shotgun. To list out all the decent options would be ridiculous... I expect your budget will determine what is the best, for you.

I'm also in the camp of boom and lav... but I've done some jobs where the boom can't get nearly close enough... and I feel like I'm wasting a channel on it, because I know they'll never use it anyway. *shrug* It's what the people I shoot for usually want. I don't know if people just expect to see a boom... or if they're afraid of the common problems with lavs... or if it's genuine concern to have two different options in post (surely the last)... but I agree there are times when I KNOW the boom is pointless, but have to do it anyway.

It's probably a good thing though... because it always amazes me at the stuff people do on set to battle good sound. How often do you pat your own chest to make a point about yourself in a situation? How about a locket that suddenly gets into position to perfectly rub across or tap the lav? How about the guy who, just as the interview gets going... slouches his shoulders forward and completely closes the nice air pocket that the lav was hidden in? There's a reason that lavs are never hidden on the news... and on top of that, there's a reason you always see TWO of them.

I like lavs, but I don't love them... There are times when I think a boom is pointless, but most of the time I'm more comfortable knowing I have two options in place.
 
David W. Jones said:
I'll have to disagree with Richard here. For sit downs we generally use both a Lav mic and a boom recorded to separate channels and will pick between the best sounding of the two in post. Sometimes it's the Lav, sometimes it's the boom, useually depending on the room. But more times than not we choose the sound of the MKH-50 over any of our Lav mics.

All the Best!

Dave
Click to expand...

Yep, but I have heard a lav win in the boom/lav competition if the ambient noise is too great and I can't get the right angle and distance with the boom.

Jeeze Richard, You must never have heard a decent boom mic. Rent yourself a Schoeps cmc641 and have some fun. :)

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
Thank goodness I asked all my poorly worded questions years ago and Ty Ford so patiently answered them on The Cow.
Anyone that's actually worked with a boomed mic will know that they are tough to control (direction) outside, horrible sounding if the wrong mic is used inside and the wrong way inside (what no sound blankets?). The list goes on. But why take my word for it. Watch some TV News interviews. Ahem. Notice all the LAVs ?? More than the mic, I've found that a top quality mic preamp or mixer make the greatest difference though.
 
TV news does not primarily use lavs because they sound good. (or bad) Many magazine type news shows (like 60 Minutes) normally have a boom in addition to the lav, if the location / set up time permits. If fact over at another pro sound forum there was a discussion on how awful it gets. TV news is in it's own world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top