Recommended small miniature lavs

M

Mark-P

Well-known member
What would you recommend for a small miniature lav for interviews and documentaries?

Thanks.
 
For a few reasons,

1. You can swing one boom to many people (one cable to hvx) (It just sounds better)
2. Don't have to struggle with clothing noise, or anything like that
3. The "bible" of field audio says so:
http://dvxuser.com/articles/dvxshop/SoundDVD/) - BUY IT! you won't be sorry, it's a great help, novice or experienced, you'll learn plenty !!!

When you really have to you can use a lavalier, but using a mic like OKTAVA MK012 on a boom just gives better sound.

- Derrick
 
1. My only concern with the boom is picking up extraneous sounds. If you are recommending a boom instead of a lav for interviews/documentaries, what situations would you choose to use a lav over a boom (assuming you can get a boom operator and he/she not be in the shot)?

2. What is "clothing noise?"

3. Thanks for the link I am going to order it!

Derrick_SA said:
For a few reasons,

1. You can swing one boom to many people (one cable to hvx) (It just sounds better)
2. Don't have to struggle with clothing noise, or anything like that
3. The "bible" of field audio says so:
http://dvxuser.com/articles/dvxshop/SoundDVD/) - BUY IT! you won't be sorry, it's a great help, novice or experienced, you'll learn plenty !!!

When you really have to you can use a lavalier, but using a mic like OKTAVA MK012 on a boom just gives better sound.

- Derrick
Click to expand...
 
1 Yes, extra noise can be a problem, but depending on how close you can get the boom mic and what boom mic you use, something lke the Oktava MK-012 will give you better result than a shotgun for indoors for example.

After watching the DVD you will understand what I'm trying to say.

2. When the cable or the lavalier itself brushes against clothes you gonna get transfer of that on your recording, and it sucks big time!

trust me, don't buy something before watching it.

- Derrick
 
Derrick_SA said:
1 Yes, extra noise can be a problem, but depending on how close you can get the boom mic and what boom mic you use, something lke the Oktava MK-012 will give you better result than a shotgun for indoors for example.

2. When the cable or the lavalier itself brushes against clothes you gonna get transfer of that on your recording, and it sucks big time!

trust me, don't buy something before watching it.

- Derrick
Click to expand...

1 - that completely not true , that usially depends on the shotgun and the re verb you have in the room , let say that the sanken would outperform octva big time .
2 cable noise could be eliminated by looping and making strength relief , so no noise would be adding by the cable .
watch less movies - try it by your self :-)
 
you are confirming what I am saying Oleg?

I'm saying the closer you get the mic, the lower you can have the volume, the less of the room you pick up, and the oktava was an example, the sanken cms-10 is over $2k.

the oktava is known to do a good job in that specific indoor situation.

Your cable noise trick works, yeah, but is not a guarantee

the point I'm making is IN MY OPINION a lav is not the first choice solution in a indoor interview situation if you can help it.

But if you have no other option, you could make it work.

- Derrick
 
Oleg 2 said:
1 - that completely not true , that usially depends on the shotgun and the re verb you have in the room , let say that the sanken would outperform octva big time .
)
Click to expand...

The Sanken CS-3e is not a shotgun mic, really. It looks like one, but the main element is at the tip of the mic, not at the base of the slotted tube. That allows it to work better in a reflective environment.

Also be aware that "the Oktava MK 012" can come with three different capsules. The one you want is the hypercardioid.

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
Derrick_SA said:
you are confirming what I am saying Oleg?

I'm saying the closer you get the mic, the lower you can have the volume, the less of the room you pick up, and the oktava was an example, the sanken cms-10 is over $2k.

the oktava is known to do a good job in that specific indoor situation.

Your cable noise trick works, yeah, but is not a guarantee

the point I'm making is IN MY OPINION a lav is not the first choice solution in a indoor interview situation if you can help it.

But if you have no other option, you could make it work.

- Derrick
Click to expand...
why not to use dynamic near the mouth , work best :-)
bullshit a side , in non reverb space there s no any benefit to work with hyper cardioid or cardioid , only if the mic i self sound betetr .
there are situations in life you can go closer ( shadows , window reflection , open frame )
cms 10 - is jus the same as c-1 in mono mod , shotgun , not more , not less
not really worth the 2 k :-)
my cable noise trick works for ages in almost every movie you see on tv or cinema , most of the noise i not from the cable but from the mic head touching clothes or cloths which make noise.
good lavaliere outside the cloths would sound more then dissent and for one man show may be much better option hen boom from above .
about octava - i dont use it , i use cheaper mic when i need to be cheap , :-)
everything work even octava when you short on gelt :-)
 
tyreeford said:
The Sanken CS-3e is not a shotgun mic, really. It looks like one, but the main element is at the tip of the mic, not at the base of the slotted tube. That allows it to work better in a reflective environment.

Also be aware that "the Oktava MK 012" can come with three different capsules. The one you want is the hypercardioid.

Regards,

Ty Ford
Click to expand...

hhahahhahahhhhahahhah
what is the interference tube for
http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/1.1001500

and back capsule ( story 2 of them )
by the way even the waist of money cmit 5 sound much better and its shotgun , and so is the neumann 81
rotlf ,
wait for ramps :-)

sorry what wrong to work with cardioid ? , what he need to be aware , get better sound ?
 
Not sure if they new audio DVD teaches this but Audio 101 says always shoot with both a boom and a lav whenever possible. Gives the luxury of choice in post. Shooting with only a boom makes me nervous personally. I always cover scenes with both whenever possible.

Dan
 
you waist your time , post time , and make the non educated editor make even grate mistakes :-)
it is possible open and blend boom to give more live sound for main audio from lavaliere ( of course in faze and not to fur away as there a difference in delay ( these days not really a problem with delay on every recorder input) , i was doing it for years , but that was on purpose
 
puredrifting said:
Not sure if they new audio DVD teaches this but Audio 101 says always shoot with both a boom and a lav whenever possible. Gives the luxury of choice in post. Shooting with only a boom makes me nervous personally. I always cover scenes with both whenever possible.

Dan
Click to expand...

Hello Dan,

I understand being nervous about audio and appreciate that you want to cover your bases. When that happens, do you have a dedicated person doing audio or are you multi-tasking? Are you listening to the audio as it's shot?

When I'm hired to do audio for a shoot, I'll usually try each to hear which one works best, unless it's obvious which one works best. For most indoor, sitdown interviews, for example, I'll boom to both channels because my Schoeps cmc641 boom mic sounds a lot better than any lav. I'm more concerned that there'll be dropout on the tape than that using a proper boom mic will cause a problem.

Lavs can be problematic; hiding them, placing them so you don't get clothing noise, invading the personal space of the talent. You need to know how to do all of these properly to make the lav experience a good one. If it's OK to see the lav, then life gets a lot easier, but I've found that more producers these days prefer not seeing the lav, if possible. It takes a combination of more time, better gear and more skill to do that.

We were outside on a one-shot last month. My first thought was that a 416 would be fine. Due to the amount of low (and not so low) level background noise; airplanes, helicopters, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, beep-beep backup vehicles, the omni lav isolated the voice better than the 416 because was closer to the mouth and the body was blocking some of the omni characteristics. (Remember, an interference tube mic is a lot more omni at mid and low frequencies.)

I didn't try a boomed hyper. Didn't have time. It would have been tighter than the 416. Maybe better than the lav, but the outdoor noise covered up the selfnoise of the lav just fine.

There is also the real possibility that someone will combine the tracks in post to the detriment of the sound. If you are a 1-person operation, that's less likely, of course.

The "combining boom and lav" approach presents some interesting possibilities. Sure, you do need to check to hear how much time realignment is needed, but I have to open a different thought process here. I also record and mix music for a living. I'm pretty familiar with blending mics and sources.

I didn't start with great gear. I built it up over time. I found that as I got better mics and preamps, my job as mixer got a lot easier because the better gear had fewer nasty peaks, edges, polar and phase issues. I think a lot of people try to minimize mic and preamp problems (as I did) by making mixing decisions that are as much about minimizing artifacts as mixing. So if someone's gear is entry or mid level, they can EQ and mix all day and not get sound as good as they could of they had better tools in the first place.

I was struck recently while listening (and watching) the latest "Pirates of the Carribean" movie. As I listened to the interior dialog, my ears perked up. Get the movie on DVD. Listen to the dialog with a good set of headphones. As it turned out, I knew someone who knew the guy who did the location sound for the movie. What you hear is one Schoeps cmc641 boom mic. Not to say it's always the right decision, but don't let platitudes (boom and lav) compromise your audio. Boom and lav has it's place, but if you have a good audio person, let them make the decision, or at least discuss it with them.

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
Hi Ty:

I usually do both on sitdown interviews, whether I am the sound mixer or have hired one. I have shot thousands of interviews, and to me as, as an interviewer, the worse thing that can happen is to break the flow of the interview by having to re-set, tweak or re-mic the talent. If I have Martin Scorsese or Johnny Depp for 20 minutes, we are miking and rolling, regardless of what is happening audio-wise. As I am sure you have experienced, many times, ambient-wise, things sound great as you begin, then often, ambient noise creeps in as the interview progresses. In those cases, the lav often saves the day, even though the hypercardioid overhead sounded better.

While I don't tell the sound mixers I hire what to do or how to accomplish the mission, I will request double miking on interviews simply because it works for me. It is imperative that you label the files and let the editor know which mic is routed to which channel.

For me, it always boils down to covering my bases, Murphy is too often present on shoots and this process has saved me so many times, I have lost count.

Dan

tyreeford said:
Hello Dan,

I understand being nervous about audio and appreciate that you want to cover your bases. When that happens, do you have a dedicated person doing audio or are you multi-tasking? Are you listening to the audio as it's shot?

When I'm hired to do audio for a shoot, I'll usually try each to hear which one works best, unless it's obvious which one works best. For most indoor, sitdown interviews, for example, I'll boom to both channels because my Schoeps cmc641 boom mic sounds a lot better than any lav. I'm more concerned that there'll be dropout on the tape than that using a proper boom mic will cause a problem.

Lavs can be problematic; hiding them, placing them so you don't get clothing noise, invading the personal space of the talent. You need to know how to do all of these properly to make the lav experience a good one. If it's OK to see the lav, then life gets a lot easier, but I've found that more producers these days prefer not seeing the lav, if possible. It takes a combination of more time, better gear and more skill to do that.

We were outside on a one-shot last month. My first thought was that a 416 would be fine. Due to the amount of low (and not so low) level background noise; airplanes, helicopters, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, beep-beep backup vehicles, the omni lav isolated the voice better than the 416 because was closer to the mouth and the body was blocking some of the omni characteristics. (Remember, an interference tube mic is a lot more omni at mid and low frequencies.)

I didn't try a boomed hyper. Didn't have time. It would have been tighter than the 416. Maybe better than the lav, but the outdoor noise covered up the selfnoise of the lav just fine.

There is also the real possibility that someone will combine the tracks in post to the detriment of the sound. If you are a 1-person operation, that's less likely, of course.

The "combining boom and lav" approach presents some interesting possibilities. Sure, you do need to check to hear how much time realignment is needed, but I have to open a different thought process here. I also record and mix music for a living. I'm pretty familiar with blending mics and sources.

I didn't start with great gear. I built it up over time. I found that as I got better mics and preamps, my job as mixer got a lot easier because the better gear had fewer nasty peaks, edges, polar and phase issues. I think a lot of people try to minimize mic and preamp problems (as I did) by making mixing decisions that are as much about minimizing artifacts as mixing. So if someone's gear is entry or mid level, they can EQ and mix all day and not get sound as good as they could of they had better tools in the first place.

I was struck recently while listening (and watching) the latest "Pirates of the Carribean" movie. As I listened to the interior dialog, my ears perked up. Get the movie on DVD. Listen to the dialog with a good set of headphones. As it turned out, I knew someone who knew the guy who did the location sound for the movie. What you hear is one Schoeps cmc641 boom mic. Not to say it's always the right decision, but don't let platitudes (boom and lav) compromise your audio. Boom and lav has it's place, but if you have a good audio person, let them make the decision, or at least discuss it with them.

Regards,

Ty Ford
Click to expand...
 
i am big time with you on laving and booming on separate channels. there's no reason not to. just make note so the editor knows what you used and you should be fine...unless the editor is a monkey.

i am pretty happy with my new Sennheiser EW 100-ENG G2 series wireless lav.
my boom is the AT-897. sounds great to me!
 
Last edited:
singleframe said:
i am big time with you on laving and booming on separate channels. there's no reason not to. just make note so the editor knows what you used and you should be fine...unless the editor is a monkey.

i am pretty happy with my new Sennheiser EW 100-ENG G2 series wireless lav.
my boom is the AT-897. sounds great to me!
Click to expand...

Hello SF,

We were specifically talking about sitdown interviews.

No reason not to?:
1. You have to spend time rigging a lav.
2. Now you have a lav in the shot unless you spend more time hiding it.
3. If you spend more time hiding it, you're definitely in the person's personal space.

I'm glad you're happy with your 897. Try a Schoeps cmc641 when you can. It will change the way you think about audio, really.

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
tyreeford said:
Hello SF,
it.
3I'm glad you're happy with your 897. Try a Schoeps cmc641 when you can. It will change the way you think about audio, really.

Regards,

Ty Ford
Click to expand...
it will never change anything except make your overdraft greater :-)
logos dont make sound , overpriced logos make it worst as you cant afford other tools you really need
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top