Schoeps CMC6/MK41 and AKG SE300B/CK93 together?

M

marsupilami_4

Active member
Hi,

I currently have an AKG CK93 hypercardioid and a Sennheiser MKH416 shotgun. I'm considering getting a Schoeps CK41 supercardioid to replace the AKG indoors and to use outdoors in quiet locations where I don't need the Sennheiser's rejection.

I'll keep the AKG as a backup for situations where I don't want to use the Schoeps but Ideally I'd also like to be able to use the AKG on a 2nd boom together with the Schoeps for int locations whenever needed. Does anybody have both microphones in their kit and, if yes, would you say that their on-axis sound is close enough for them to be used together in a scene or would there be too much of a difference between the two?

Thank you,
Alexis
 
I think Alan Chang will agree but you should invest that kind of money if you're going to use the Schoeps for more than just narrative work (ie orchestra recording, etc.) Check out Gefell m210 and MBHO 630+ ka500. They are also German made, less expensive, and as good as MK41. Neumann also makes the 150 which is a fantastic mic. I've been told by Oleg, who I don't know if he still occupies this forum, that the Audix SCX-1HC caps are made by MBHO. I'd check out other options first. My two cents...
 
Hi Pete,

I believe that you're the same Pete I talked with via email (I'm the NY sound mixer). Good to see you here!

I don't doubt that the Gefell and MBHO offerings are viable (and probably better in certain situations) alternatives to the Schoeps but the latter seems to be the gold standard among sound mixers and I don't mind spending the extra $250 (relative to Gefell's price) to get it considering that it'll most likely follow me for my entire career.
And on paper at least I have yet to find a microphone that matches the Schoeps' polar pattern (almost perfectly linear at all but the highest frequencies, which explains the praise regarding its off-axis response).

Another thing that that bothers me with the Gefell and MBHO is the fact that none of the rental houses seem to have them in NY. I wouldn't feel comfortable spending that amount of money on a mic without trying it on the job for at least a day.
 
Great talking to you again! I understand about the renting something before you buy it. I know a couple of guys who have a Gefell but no one around here in the states use MBHO that much. Would love to get a Schoeps, don't get me wrong, just can't bring myself to spend that kind of money right now. Very happy with my Oktava and multiple capsules, GVC swivels and Collete-style connector :)
 
alexis-

not to jump the thread but the akg ck93/se300 combo is not often discussed.

i have the same hyper and often bring it to the set where we shoot talking head interviews so it can be the boom mic in addition to the wired lav.

i can not tell you the amount of times the akg ck93/se300 hyper is turned down by the prod/dir in favor of various shotgun mics!

sometimes the talking head locations are in apartments, offices, conference rooms and even on soundstages but always interiors.

no matter how i make the case for the akg blueline series, sadly, shotguns seem to be what they use.

how do you use your akg blueline?

stationary boom over an interviewee w/a foam fuzzy?

do you ever mount it on-camera when doing a tight interview w/camera less than 10 feet from interviewee?

i'm dying to use my akg ck93/se300 more often but i'm not sure how.

any and all thoughts you care to share would be appreciated.

be well

rob
smalltalk productions
 
Someone knocked on my door, thank you Pete.

Although I'm not the only one on this forum who uses the Schoeps for narrative work, I can attest to their abilty that not one microphone has the same characteristic like this one. If you believe that none other mic has this smooth of a uniform pattern across the entire spectrum, wait till you hear it and you'll agree more with your analysis. Many folks refer this as a great indoor microphone, and that goes for most hypercardioid -patterned microphones. Unfortunately, lots of these folks also do not have the experience in using it outdoors, because they're either afraid of it being damaged, lack of off-axis rejection in noisy environments, humidity problems, and/or there are other lack thereof "better" microphones. I've used them in pouring rain conditions, sauna rooms, loud planebys, extreme loud tank engines and maneuvers, brittle cold in the Sierra here in California, hot EXT temps up to 110 degrees-Fahrenheit, with the exception of a dirty contact time to time, all trying to capture the most precise and pristine dialogue I've ever managed to. I should feel sorry for the mics, but they keep on chugging. No, I didn't buy them right away. Instead, I tried mics after mics to see how they sound in various conditions. Enough is enough and I felt ready for them. First went from indoors, to some ADR matching work, to exterior work (hardest to accept, but the more I use it the more it makes sense without it sounding 'shotgunny').


I can't say that this is THE gold standard on film sets, but it's the most dominant microphone on big budget productions here in the US. Other parts of the world is different based on a number of factors (i.e. monetary constraints, limited access, other inexpensive options to use, support, etc.). If you see a mixer carrying two or even four, you know you're into lots of fun. I use them for triple/quad duties so they come very handie in all sound situations and not just for narrative film work. Thus my investment in them. If you feel that you want to invest in something this expensive, then by all means go for it. Otherwise, there are other less expensive alternatives. Your audience wouldn't be able to tell because this isn't their line of field.

Let's get back to your mic locker. You already own a good hypercardioid and a standard short shotgun, what else is limiting you from getter better results? Surely upgrading your hypercardioid wouldn't be that big of a margin. Few folks around the area has MBHO and Gefells, but they do lots of music recording and not film work. They sound similar, but in no way the same. One other thing to ponder about is how well your booming skill or your boom op's are. Schoeps are sensitive, Oktava wins here. I tend to get the most out of anything I invest before I move on and hopefully my ROI stands well in the long term. This goes as well to experience. I won't call myself a mixer unless I have actually mixed a large number of cast members with 2 or 3 booms and multi-cam sends.

Last but not least, ask around your 'hood if anyone has access to the microphones you're looking for. Remember there are Sennheisers and Sankens, the regular 3 "S" brands you'll see around the most on sets because they're proven to work.
 
Rule number one is to audition. Your ears will tell you in a few minutes. For me, The 41's are way better :)
Your ears may be different.
You have to budget your sound $$$ wisely, the Schoeps are a tad on the expensive side. Oktavas are not a bad budget choice.
I have some Schoeps 41s I bought 15 years ago that have more than doubled in value, they still sound great. I consider them an absolutely must have pair of microphones.
Get the CMC6 pres, not the XTs.
The 2H is a great ambient mic.
 
Alan H. Chang said:
Someone knocked on my door, thank you Pete.

Although I'm not the only one on this forum who uses the Schoeps for narrative work, I can attest to their abilty that not one microphone has the same characteristic like this one. If you believe that none other mic has this smooth of a uniform pattern across the entire spectrum, wait till you hear it and you'll agree more with your analysis. Many folks refer this as a great indoor microphone, and that goes for most hypercardioid -patterned microphones. Unfortunately, lots of these folks also do not have the experience in using it outdoors, because they're either afraid of it being damaged, lack of off-axis rejection in noisy environments, humidity problems, and/or there are other lack thereof "better" microphones. I've used them in pouring rain conditions, sauna rooms, loud planebys, extreme loud tank engines and maneuvers, brittle cold in the Sierra here in California, hot EXT temps up to 110 degrees-Fahrenheit, with the exception of a dirty contact time to time, all trying to capture the most precise and pristine dialogue I've ever managed to. I should feel sorry for the mics, but they keep on chugging. No, I didn't buy them right away. Instead, I tried mics after mics to see how they sound in various conditions. Enough is enough and I felt ready for them. First went from indoors, to some ADR matching work, to exterior work (hardest to accept, but the more I use it the more it makes sense without it sounding 'shotgunny').


I can't say that this is THE gold standard on film sets, but it's the most dominant microphone on big budget productions here in the US. Other parts of the world is different based on a number of factors (i.e. monetary constraints, limited access, other inexpensive options to use, support, etc.). If you see a mixer carrying two or even four, you know you're into lots of fun. I use them for triple/quad duties so they come very handie in all sound situations and not just for narrative film work. Thus my investment in them. If you feel that you want to invest in something this expensive, then by all means go for it. Otherwise, there are other less expensive alternatives. Your audience wouldn't be able to tell because this isn't their line of field.

Let's get back to your mic locker. You already own a good hypercardioid and a standard short shotgun, what else is limiting you from getter better results? Surely upgrading your hypercardioid wouldn't be that big of a margin. Few folks around the area has MBHO and Gefells, but they do lots of music recording and not film work. They sound similar, but in no way the same. One other thing to ponder about is how well your booming skill or your boom op's are. Schoeps are sensitive, Oktava wins here. I tend to get the most out of anything I invest before I move on and hopefully my ROI stands well in the long term. This goes as well to experience. I won't call myself a mixer unless I have actually mixed a large number of cast members with 2 or 3 booms and multi-cam sends.

Last but not least, ask around your 'hood if anyone has access to the microphones you're looking for. Remember there are Sennheisers and Sankens, the regular 3 "S" brands you'll see around the most on sets because they're proven to work.
Click to expand...
Thank you Alan for taking the time to write this post, lots of very good points in there.

First of all, I'll say that I'm quite happy with the AKG in most situations. I also realize that the Schoeps is an expensive piece of gear and if I decide to get it it'll only be after a long thought process.

Here's some of the reasoning behind it: while I am generally happy with the AKG, I've encountered several occasions where I feel the Schoeps' off-axis response would have led to better results. For instance I had a shoot in which there always was a trio of talents (think Charlie's Angels) together in the shot with a fair amount of overlap and ad-libbing. While I was able to more or less anticipate the dialogue for the most part there were times where the beginning of a line would be off-axis and I could hear the coloration. Also in some car scenes I'd have a very small margin for booming and would end up being slightly off-axis. In these situations I don't think a cardioid mic would have been appropriate either as it would have added too much reflective sound considering I wasn't able to get very close to the talents. As you said, down the line the audience probably can't tell the difference but if I can it's enough to make me unhappy.
Another example is when you have a shot in which the camera is on talent 1 and talent 2 is out of frame or facing away from camera (such as OTS). In this situation you would typically have talent 1 in the frame in the edit, and then you'd switch to talent 2 when he/she delivers his/her line, or if you're focusing on talent 1's reaction you'd replace talent 2's lines, but if for some reason the editor or director decide they like talent 2's off-axis performance the most then, again, the Schoeps would make a difference here.

Also, considering that the microphone and the mixer are the two most important elements of the chain regarding overall sound quality and that both (especially microphones) can last you for years, if not decades, I think it makes sense that they should be the areas where you want the highest possible quality. I already have a high-quality (SQN) mixer, the next logical step is to get the best microphone I can afford.

Finally, I realize that such a microphone might seem overkill right now considering the level of productions I work on (and the amount of money I get paid), but I'm hopeful that I'll eventually get to a point where it becomes fully justified. So if I think I'll end up getting it sooner or later, why not get it now? (it's not like they depreciate in value over time, quite the opposite actually)

Alexis
 
robfilms said:
alexis-

not to jump the thread but the akg ck93/se300 combo is not often discussed.

i have the same hyper and often bring it to the set where we shoot talking head interviews so it can be the boom mic in addition to the wired lav.

i can not tell you the amount of times the akg ck93/se300 hyper is turned down by the prod/dir in favor of various shotgun mics!

sometimes the talking head locations are in apartments, offices, conference rooms and even on soundstages but always interiors.

no matter how i make the case for the akg blueline series, sadly, shotguns seem to be what they use.

how do you use your akg blueline?

stationary boom over an interviewee w/a foam fuzzy?

do you ever mount it on-camera when doing a tight interview w/camera less than 10 feet from interviewee?

i'm dying to use my akg ck93/se300 more often but i'm not sure how.

any and all thoughts you care to share would be appreciated.

be well

rob
smalltalk productions
Click to expand...
Hi Rob,

While I have done a few sit-down interviews I work mostly on fiction so my experience might not be the same as yours.
I have never encountered a situation in which somebody else told me what gear to use. It's one thing to have a director refuse to do another take "for sound" because "we don't have time" but if they don't trust / override your judgment regarding what equipment is best for the job and think they know better then what's the point of hiring a sound person in the first place?

I've used my AKG both on a boom and on stands (sometimes mounting the boom itself on a c-stand) with great results. I usually always leave the supplied foam windscreen on but if it's mounted on a stand and the air is completely still you might consider using it naked.
I wouldn't see the point of using a shotgun over the AKG in a quiet, stationary interior setup unless the room is dry and the shotgun's sound works particularly well with the person's voice.

Regarding mounting the mic on camera I've never tried it myself so I can't really help you but 10 feet away is pretty far actually, I'd strongly recommend using a boom and/or stand in this situation if at all possible.

Alexis
 
Last edited:
robfilms said:
alexis-
...
do you ever mount it on-camera when doing a tight interview w/camera less than 10 feet from interviewee?

...
Click to expand...

AKG hyper or shotgun, they're all going to sound like c**p when used at the camera position 10 feet away from an interview subject. A hyper's ideal working distance is about 18 inches from the speaker's mouth while a short shotgun's sweet spot is at about 22 inches.

The problem with stationary booms is the patterns of either the hyper or a 'gun are so tight that normal subject movement, even seated, can take them on and off mic, thus changing the quality of the sound recorded. You really need someone aiming the boom in real time to continually follow the subject's natural motions.
 
Last edited:
marsupilami_4 said:
...I've encountered several occasions where I feel the Schoeps' off-axis response would have led to better results. For instance I had a shoot in which there always was a trio of talents (think Charlie's Angels) together in the shot with a fair amount of overlap and ad-libbing...
Click to expand...

Watch for body language. You can anticipate the next line of dialogue by watching the actor's interact with each other. That and a good BBG on your hyper so you can swing over quickly.

marsupilami_4 said:
...Also in some car scenes I'd have a very small margin for booming and would end up being slightly off-axis.
Click to expand...

Plant mics are the way to go. I know Scott K (Noiz2) is very fond of the CAD 217 mics. Small, easy to plant and super cheap! You can easily put them behind the driver and passanger seats if you have people speaking in the back of the car during a scene.

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/CAD-CM217-Condenser-Mic-Buy-One-Get-One-Free?sku=271324

You can also plant a CUB-01 or lav's in the car to gather what you're looking to capture.

marsupilami_4 said:
...Another example is when you have a shot in which the camera is on talent 1 and talent 2 is out of frame or facing away from camera (such as OTS).
Click to expand...

A second boom may need to be used during this scene if the director is looking to capture all dialogue whether if it's on or off camera. If it's off camera, you can have a PA hold a boom since you won't have to worry about riding the frame line with an inexperienced boom op. This should be something discussed during pre-production.

marsupilami_4 said:
...Also, considering that the microphone and the mixer are the two most important elements of the chain regarding overall sound quality and that both (especially microphones) can last you for years, if not decades, I think it makes sense that they should be the areas where you want the highest possible quality.
Click to expand...

Although true, nothing will ever beat a mic boomed from above at the appropriate height. Technique will serve both you and I a long time while we both get more involved with film and gather the funds to purchase nice gear which we're rented/borrowed before that fits our needs and taste.
 
Pete@twenty7pix said:
Watch for body language. You can anticipate the next line of dialogue by watching the actor's interact with each other. That and a good BBG on your hyper so you can swing over quickly.
Click to expand...
To some extent you're right, and I did use this technique to get most of the cues. However when you have a talent or, worse, two in this case, randomly overlapping the third one there's not much you can do besides pick who you think should be in focus. At least with the Schoeps the other talents would then just have their voices attenuated and not colored.
I've got to admit though that this is a bit of an unusual scenario.


Plant mics are the way to go. I know Scott K (Noiz2) is very fond of the CAD 217 mics. Small, easy to plant and super cheap! You can easily put them behind the driver and passanger seats if you have people speaking in the back of the car during a scene.

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/CAD-CM217-Condenser-Mic-Buy-One-Get-One-Free?sku=271324

You can also plant a CUB-01 or lav's in the car to gather what you're looking to capture.
Click to expand...
Alright I've got to give you this one about the plant mics, this is a technique I haven't used yet, the main reason being that I don't have any mics to plant... I'll go ahead and buy a pair of those mics right now, can't really go wrong for the price.
Gotta experiment with the CUB-01 too as right now I have a hard time picturing how it behaves. I'll probably go ahead and rent one next time I have a car scene.
Where would you mount it with 2 talents in front seats? Roof? Dashboard? Windshield? It depends?
I've tried using lav's hidden in the visors in the past, not happy with the sound, maybe it was this specific car model but I was picking a lot of reverb. I'd be willing to give it another try though, maybe it would be better with a different car.


A second boom may need to be used during this scene if the director is looking to capture all dialogue whether if it's on or off camera. If it's off camera, you can have a PA hold a boom since you won't have to worry about riding the frame line with an inexperienced boom op. This should be something discussed during pre-production.
Click to expand...
I was talking about a scenario where the director was originally planning on using the sound from another take (the reverse OTS for example) but it just so happens that the original performance turns out to work better for that particular line. I've seen it before in post. In such a scenario the Schoeps' off-axis response might make just enough of a difference to make the line useable.
Of course a solution would be to boom everything all the time but there are also drawbacks in doing so (besides the fact that it requires more efforts/resources from the sound department, a lazy dialog editor might be tempted to leave the lines as they are instead of seeking the best performance).

Although true, nothing will ever beat a mic boomed from above at the appropriate height. Technique will serve both you and I a long time while we both get more involved with film and gather the funds to purchase nice gear which we're rented/borrowed before that fits our needs and taste.
Click to expand...
I agree, down the line it's about the archer and not the arrows as the saying goes. But at the same time it helps in some situations to have just the right tool for the job.


Although the conversation has drifted from the original question I'm really glad it did as a lot of pertinent things have been said so far and it's getting me to consider the Schoeps purchase in a different perspective. Thank you all for your contributions!

Alexis
 
To some extent you're right, and I did use this technique to get most of the cues. However when you have a talent or, worse, two in this case, randomly overlapping the third one there's not much you can do besides pick who you think should be in focus. At least with the Schoeps the other talents would then just have their voices attenuated and not colored.
I've got to admit though that this is a bit of an unusual scenario.
Click to expand...

I've been in situations where it's a 30-40 minute take and I need to cover about 4-6 talents talking improv and trying to swing the boom to cover everyone. Works wonders, all about your boom op. You've got to swing like a monkey, yet without making noises and distractions for a long period of time.


Alright I've got to give you this one about the plant mics, this is a technique I haven't used yet, the main reason being that I don't have any mics to plant... I'll go ahead and buy a pair of those mics right now, can't really go wrong for the price.
Gotta experiment with the CUB-01 too as right now I have a hard time picturing how it behaves. I'll probably go ahead and rent one next time I have a car scene.
Where would you mount it with 2 talents in front seats? Roof? Dashboard? Windshield? It depends?
I've tried using lav's hidden in the visors in the past, not happy with the sound, maybe it was this specific car model but I was picking a lot of reverb. I'd be willing to give it another try though, maybe it would be better with a different car.
Click to expand...

Many folks use the CUB01 and some don't like the sound of them, me in particular. I just lav the visor and back seats when it's a full-on 4 character interaction. Did this for the San Francisco Ford Fiesta and came out with excetional results. I've also mounted onto the seats, roof, dashboard (far from closeup pickup, will get more of the engine), and shifter. Maybe you could take some time off and mount your car and test yourself. I did this with PZMs, lavs, boom mics, and they all work. Just have to try, all about the experience and being prepared when it actually DOES happen on the set, so you wouldn't look confused and lost in front of your peers.


I was talking about a scenario where the director was originally planning on using the sound from another take (the reverse OTS for example) but it just so happens that the original performance turns out to work better for that particular line. I've seen it before in post. In such a scenario the Schoeps' off-axis response might make just enough of a difference to make the line useable.
Of course a solution would be to boom everything all the time but there are also drawbacks in doing so (besides the fact that it requires more efforts/resources from the sound department, a lazy dialog editor might be tempted to leave the lines as they are instead of seeking the best performance).
Click to expand...

I've had first timers editing my boom dialogue and would notify the directors and producers that I did a poor job because there wasn't any lavs to use. Your typical amateur. Then I never got the job again. There are LOTS of folks from both sides of the camera who are like this.

If you've already thought about getting the Schoeps, you'll be one happy camper. For booming situations where you have multiple characters speaking at a time and would need to swing/rotate your mic to cover, the off-axis of the mic would come at a high advantage. When you're using multiple Schoeps for 2-3 booming situations on large sets, then you know why it's so heavily favored among the veterans. I personally encounter lots of unexpected situations where I'll need at least 2 on boom and a couple for plants. With the option of owning multiple capsules for weird micing situations where my MK41's won't do, then you'll have the option to swap for a different pattern for those complicated scenarios. It's an expensive investment, but worth it for what I do with them.
 
Alan H. Chang said:
I've been in situations where it's a 30-40 minute take and I need to cover about 4-6 talents talking improv and trying to swing the boom to cover everyone. Works wonders, all about your boom op. You've got to swing like a monkey, yet without making noises and distractions for a long period of time.
Click to expand...
The shoot I'm referring to was one of the most challenging one I ever had to boom. Basically 2/3rd of the shoot were 5+ min takes with 3 girls usually sitting side by side on a sofa, following a script very loosely with a good amount of ad-lib and overlap, and on top of that in some of the scenes, because of the shot and lighting used, I had to be on the side, with the boom parallel to the line. I had never worked with "improv" (don't know if you can call it that if it's based on a script) before besides the usual on-the-fly line change, this forced me to be sharper than ever in my boom handling and gave me even more respect for all the talented boom ops out there.


Many folks use the CUB01 and some don't like the sound of them, me in particular. I just lav the visor and back seats when it's a full-on 4 character interaction. Did this for the San Francisco Ford Fiesta and came out with excetional results. I've also mounted onto the seats, roof, dashboard (far from closeup pickup, will get more of the engine), and shifter. Maybe you could take some time off and mount your car and test yourself. I did this with PZMs, lavs, boom mics, and they all work. Just have to try, all about the experience and being prepared when it actually DOES happen on the set, so you wouldn't look confused and lost in front of your peers.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I don't have a car nor do I have easy access to one so this limits experimentation time to the time it takes for picture to be up basically.
I usually get good results with the boom though, typically either booming from outside through the window or from the back row hidden behind a seat depending on the shot, the background noise, etc. Where things get tricky is when there's a lot of activity/movement going on or if there are people in the front and back. In those situations I can definitely see the plant mics coming in handy.


I've had first timers editing my boom dialogue and would notify the directors and producers that I did a poor job because there wasn't any lavs to use. Your typical amateur. Then I never got the job again. There are LOTS of folks from both sides of the camera who are like this.
Click to expand...
At first when I got my wireless kits I wired everybody all the time because I'd read and been told that it was common practice and that it gave more options to the editor. However after a while I started to notice that the boom nearly always sounded better when placed at a proper distance so I stopped this practice and started using lavs only as a backup in situations that could potentially be tricky to boom (that and wide shots with no coverage where the boom can't get close enough). Nowadays in this scenario I turn the lavs on for the first take or 2 and then turn them off if I find that I'm able to cover everything with the boom.
Where it gets a bit worrying is that I've had a few occasions where the AD will come to me before the 1st scene and either tell me now's a good time to wire talents or ask if they're wired yet and then will look at me in a funny, surprised way when I tell him that I have no intention of wiring them for this scene. Have you guys noticed that too?
Click to expand...
 
marsupilami_4 said:
...Have you guys noticed that too?
Click to expand...

Nope, not yet. Even with an inexperienced director, I'll tell them I need to see the scene, it's blocking and have the actors run through the dialogue. Then I'll find out what kind of shots the director will have during that scene. If I find there's going to be a wide shot without the possiblity of booming, then I'll wire them up for the whole scene. But this is after looking to see if I can plant a mic, a lav, or grab an available PA to help boom with me.
 
The shoot I'm referring to was one of the most challenging one I ever had to boom. Basically 2/3rd of the shoot were 5+ min takes with 3 girls usually sitting side by side on a sofa, following a script very loosely with a good amount of ad-lib and overlap, and on top of that in some of the scenes, because of the shot and lighting used, I had to be on the side, with the boom parallel to the line. I had never worked with "improv" (don't know if you can call it that if it's based on a script) before besides the usual on-the-fly line change, this forced me to be sharper than ever in my boom handling and gave me even more respect for all the talented boom ops out there.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the world of indie. :) Not all cases, but it happens. Definitely keeps your skills and awareness sharp.


Unfortunately I don't have a car nor do I have easy access to one so this limits experimentation time to the time it takes for picture to be up basically.
I usually get good results with the boom though, typically either booming from outside through the window or from the back row hidden behind a seat depending on the shot, the background noise, etc. Where things get tricky is when there's a lot of activity/movement going on or if there are people in the front and back. In those situations I can definitely see the plant mics coming in handy.
Click to expand...

I would only boom from underneath and rotate mics if necessary when the car is being pulled or on a trailer, stationary. Otherwise, I try to get out of the talent's car as much as possible. If the talent also happens to own the vehicle, I'll just stay with them in the backseat.


At first when I got my wireless kits I wired everybody all the time because I'd read and been told that it was common practice and that it gave more options to the editor. However after a while I started to notice that the boom nearly always sounded better when placed at a proper distance so I stopped this practice and started using lavs only as a backup in situations that could potentially be tricky to boom (that and wide shots with no coverage where the boom can't get close enough). Nowadays in this scenario I turn the lavs on for the first take or 2 and then turn them off if I find that I'm able to cover everything with the boom.
Where it gets a bit worrying is that I've had a few occasions where the AD will come to me before the 1st scene and either tell me now's a good time to wire talents or ask if they're wired yet and then will look at me in a funny, surprised way when I tell him that I have no intention of wiring them for this scene. Have you guys noticed that too?
Click to expand...

Funny looks? Yeah sure. They tell me they need 6 talents on wireless, then I look at the situation, and respond back saying "How about 2 or 3 booms? Or maybe 1 boom for each camera?"

More options to the editor? Uh, NO! Even for both picture and sound editorials, everyone is going to work off from the production mix and assume that what you give them would be fine. You must notify post that your production is good, or refer back to ISO when there's a complicated scene. You note that on the sound report or even a voice slate. When in doubt there's a serious problem, then they'll look into the ISOs. Otherwise, no because there are LOTS of downtime sorting through the tracks to look for the right take and matching with the rest of the production audio.

98% of the time I just go with the booms and switch microphones when necessary. Before rehearsals begin, you're usually met with how the next scene is going to be shot. During that time, you figure whether you need them or not. Nobody wants to have a transmitter on them if it's not needed.
 
Pete@twenty7pix said:
Nope, not yet. Even with an inexperienced director, I'll tell them I need to see the scene, it's blocking and have the actors run through the dialogue. Then I'll find out what kind of shots the director will have during that scene. If I find there's going to be a wide shot without the possiblity of booming, then I'll wire them up for the whole scene. But this is after looking to see if I can plant a mic, a lav, or grab an available PA to help boom with me.
Click to expand...
So even in the event that the wide shot is a master that's going to be broken down (MS, CU, OTS...) you'd still place lav's just for that shot?
If I know I'm going to get coverage at some point I don't place lav's and assume that post will either a/keep the original tracks (sometimes even if there's a bit of reverb it matches the visual perspective and works fine) or b/replace them with ones from coverage if they don't sound good enough. The only exception would be in the event that there's no way to get audible dialog with the boom (for example dialog shot from across the street on a busy NY street) in the wide shot, in which case I'd use lav's as a guide track and have them on just for that shot (and I'd have noted somewhere that these are intended as guide tracks).

Alan: I completely agree and wish I'd been told otherwise before, it would've saved me from a lot of unnecessary wiring!

The funny look happened a couple times with 2 experienced AD's (at least to the extent that they had worked on multiple features). It's not that they argued with me or even thought I was making the wrong decision, just that they seemed surprised, as if they were used to the sound guy wiring talents all the time. Oh and I've also had talents worried because they weren't wired.


Although this is a very interesting discussion, if anyone has comments regarding my initial question (whether or not the MK41 and CK93 are close enough sonically to blend in together well) please feel free to chime in!
 
Last edited:
First, congrats on considering upgrading to the 41. Your thinking on it's being a lifetime investment is spot on and represents a significant advancement to your kit. To better answer your specific question, one has to ask "who are you trying to please?". The 41 and the 93 are not really in the same league. An experienced audiophile is going to pick up on the difference pretty quickly. But these are not average people. Your average consumer is very unlikely to catch it unless he's hearing dialogue from the same talent in the same position back to back. Short answer - it's probably going to depend on the circumstances and who your playing for.

Regarding Robfilms's comments - we use the blue line series quite a bit - 93's, and to a somewhat lesser extent 97's and 98s. The 93 in a BBG is pretty much our go to mic for most interior work. Although no direct knowledge, I've been told they've been favored on more than a few television soundstages. I've very occasionally had a conversation with a director over shotgun vs hyper for a specific effect, the specific mic never came up at all. I did once have a junior AD ask me what one cost - I simply told him way more than his car (sadly true). Having Producers/Directors involved in mic selection is a bit foreign to my experience... is this something they bring up or do you ??? What's their experience level? Do they have any idea what they're talking about ? Just puzzled.
 
pixelated said:
First, congrats on considering upgrading to the 41. Your thinking on it's being a lifetime investment is spot on and represents a significant advancement to your kit. To better answer your specific question, one has to ask "who are you trying to please?". The 41 and the 93 are not really in the same league. An experienced audiophile is going to pick up on the difference pretty quickly. But these are not average people. Your average consumer is very unlikely to catch it unless he's hearing dialogue from the same talent in the same position back to back. Short answer - it's probably going to depend on the circumstances and who your playing for.
Click to expand...
That's a very good point: if/when I get to a level of production where it really makes a difference then chances are I'll either own or have the budget to rent a second Schoeps.

Thanks!

Alexis
 
marsupilami_4 said:
That's a very good point: if/when I get to a level of production where it really makes a difference then chances are I'll either own or have the budget to rent a second Schoeps.

Thanks!

Alexis
Click to expand...

If you want to go first class all the way, consider pairing a Schoeps CMC641 hypercardioid for interiors with its brother, the Schoeps CMIT shotgun, for exteriors. The CMIT was specifically designed to match the 641 in tonality so shots made on either could be smoothly intercut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top