SHOOTOUT of the MINI SHOTS!

To start with, the NTG-3 is quite a bit hotter than the 4053b. The NTG-3 has greater bass response on a male voice. The 4053 is much more flat and in a plain room with bad acoustics, will give a more true sound. You might still use the NTG-3, but in IMHO they wouldn't cut very well.

Grant
 
This is very intersting; I was testing some of my mics into my DR-100 today. I started off comparing the output of the NTG-3 to the AT897. No doubt, the NTG-3 is hotter, by about 10db. However, using the meters on the DR-100 to test the 897, at the high gain setting, and the trim set at 7, I was easily registering -12db from 2ft away, in a normal tone of voice, with no hiss or nastiness in the recording. If I spoke up, I'd hit the limiter.

For kicks, I decided to compare the NTG-3 to a 4053b. Compared to what Chad did, I got something entirely different with the NTG-3 which is 3-4 db hotter and recorded a real booming bass compared to the 4053b. The impromptu living room I used had virtually no sound treatment, a terrible place for a shotgun. Hard walls, only a couple of throw rugs, and a slightly textured low ceiling. Could the room make that much difference in the bass response? For sure, the 4053b was the nicer sounding in that room, it just seemed strange that the response was so different than what Chad did.

Grant
 
ggrantly said:
The impromptu living room I used had virtually no sound treatment, a terrible place for a shotgun. Hard walls, only a couple of throw rugs, and a slightly textured low ceiling. Could the room make that much difference in the bass response?
Click to expand...

This is one of the primary reasons that shotguns may not be the best choice indoors.

A shotgun does not reject low frequencies, indoors or outdoors. The reason this isn't a big deal outside (except for sounds like HVAC units, highways, etc.) is that the low frequencies have plenty of space to disperse.

On top of that, the same design that allows it to have such keen off-axis rejection outdoors - the interference tube - works against it indoors and can actually compound the low end problems. The interference tube creates rejection by creating phase cancellation for sound coming in from the sides and rear (though not as much for the rear, as there's a small lobe of response there). In reflective rooms, secondary reflections that come into the mic are already out of phase, so the interference tube's purpose is thwarted. This makes reflections muddy the sound and even enhance themselves, rather than cancel themselves out.

And room corners make bass frequencies worse, so if the mic was near a corner, or in line of reflections from one or more corners, the low end is going to be pretty nasty.

A hypercardioid doesn't strive for the kind of rejection a shotgun has. It works indoors because it has a more natural sound that doesn't compound frequency problems.
 
Chad,

I see a bit of sound tile in the room, are the acoustics decent in that room. That might explain the more extreme results I got.

I wasn't really doing a mic audio test, it was more about sensitivity. But if there was ever a test to prove why a shotgun can be marginal indoors, I just did it.

Grant
 
Yeah Grant the room is treated and stuff sounds pretty good in there. All my videos are shot there, and mostly I use the AT4053b unless I'm demoing another mic. In this case I think the mic was just bery close and I was probably getting some proximity effect. My point is that I think the NTG-3 is not more bassy than the AT4053b. And as far as cutting together goes, I would think that you wouldn't be using both of those mics in the same scene anyway, as one is for indoors and one is for out. I haven't tested though by recording the NTG3 outside, then going inside and recording the 4053b on the same voice. So I can't comment empirically on that.
 
Chadfish said:
there isn't a better hyper at that price. That is THE mic to get for indoor dialogue for under 1,000.00. Anyone who claims there is a better hyper mic under 1,000.00 must provide proof with a side by side comparison...
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I dunno...

I've heard a lot of good stuff about the Audix SCX1/HC as an interior boom mic. Like the 4053, it's a hyper, and it's the same price. Unlike the 4053, the SCX1/HC is "designed, machined, assembled and tested by Audix in the USA." I've been really curious about this mic, and I would love to hear a side by side comparison video.
 
Hi Sam! The Audix SCX1/HC does look interesting. Audix doesn't list dialogue for film as a possible use though.

Applications
* Studio vocals, lead and backing
* Choir
* Ambient room miking
* Drum overheads
* Audience mic for ear monitors
* Flute, bells, chimes, maimba, vibes, piano
* Acoustic stringed instruments
 
Chadfish said:
And as far as cutting together goes, I would think that you wouldn't be using both of those mics in the same scene anyway, as one is for indoors and one is for out.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I have to on occasion. I shoot a lot of promotional and business spotlight videos, so a lot of interviews and talking heads wherever we have the chance to grab them. I end up with indoor and outdoor interviews cut together fairly regularly in these quick little videos. I guess the best thing for me to do in the meantime is invest in some sound blankets.
 
I hope you'll pardon my little resurrection of this very useful thread -- I am just looking to buy an universal on-camera (without phantom power) secondary mic for both indoors and outdoors.

Since shotguns are not very good for indoors as stated earlier in the thread, what are the on-cam hypercardioid options?

Would something like Audio Technica AT8024 be good for both indoors and outdoors? I am not very familiar with the mid-side stereo recording but from what I understand it records one channel as mono signal from a mic aimed to front and the omni ambience from another mic encoded as second channel. How do I properly monitor when recording it and what's the decoding process like?
 
Last edited:
Some MS mics , mixers and recorders have decoders built in.
Both channels are mono, when 'decoded' it can be stereo and allows adjustment of the stereo width in post (or lack thereof).
Audio Technica AT8024 would work fine.. unless your recording dialog.. in which you want it on a boom or suitable mono mic on a boom
There was a very recent discussions on MS recording, either here and/or at the DVi audio forum.. This may be of interest as well. Voxengo mid-side plugin
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the recommendation, that thread was very informative.

Do you think MS mic could be more appropriate as universal on-camera mic than a supercardioid like Rode VideoMic Pro? I would only use it to record interviews when I am working alone and there's no time to mic up someone with a lavalier -- most of the time I would be with someone handling the sound with a hypercardioid and only looking to record ambience/backup track on camera. So being able to cover these two modes, and even better being able to switch between them, would be great.

Unfortunately I cannot test it out myself unless I buy one.
 
With an M/S mic you can always use just the M channel and you will have a cardioid mic. I don't think the M is a hyper generally so that will be a bit wider than you would usually want, especially if your not pretty close which you probably will not be with a camera mounted mic.

Personally I'm not a fan of M/S, but mostly because the workflow (for me) is a pain. Some folks do nothing but M/S and it's not a big deal for them. In theory you can convert one to the other in post so even with an X/Y setup you could extract the phantom center. People will argue about how accurate that conversion is but you have to convert the M/S to X/Y to be able to hear it in stereo so IF it doesn't convert accurately then the M/S mic is inherently not an accurate stereo set up. Since M/S is used a fair amount and nobody is complaining about the quality of the stereo recordings it's pretty evident that it does convert well.

But your still left with a mic pattern that is not well suited for what you want to use it for (in the interviews). I would also question how much usable sound your going to get with a wide pattern mic mounted on a camera. Seems to me you would be picking up a lot of sounds you don't want like camera noise, operator noise etc. Maybe on a lock down B roll shot?

So this may not fit your budget general workflow etc. But given your needs I would get something like the Rode VMP ot an AT875R (depending on if your camera supports XLR and Phantom power or not), and a Tascam DR40 to pick up wild sounds and ambiences. But that is me YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top