Shotgun

Sherman

Sherman

Well-known member
Using SM63 for voice over. Same mic I use for freelance radio work with MD.
Have Senn. wireless for on-camerea interviews.
Neither work too well on a boom pole.
Coinsidering the AT 897 short shotgun.
Which leads to this question.
I variously hear it's not up to snuff,... consumerish----it's great.
So what's the truth here?
Is there more than a snob factor involved regarding mic names.
Or are shotguns work 3, 4 and five times the price really worth the extra clams.
Also,---can't I make a marginal mic sound pretty excellent in post by applying FX?


Thanks
 
Its been my personal experience that you really get what you pay for with mics. You can go out and buy a shotgun for $150 or one for $1500. The major difference I've noticed between expensive and cheap shotguns are the distance they can pickup vocals from and noise that is generated.
 
Hi Peobody,

I'm a little unclear on your specific use for a microphone. As far as brands go, yes, I think there's some snob factor on behalf of those that own the higher end gear and also some skepticism on their part as to the capabilities of some of the lower priced gear. On the whole, a more expensive mic sounds better because of many things. Directional pattern and noise floor come to mind. Better mics tend to sound cleaner with less fuss. Some of the higher end mics have different settings, maybe for wind attenuation (bass roll-off) or for a flatter response vs. a peaked response. Basically, there are more options on expensive mics and they do sound better. Which is, of course, why they cost more. That being said...

There are many choices for mics that do I'd say 75% the job of the high end mics for 1/3 the price. The trick is finding out which ones are the exception to the rule that "cheap mics are junk" because, imho, most are. However, there are a couple perennial favorites that appear better than the rest of the bunch.

I have owned these mics: ME66, MKH416, KMR81i, AKG CK93
I have used, but not owned, these mics: CMC5/MK41, KMR82i, CS-1

If I could have two mics that were the best bang for the buck, I'd get these:
CK93 for indoor work ($385) as it compares well to the CMC5/MK41 ($1500)
CS-1 for outdoor work ($750) because it sounds better than the ME66 ($450)
and almost as good as the others (MKH416, KMR81i, $1200-$1300)

I have been told the AT 4073a ($530) sounds quite similar to the KMR81i ($1200) but have not personally had one in my hands to verify that statement. If that is true, then I would probably get the AT 4073a instead of the CS-1.

The mic I've used that I really didn't like was the Sennheiser ME-66.

Recently, strong mentions have been made of the Octava-brand Russion mics. They purportedly sound excellent and are comparatively affordable and probably sound better than more expensive AT mics but may not (or may?) have the same level of support as an AT product. I can't speak from experience on the Octava mics, but only from what I've read/absorbed through talking with others.

Hope this helps.

BTW, this site is very helpful.
http://www.dvfreelancer.com/articles/shotgun_shootout.html
 
If this is going to be your first shotgun mic I would point out as thisiswells did that owning a ME66 is not a bad mic to have. It's affordable durable and has excellend sound pickup. If your budget is a little higher you can always go with the longer version the ME67 both are powered by the K6 power unit.
 
Peabody said:
Also,---can't I make a marginal mic sound pretty excellent in post by applying FX?


Thanks
Click to expand...


Dear God, please educate yourself.

NO! Us post guys may be great, but not miracle workers. If this were the case nobody would buy good mics.

The AT897 is a really good mic for the money. If you want a little better step up, then go with the AT4073a. From there you have the Sennheiser 416.

-Dave
 
pyrohtml said:
I would point out as thisiswells did that owning a ME66 is not a bad mic to have.
Click to expand...
To clarify: I had the ME66 for the whole of about three weeks. I don't like that mic. For the money, there are much better choices out there, like Dave mentioned, the 4073a. The "shotgun shootout" link I posted above now has a comparison between ME66 and 4073a and clearly the 4073a is a better mic for about the same money. I wouldn't recommend the ME66 to anyone I cared for. Maybe to someone I didn't : )
 
Would you recommend the ME66 for me then? :huh:

:happy:

Seriously though Wells.....in your opinion is the 4073a worth the extra $$$ over the ME66? Some people seem to "swear" by the Sennheiser mics....and then others really don't care for them at all. Just trying to get an idea of cost vs. performance.

Thanx for posting the article. :thumbsup:

~reservoir~
 
reservoir said:
is the 4073a worth the extra $$$ over the ME66?
Click to expand...
Hey, res!

"The AT 4073a has tremendous bang for the buck as you’ll hear. There certainly is more than $80 difference in quality between the ME66 and the 4073a and the only reason I can see for putting the ME66 first is it’s battery operation. The AT 4073 is reliant on 12 to 48 volt phantom operation." --DVfreelancer.com

reservoir said:
Some people seem to "swear" by the Sennheiser mics....and then others really don't care for them at all. Just trying to get an idea of cost vs. performance.
Click to expand...
I really like the Sennheiser MKH416. However in the price range, the recording of
the 4073a sounds better to me than the ME66. Maybe, I'm just hearing things!

Proof positive that the AT is a better deal. The ME66 vs the AT 4073a
 
ThisIsWell is definately not hearing things. :( Of all the mics I can identify by ear, the ME66 is like oil on a white carpet. It has a very distinctive empty tinny sound.

For ENG quick cuts you can get by with that type of sound, but if you are doing a narrative, that tinny quality will really start to grate on your audience.
 
Thanx Wells for the response. Thanx also Wabbit. Sounds like the 4073a is the way to go in that particular price range.

~reservoir~
 
Gee Dave, and all this time I thought you post guys were miracle workers.
Now I know you're just great.
I'll consider myself educated.
Dear God!
 
Peabody said:
Gee Dave, and all this time I thought you post guys were miracle workers.
Now I know you're just great.
I'll consider myself educated.
Dear God!
Click to expand...


Contrary to popular belief, we can't fix everything. If you record bad sound, you'll get bad sound. We can do some clean up, but you can't make an ME66 sound like an MKH60 with "FX". This is just common sense, and it's the "fix it in post" mentality that ends up costing you much much more in the long run, than if you just do things right up front. I see it EVERY DAY....people are always trying to cut corners. Granted, you can get good results with a cheap mic, if you use a good pre, or mixer, and a good recorder...AND you need to know how to set it up. I'm working on a feature right now that used the AT897 mounted on an XL2, and because the director used to be a sound person, and knew how to set levels, and to run the mic into both inputs, or use a wireless as a plant mic....I don't have to loop one word of dialogue for the whole thing. This almost never happens. Granted, some things needed a little work, but all was not lost.

Anyway, the point to this whole thing is...if you do a search on this forum, and read up on this stuff BEFORE you post, then you will find pretty much all the answers you need. If you look at the topics on this forum, they tend to repeat themselves every couple of weeks, if not days.

-Dave
 
I just bought a pair of Rode NTG-2 shotgun mics for event work. I'll let you know how they work out.

Rode mics are extremely quiet (their NT-1A is the quietest mic ever measured--and rated the "best mic at any price" by Electronic Musician). I own one, and I also own two matched pairs of their NT-5 condensor mics, which I use for surround sound applications. They sound incredible for recording acoustic/classical music settings. Durable, quiet, great-sounding, and cheap--the Aussies know their mics!
 
rode makes some decent mics, but that e.m. quote is beyond hyperbole. either their reviewers are incredibly susceptible to advertising considerations (as i suspect they are,) or they've had very sheltered and limited experiences in terms of listening to mics.
 
I suspect that the reviewers of Electronic Musician are neither "sheltered" nor possess "limited experience". Rather, their market and appeal is for the home recording studio. At less than $200 street price, the Rode is a fantastic value.

Stores are still selling $2,700 Neumann 87s every day. For specific applications and bigger budgets, esoteric high-end mics are the best tool to capture a great recording. Head-to-head the Rode NT-1A would be left wanting compared to an 87 for vocals and voice-over work, but there might be other applications in which the NT-1A would be the better choice. But for $2,500 less? I'll take durability, versatility, low self noise, and less coloration--I can always add some tweaking in post to give the recording some character if it needs it.
 
i don't have as much of an argument with the rode endorsement if price is taken into account. it seems to me that that is exactly what the e.m. quote contradicts. "best at any price" is a far cry from "best for the price." that's all i'm saying. as you say, e.m.'s readers aren't in the neumann consumer category, and neumann (not coincidentally) doesn't reserve much of its marketing budget for e.m, and voila, you get advertising hyperbole. there are also a lot of very nice sounding mics in the huge space between the nt-1 and neumann 87. audio technica and shure make some very nice stuff in the $300-$600 range that i think does justify the step up in cost. (to be fair, i've only ever heard the original nt-1, not the 1a. i didn't really like the high end in the nt-1, but that's me.)

on a semi-unrelated but kind of related note, i think the hype that has arisen around l.d. condensers in the past five year or so, is largely just that- hype. i think a big part of it is the fact that companies like rode, and then all of the chinese made l.d. condensers that followed (marshall, etc,) have flooded the market with cheaply-made l.d. condensers. when i say cheaply-made, i mean just that-produced with cheap labor. they're not all crap, and as far as price to performance, a lot of them are really reasonable. i like the mid-range studio projects mics for example. but the marketing of the condensers has a lot of young home recordists convinced that you need condensers to record anything, when most of them don't even have spaces to record in that are appropriate for condensers.

if you want to talk durability, versatility, low noise, good sound etc, i'd take a sennheiser 421 any day over any of the cheap condensers, if i had to be limited to one or a very few mics (which i basically am.) but somehow, dynamics have become like the red-headed step child of the mic world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top