Shotguns inside

You and I, though, have the ears to hear the difference. Someone inexperienced in audio won't be able to notice it......until they see the final product. Then, it's too late.

So, unless a person is knowledgable and experienced enough in audio capture to know exactly where to "break the rules", they SHOULD follow the rules. It gives them a much better chance at successfully capturing decent audio. I know where I can break the rules, and do something that is not considered commonplace or standard, yet get exactly what is needed. But that because I have been doing it for years, and I know the theory behind it. Same with many of the people here in "Audio". That's why we "preach" the standards, even though we may stray from them from time to time. It's all about having the experience/knowledge/education to employ those unorthodox methods to get the absolute best results.

Anybody without that advantage needs to adhere to the common practices of audio, and to tout not adhering to them, sets an inexperienced person up for failure. We need to avoid doing that at all costs, because if they get poor results following your advice to deviate from standard practice, it hurts you as an audio engineer.

Something to think about. That's one of the reasons I don't like sharing my more unorthodox methods. Someone trying to replicate them may not have the same success doing them, and they may think I led them wrong on purpose or that I didn't know what I was talking about.
 
Last edited:
Yes, ok. In a way it's better to give someone the "what to do best advice" because they need something to start with and if they would start "wrong" it isn't good neither. Specially if they just do sound because they're kinda "forced" to do. :-p
 
Somewhere here in another posts there's a link to some "BTS pictures". Well actually the pictures are not taken "behind" the scenes because I can see "the scene" (small joke...I usually get the best jokes when midnight has passed...).


400346_358024997542150_337490499595600_1490206_183268525_n.jpg

So when here someone says "it sounds to roomy"...I don't think it's because he used a shotgun inside... :-p
 
Doc Bernard said:
Dre, nobody has ever said shotguns indoors are forbidden.

The issue is the resulting audio you get with a shotgun. You could use any mic in anyplace and capture audio, if that is your goal or the limitations you have. But it is an accepted practice of cardioid or hyper on indoors, shottie's out. Because of the end result, and from the experiences of those that have gone before you or I.

The room and subject matter dictates what mic choice would be best.

You could use a shotgun mic in a million dollar studio with tens of thousands invested in the treatment of that room, and it still won't give you that clarity and presence of audio that a cardioid would, That is because a shotgun, though it allows phase cancellations through tube interference, it is not a black/white or on/off situation. You are dealing with sound which in the real world is analog. Unwanted frequencies and impulses will get through and be captured, even if they are off axis.

On the camera side, there is a lot of complaining about "pixel-peepers", which I disagree with. Because those individuals usually understand the science and are able to discuss it and in turn educate others.

Well, in audio, we have "waveform peepers". And I count myself one of them and I dare say, most of the working sound engineers here are the same. On a basic level, yes, whatever mic choice you use, you will get audio. But you may have to work harder or just have to accept that it may not be the best you could have captured had you not made the choice you did.

Dre, you mention in your sig that you are a sound recordists, and I applaud that. But please know that audio does have some already-known guidelines, and for high quality audio, certain mic choices do fall within those parameters. There are a lot of people new to the industry that read these forums because they have no clue about audio. And we have a responsibility to share our knowledge and experience with them.

That being said, there are a couple of applications where I would see a shotgun being used indoors for the best choice. But they are few and far between. And eventually, every location audio person, once they have heard the end results, comes to that conclusion. It comes down to having your "ears" being experienced enough to hear and understand the difference. Couple that experience and those ears with the right equipment........you have the equation for great set audio that your editor will kiss you for.

I can't tell you how many times I have gotten jobs through the editor of projects I have flown sound for. To me, those are the best referrals and speak the highest to my work product.
Click to expand...

Well said Doc. Now this reminds me of a test I created to help illustrate what we're talking about. Pay no attention to the brand, just know that each of these mics is over $1k. Move the playhead to about :50 and listen to the room with his voice.

Cardioid mic indoors.

(looks like only 1 video is allow per post so I'll make a new post with the shotgun example)
 
Shotgun mic indoors

Does this help folks understand how the different polar patterns sound in a typical 20'x20' room with a few moving blankets tossed up?
 
It has everything to do with near reflections. And that USUALLY translates to indoors vs. outdoors. Nearby reflections cause sound (both the desired SIGNAL and the undesired NOISE) to enter the microphone from the "wrong" direction and the microphone is unable to discriminate between the on-axis SIGNAL and the off-axis NOISE. THAT is why users typically find using a shotgun mic indoors provides WORSE performance than the same microphone at the same working distance outdoors. It has nothing to do with "knowing how to boom" or ability to "get closer to the talent", etc. etc.

Now if you are in middle of the Goodyear Airdock where the walls are over 300 feet away, and the ceiling is 200 feet, there are no nearby reflections and you might as well be outdoors.
OTOH, if you are in the middle of the Sahara Desert but you have a bunch of hard reflectors and flags and dots and scrims within a few feet of the microphone, you might as well be in a shower stall.

Mr. Cochran's videos are great for showing the mid and high frequency polar response of those microphones. But by using those tiny/"tinny" speakers as the noise source, we don't get to hear what happens at lower frequencies where all mics get LESS directional to a greater or lesser degree. And where you will also see more difficulty in dealing with the room itself.
 
Last edited:
Thinking about how some shotguns are more versatile, in particular when used indoors, should be part of this discussion. My NTG-3 seems to perform better indoors than my cheaper guns. Maybe that is because it is just a better mic than the less expensive models. I have always heard the Sanken CS3e is one of the better performers indoors; a real go to shotgun. Among the better quality shotguns, is there any consensus on what types or models of shotguns perform well (better) indoors?

Grant
 
The Sanken CS3 is a different design than most other "shotgun" mics. It uses a fundamentally different way of developing the directional polar response. That method is not as susceptible to near reflections as the more common design. I strongly suspect that it is a patented scheme and Sanken doesn't license it to their competitors. Someone could do a patent search one morning when they had nothing better to do.
 
Indeed, it's the interference tube that's the culprit in the shotgun's performance issues in reflective environments. The Sanken CS-3 looks like a shotgun and is highly directional like a shotgun but it does not use the interference tube principle and so is much better behaved in the presence of high levels of indirect sound.
 
If the Sanken is a shotgun of a different stripe, are there drawbacks to its unique design. How does it compare to the more traditional style shotguns when used outdoors in a more typical shotgun environment?

Grant
 
ggrantly said:
If the Sanken is a shotgun of a different stripe, are there drawbacks to its unique design. How does it compare to the more traditional style shotguns when used outdoors in a more typical shotgun environment?

Grant
Click to expand...

Much better than most traditional shotguns.
It's off axis rejection goes way lower frequency wise than most traditional shotguns.

Indoors the only problem you will run into is it has a higher noise floor than a lot of other models.
For the most part this will never be a factor but when you can't get close and the talent is speaking quietly you're going to hear the noise.
Nothing most post production guys can't remove in 10 seconds though.
 
I have the Sanken CS-1.
Is that the same technology as the CS-3?
I use it indoors and outdoors with success.
One thing it lacks is a roll off selector on the mic.
But the same can be achieved in post.
I called Trew Audio and spoke with a tech there who told me I could achieve the same quality of sound with the CS-1 as with a hypercardiod, indoors.
The only issue I run into is micing a WS.
That's when the higher floor is an impediment.
 
AFAIK the CS-1 is a single capsule interference tube shotgun, unlike the CS-3 which uses a multi-capsule design.
So IMO, the CS-1 shotgun, like the venerable 416, would likely not be the best choice for interiors, though it depends a lot on the particular room and placement if you can get away with it.
 
Here's the deal on "No Shotguns Inside."

First take a look/listen with this and listen w/good headphones: http://db.tt/Lf5EsM4M

The NSI rule applies to inside environments that have not been acoustically treated. The off-axis reflections that happen in most "average" homes and offices get into the side and rear of the mic and smear the sound. That's what happens with shotguns.

You don't hear this on (most) network drama or news shows because they know all about this and damp (not dampen, please) the area with blankets and other absorbers if they need to. They may also use hypercardioids instead of shotguns. Letterman and SNL can use shotguns because the ceiling is 30 feet up and acoustically treated and there are no parallel walls. If you're in someone's home or office, you typically have hard parallel surfaces not more than 10 feet away. Even outside, you get reflections from pavement and building walls and windows.

So wail against the tyranny of physics if you want to, but remember, I don't make the laws of physics, but they are there and can be broken. If you choose to do that, your sound will be smeared and roomy. If your ear can't tell the difference, don't presume that someone else's can't.

OTOH, if the only mic you have is a shotgun, you get what you get. That's a little like approaching a high end shoot with only one prime lens, using one type of light fixture, or playing a round of golf with one club. You need to the right tools to get the best results. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top