Shotguns + lavs

W

Whiteside Production

Active member
Ok, so here is my setup.
-Sony DSR PD-170 (2 Channel input)
-2 Wireless Lavs (2 seperate channels)
-External Sony mic "Boom"

My question:
-what would be the best way to setup my channels so I can record all three at the same time? (2 Lavs + Boom). Do I even need the Boom? Should I just do Lav 1 on channel 1 and Lav 2 on channel 2 and forget about the "Boom?"
-What are the advantages and disadvantages to having/not having a boom?

I would appreciate any help you can give.
 
First off, what are you recording and in what environment? Second off, you can't record three sources to two channels and maintain any ability to adjust them separately later... unless you want to do some wacky phase junk to isolate your center channel, but that'd just be silly.
Anyway, let us know what you're recording situation is so that we can give a more informed response to the question.

-pastywhiteboy
 
I'd definitely just stick with the lavs throughout then. There is not going to be any advantage to using the boom unless you have an amazingly experienced boom operator... and then it'll still probably only be usable outdoors. Sticking to lavs will keep your audio fairly consistant throughout all those environments. Just make sure somebody is monitoring the lavs at all times or you may just end up with a little bit of rub noise ruining an entire scene.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on your setup. Hope it helps.

-pastywhiteboy
 
Ok, Let's say that I need the 2 lavs + ambient (let's just say we need 2 actors talking and then ambient sound of a car starting and revving) how could I put all three channels in to the 2 channels? can I double up the lavs on to ch1 and put the boom on 2?
 
what you need is 2 wireless lavs, a boom mic (416) with a pole. when doing nat sound a lav is just not ambient enough. then you need a three channel mixer so you can mix all three tracks down to two and lay it on the tape. if you dont want to spend much then get this[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Azden 3-CHANNEL PORTABLE FIELD MIXER[/FONT]

shim.gif
Mfr# FMX32 • B&H# AZFMX32


www.bhphotovideo.com another low bugd way is to buy USB portable digital vioce recorders from, like Radio Shack with external lavs. set it on its best setting, set your gains on the recorder, then do a clapp between each take to sink it. Then you plug the recorder into your computer and imput it into your timeline. this way each person can be wearing a mic and have there oun channel for around $130.00 each with lavs
 
Last edited:
but it will sound like crap.

(no offense, but good sound costs money) - willshipps advice is great, if you are doing sound in an "amateur" bracket. sorry will, not trying to say your answer wasnt good, it is, but who knows what the required quality is for whiteside...
 
What if you...

1.) do all your shooting with the actors on the 2 lavs,

2.) send them home (the actors, not the mics),

3.) then record the ambient audio with the boom separately, and add it in as a third SFX track while you're editing?

Shouldn't be tough to re-create car noises, right?
 
In my personal opinion and experience, if you want usable audio stay away from the Azden mixers. If you're really set on them, I have a couple of them I am willing to sell for very cheap. They tend to clip, the limiter stinks, and they burn through batteries. As is with most sound equipment, you get what you pay for (the notable exception being the Octava M012.) (Though I do have to admit, I'm still not entirely convinced that a $15,000 Cooper mixer is that much better than a Mackie Onyx for $700. I'm sure it's a great mixer, but 20x better....I'm not convinced.) ;-)

Phil
 
yup, its like the SQN thread over at jwsound phil, sure maybe they sound better than SD (and this is arguable), but the price difference/performance difference is completely out of sync.

I have this firm belief that if the ratio between higher cost and improved performance is not realistic, you should probably stay with what you have. That, or buy a 302, g2 wireless, b6 lavs, an AT4073 and an Oktava. The more I think about it, that should be an entry level kit because all that gear proves itself over and over again based on what it all costs.

I dont think theres anything in there you'd want to sell, its all such good stuff you'd just say to yourself "um, well, Im buying a schoeps, but Im gonna keep this little oktava as a backup because its so cool". :)
 
the mackie will sound just as bad as the azden. if you want quality then get you a sound device 4-channel mixer. thats one of the few portable eng mixers that sound good. the SHURE, MACKIE, PSC all sound like crap. the sound device and 2 good wirless will cost you around $7500.00 and thats without lavs, snake cable, mixer bag, boom mic, pole, your getting over $10,000. if you can buy that then that would be your best choice. i recomend pay to get a sound guy because there is just to much to getting good audio and if you dont know how to do e.n.g. ( electronic news gathering ) location sound then your not going to figure it out in one night. Unless your an expireanced sound mixer then stay cheap. I have mixed audio for television shows for 7 years so i can try to step you through what ever i can.
 
Last edited:
to a large degree i agree with that, but i also dont believe its all or nothing. here in south africa PLENTY of sound men mix professional broadcast sound using senn g2's and SD302 rigs, generally with 416's or CS3e's.

Sure, a SD442, with a 744t, and a bunch of Zaxcom wireless stuff, and two of every lav, and a Schoeps CMIT5U, and a bunch of 641s will give you the CAPACITY for super sound, but if you suck at sound it will still come out bad regardless of what you own.

In some thread (I think it was Matt saying this), I read: give me a 416 and an SD mixer, and Oleg an At897 and an Azden and Oleg will bring back better sound than me everytime.

Experience is a huge deal, and 99% of people here agree. I think the main thing is that if you only have limited cash, but want to learn, its really important to at least buy what most pro's here consider the "minimum acceptable" gear. Stuff that wont bring you down, but gives a platform to build your skills on without worrying too much about what the hell that hiss is etc etc etc.
 
oh wait, no, one thing I disagree on is Mackie sounding the same as Azden. No WAY! Phil was mentioning table/cart based mixers, not ENG/over the shoulder, so we're talking a different kettle of fish. Their parts are way bigger, are allowed to draw more power, and have a much bigger footprint to fit their circuitry in, so a comparison between an Onyx and a 442 isnt really a fair one.

Mackie IS excellent gear, and any music studio technician will tell you that. They make really high quality stuff, designed for professionals, and thats where companies like Azden and Behringer fall short - they make consumers stuff, designed for enthusiasts, and people that dont live off their work.
 
Willship, I agree with you on Shure, haven't used PSC, but will disagree with you on Mackie for "sit and mix" situations. I do agree with you that SD mixers (or maybe the Cooper 104) are the best for ENG. There are a lot of mixers (very experienced with lots of big budget credits to their names) are starting to use the Onyx series and the Yamaha digitals. While the Onyx may not have all of the routing and features that the Coopers or Sonosax's have, it would be difficult to fault the sound they produce (of course, the old "garbage in, garbage out" rule still applies...). It all boils down to cost/performance. I have no doubt in the world that a Schoeps 641 is absolutely worth every dime you pay for it. My point was simply that I have a hard time believing that a Cooper 208 mixer, at roughly $15,000 sounds twenty times better than a Mackie Onyx.

As a good friend of mine recently pointed out when we were talking about Deva V's - you can buy a new car, or buy a Deva. Same price. ;-)

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