KINOKS
Well-known member
So there is probably not much sense in buying the MKH-50?
Sound for budget films
- Thread starter KINOKS
- Start date
So there is probably not much sense in buying the MKH-50?
KINOKS
Well-known member
I see. So 95% of the time it's for back up only... Okey, since we already have 8 lavs then I see no problem in putting a lav on everybody at the beginning of the shoot.
And maybe if the sound mixer will be brave enough in post he will mix the lavs and booms if he will see it fit
But if we are talking security only then I guess it would be more secure if the lavs would be recorded to another recorder. Now this would be really secure. If all is going to the same recorder, if the recorder fails or something happens to it's HDD then everything gets lost. Not much point in having a backup hooked up to the same recorder Maybe we could hook the lavs straight to the camera? This way we wouldn't even need to sink the video with audio for "daylies" because it would already be recorded in the same file...I would go out of my way to NOT use more than one recorder. It may seem "more safe", but using two of them actually doubles the chance that one recorder will malfunction, and also creates more work to set them up and to sync them both in post. If you want the recordist to make a mix track for dailies, then that is also impeded.I see. So 95% of the time it's for back up only... Okey, since we already have 8 lavs then I see no problem in putting a lav on everybody at the beginning of the shoot.
And maybe if the sound mixer will be brave enough in post he will mix the lavs and booms if he will see it fit
I know most professional sound technicians own backup recorders, but most have only needed them once or twice - if ever - in their entire career (the reason they have them is because they buy new recorders every couple of years, so the old is stored as a backup or for rental). Do the camera crew have a backup camera?
If you want to use a "backup" recorder, the most common way is to have a mixer in front, and patch it's outputs so both receive the important channels (or that the main recorder gets all the ISOs, and the backup a simple mix like boom on ch1 and a mix of lavs on ch2).
Regarding sound for dailies, this is often accomplished by sending a mix of the channels to a camera by a wireless system (it also functions as a last option backup if anything happens to the original files). That mix is one of the main responsibilities of the location sound mixer.
In a comparison of sound quality vs cost, maybe there isn't (the law of diminishing returns).
A common advice regarding professional microphones, is that you don't pay as much for the sound as you do the quality of manufacturing, and having a company stand by their product. There are many relatively cheap mics out there that offer sound quality that is close to mics costing three or even ten times as much. What separates the more expensive mics is that the quality control is much more severe, so that all mics of the same model sound very similar. Often the noise floor is lower, the off-axis more neutral, and you can expect them to last for 20 years or more if they are treated well, with good customer service if they don't.
Are these things worth the cost? For many professionals, that use these microphones every day in their work, the answer is a resounding YES. For others, there can be many well-grounded reasons to look at cheaper alternatives.
Michael Carter
Veteran
I'd agree to some point with what Jema said. I'm not a professional sound guy, and I often shoot and do my own sound. I lucked out and got a pro mic for a used cheap-mic price. They go for $400-$500 used, so it's the kind of thing I would have eventually upgraded to. But glad I was able to do more than the Oktava, for less money - that was a fluke (I think I chanced on it the first hour it was listed - the seller emailed me and said "should I have charged more??" I didn't know how pricey they were.) But damn, it sounds good.
There may be diminishing returns on this stuff, but it's nice to get something in the value/quality sweet spot. And there are plenty of folks on this board who can suggest things in that spot.
KINOKS
Well-known member
Jep, this is what I had in mind. So we take a line out of R4 and plug it into A and B camera via wireless?
Yes, and this is definitely the AT4053b hyper. I just wish we could get both of these mics in our hands and make some tests.
+1
I think that the MixpreeD's pre amps are rather good. Do you?
Exactly. The only downside is that the R4 has limitations as to what channels can go to what output, so you may want to think about that while you set up the system.
I think they are more than adequate for practically anything used in location sound. The analogue parts of sound devices gear has always been very solid.
Michael Carter
Veteran
My real area of audio interest is protools/composing/experimenting, not so much location sound... but I have a treated room, great monitors and some nice gear (apogee converters, nice big mics, tons of good plugins), and spent years in my 20's making 100% of my income from music - I've spent decades learning about getting "good" sounds, crisp & warm vocals, etc.
I say that to inform this observation: every camera I've owned with XLR inputs has delivered great sound, to my ears. The DVX 100b had particularly good sounding pre's, and I recorded a lot of guitar amps directly to the camera with standard amp-micing techniques (Sure 57 angled to the cone, etc).
I do have the luxury of bringing dialogue into Protools, and running "vintage" compressor and EQ emulation plugins when I want a little more air or drama - having never needed dual system, I will often use my current video cam (HMC 150 or AC 90 for instance) as a sound recorder for DSLR shoots.
All that to suggest and external recorder isn't always the best use of your bucks, unless you're equipping yourself to be a dedicated sound guy. But even in those scenarios, I get a camera audio feed from an external mixer and have always gone with that. YMMV of course...
I say that to inform this observation: every camera I've owned with XLR inputs has delivered great sound, to my ears. The DVX 100b had particularly good sounding pre's, and I recorded a lot of guitar amps directly to the camera with standard amp-micing techniques (Sure 57 angled to the cone, etc).
I do have the luxury of bringing dialogue into Protools, and running "vintage" compressor and EQ emulation plugins when I want a little more air or drama - having never needed dual system, I will often use my current video cam (HMC 150 or AC 90 for instance) as a sound recorder for DSLR shoots.
All that to suggest and external recorder isn't always the best use of your bucks, unless you're equipping yourself to be a dedicated sound guy. But even in those scenarios, I get a camera audio feed from an external mixer and have always gone with that. YMMV of course...
Rick R
Veteran
What works for music recording/mixing/mastering, ie, tape saturation, tube gear, and other 'distortion' producing devises does not necessarily work for dialog. Most pros, prefer Sound Devices, Zaxcom, or one of the other very few preamps/mixers for dialog available. But go ahead and try, most everyone else has. It's OK if it floats your boat.