The Great Divide - Professional and Amateur
- Thread starter pmk396
- Start date
I must say that I am intrigued with the contributions and opinions from various audio users to this thread since I first started it. It just shows the extensive differences when discussing the contrast between the basic starter audio equipment to the more complex semi-pro/professional equipment.
I'm going to be bluntly honest. I'm a total newbie to audio as the visual side filmmaking (eg. cinematography, video, etc.) is more my interest. However, I decided to delve into the world of audio when I was advised once that "the visual aspect of a film can be ruined by poor audio". I came to this forum for advice on how to expand my audio capabilities instead of being stuck with using the onboard camera mic on my Panasonic GH1 camera. Prior to this the only experience that I have with audio is using my Pro Tools software when recording music. And when recording music on Pro Tools, my limited knowledge in audio leaves my to play around with the different settings such as input volume, pan, treble, bass, mid, etc until I find the sound that I want. This might sound amateurish but it's what works for me and it's what I'm happy with.
Upon expanding my audio interest into film, I came to this forum and after some research, I decide to settle for a Zoom H4n and an Audio Technica AT875r. I don't have a hyper cardioid mix and I don't have a preamp. The H4n and the AT875r do exactly when I need. They are a vast improvement from using my camera's onboard mic. They make dialogue and ambient audio a lot more clearer without the echo and unbearable clipping that happens with the onboard mic. To be honest they are perfect for what I want. I managed to get my audio exploits of to a start for under $500. The only issue that I have is that, especially due to the fact that I live in Ireland where there's a lot of wind, the AT875r is very sensitive to wind noise interference even with a deadcat cover on it. I know a lot of you will say that I need to invest in a Rode Blimp to rectify this but I'd be more inclined to get another deadcat on top of the original one before I spend nearly $300 on the Rode Blimp. I might even try and make a DIY blimp.
Again, I must say that my knowledge in audio is very limited and I'm sure some of you will speak of potential flaws in the kit that I mentioned above. There might be discrepancies in the recordings that my untrained or inexperienced ear wouldn't notice. However, I wish to speak of a suggestion that I had mentioned in one of my previous post. I think there was once a sticky of a list of audio equipment starting with the lowest budget possible and then the next level up on a budget of a few hundred dollars more. For example, a very basic beginners audio kit (recorder, mic, etc) for a budget of under $200-$300, followed equipment for a budget under $500, followed by a budget of $800 and so on. I think it gives beginners a better idea of where to begin when investing in audio. Perhaps the more experienced audio users (who have experience with using various recorders, mics, preamps, etc) would be able to help out with this one?
I'm going to be bluntly honest. I'm a total newbie to audio as the visual side filmmaking (eg. cinematography, video, etc.) is more my interest. However, I decided to delve into the world of audio when I was advised once that "the visual aspect of a film can be ruined by poor audio". I came to this forum for advice on how to expand my audio capabilities instead of being stuck with using the onboard camera mic on my Panasonic GH1 camera. Prior to this the only experience that I have with audio is using my Pro Tools software when recording music. And when recording music on Pro Tools, my limited knowledge in audio leaves my to play around with the different settings such as input volume, pan, treble, bass, mid, etc until I find the sound that I want. This might sound amateurish but it's what works for me and it's what I'm happy with.
Upon expanding my audio interest into film, I came to this forum and after some research, I decide to settle for a Zoom H4n and an Audio Technica AT875r. I don't have a hyper cardioid mix and I don't have a preamp. The H4n and the AT875r do exactly when I need. They are a vast improvement from using my camera's onboard mic. They make dialogue and ambient audio a lot more clearer without the echo and unbearable clipping that happens with the onboard mic. To be honest they are perfect for what I want. I managed to get my audio exploits of to a start for under $500. The only issue that I have is that, especially due to the fact that I live in Ireland where there's a lot of wind, the AT875r is very sensitive to wind noise interference even with a deadcat cover on it. I know a lot of you will say that I need to invest in a Rode Blimp to rectify this but I'd be more inclined to get another deadcat on top of the original one before I spend nearly $300 on the Rode Blimp. I might even try and make a DIY blimp.
Again, I must say that my knowledge in audio is very limited and I'm sure some of you will speak of potential flaws in the kit that I mentioned above. There might be discrepancies in the recordings that my untrained or inexperienced ear wouldn't notice. However, I wish to speak of a suggestion that I had mentioned in one of my previous post. I think there was once a sticky of a list of audio equipment starting with the lowest budget possible and then the next level up on a budget of a few hundred dollars more. For example, a very basic beginners audio kit (recorder, mic, etc) for a budget of under $200-$300, followed equipment for a budget under $500, followed by a budget of $800 and so on. I think it gives beginners a better idea of where to begin when investing in audio. Perhaps the more experienced audio users (who have experience with using various recorders, mics, preamps, etc) would be able to help out with this one?
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
PMK: placing a second dead cat on the first one will do nothing for you. You just need a "fluffier" one. But let's start another thread about that issue.
I have always felt, since reading this thread but never contributing to it, that what delineates a pro from an amateur is not the equipment. That usually takes care of itself. It is the results that person gets and if the client is happy with the deliverables which make a person a pro or amateur. And what education and experience they have.
Another tangent to this is whether or not you are being paid for the work, and if that is a return client or not. As an sound engineer, I consider myself a pro for the following reasons:
1. Degree in Sound Engineering
2. Years on set and in studio
3. Return paid work (recurring)
4. Clients happy with my work.
You will note, I never state anything about equipment. And usually if a client requests a certain piece of equipment, I politely ask "Why that gear?" And usually I find out it is because they heard it was the "best" at this or that, and they have no experience with it. It is like this shoot I was helping out on last month. It was a talking head testimonial, camera was 6' away from the talent with a black backdrop (tight framing). Ultimate destination was DVD. But the EP wanted a Red with a Cooke lens on it. Uhhhhh, why? Any high prosumer 1080 camera would have worked in those parameters. He stated that it was the best camera out there. So I had to help educate him on allocation of resources and why a Red was way overkill in this situation and not needed (since he asked me to help produce it).
Too many get hung up on the gear (and there are some impressive recorders and mixers out there) and don't put enough into the technique. I have always been an advocate of the "lower priced equipment", as it forces you to hone your craft. Once you have that knowledge and experience bed, then you can appreciate the subtle differences the higher priced gear offers, and the convenience of some of the functions.
I can hand a new sound guy 50,000 dollars worth of gear, and his results will be the same as if he had 500 dollars worth of gear. But hand that 500 dollars worth of gear to an experienced engineer, and you will get great results (except for all the captured complaining from him). It is technique and results that sets the pro apart from the amateur.
I have always felt, since reading this thread but never contributing to it, that what delineates a pro from an amateur is not the equipment. That usually takes care of itself. It is the results that person gets and if the client is happy with the deliverables which make a person a pro or amateur. And what education and experience they have.
Another tangent to this is whether or not you are being paid for the work, and if that is a return client or not. As an sound engineer, I consider myself a pro for the following reasons:
1. Degree in Sound Engineering
2. Years on set and in studio
3. Return paid work (recurring)
4. Clients happy with my work.
You will note, I never state anything about equipment. And usually if a client requests a certain piece of equipment, I politely ask "Why that gear?" And usually I find out it is because they heard it was the "best" at this or that, and they have no experience with it. It is like this shoot I was helping out on last month. It was a talking head testimonial, camera was 6' away from the talent with a black backdrop (tight framing). Ultimate destination was DVD. But the EP wanted a Red with a Cooke lens on it. Uhhhhh, why? Any high prosumer 1080 camera would have worked in those parameters. He stated that it was the best camera out there. So I had to help educate him on allocation of resources and why a Red was way overkill in this situation and not needed (since he asked me to help produce it).
Too many get hung up on the gear (and there are some impressive recorders and mixers out there) and don't put enough into the technique. I have always been an advocate of the "lower priced equipment", as it forces you to hone your craft. Once you have that knowledge and experience bed, then you can appreciate the subtle differences the higher priced gear offers, and the convenience of some of the functions.
I can hand a new sound guy 50,000 dollars worth of gear, and his results will be the same as if he had 500 dollars worth of gear. But hand that 500 dollars worth of gear to an experienced engineer, and you will get great results (except for all the captured complaining from him). It is technique and results that sets the pro apart from the amateur.
Last edited:
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
Which one do you have now (Model/make)?
Cheap is relative. I am slowly depleting my savings since I don't make enough each month to live on. I'm not going to get into specifics because it's nobody's business. I got into this hobby because I've been involved with still photography all of my life, and I thought it would be fun to help a friend (who has less money than I do) make a film. I bought the ME66 based upon reviews I read about wildlife recording, which I've been interested in for years, and doing (on the cheap) for a long time.
Yep, I passed on the Schoeps, and got a shotgun that was rated highly for recording birds, at a reasonable cost.
Equipment is important, I suppose, but I'd rather watch a film shot on an iPhone by Martin Scorsese than a film on the best equipment possible, by yours truly. Talent trumps equipment every time. I can buy a hammer and chisel, and a block of marble, but 'David' is not going to be surpassed by me.
Yep, I passed on the Schoeps, and got a shotgun that was rated highly for recording birds, at a reasonable cost.
Equipment is important, I suppose, but I'd rather watch a film shot on an iPhone by Martin Scorsese than a film on the best equipment possible, by yours truly. Talent trumps equipment every time. I can buy a hammer and chisel, and a block of marble, but 'David' is not going to be surpassed by me.
John Willett
Veteran
Are you in the UK?
Join up with the WSRS - Wildlife Sound Recording Society.
Membership is very inexpensive (£29 UK and Europe / £39 rest of the world) and I do know they are getting together some loan kits for beginners in the UK that they can use before buying their own kits.
Wildlife sound
Wildlife sound
No, I don't live in England, or even the UK. I've been to their website (which is where I researched before buying my mic (when I was employed and had $$$).
I appreciate the information, though. Thanks.
Wildlife sound
No, I don't live in England, or even the UK. I've been to their website (which is where I researched before buying my mic (when I was employed and had $$$).
I appreciate the information, though. Thanks.
John Willett
Veteran
It's still worth being a member, though, even if you are not in the UK. :thumbup: