Which could sound better? the Zoom H4n or Rode VideoMic Pro?

X

xenogears

Well-known member
Hi, i have the Zoom H4n and use in the Hotshoe as mic with the Sescom cable for convert the Line out of the H4n to Mic level in the GH1, with the add of backup of the sound.

My question is, is the reach and quality of the audio from the mics of the Zoom H4n better or similar to the Rode VideoMic Pro?

Cheers
 
xenogears said:
Hi, i have the Zoom H4n and use in the Hotshoe as mic with the Sescom cable for convert the Line out of the H4n to Mic level in the GH1, with the add of backup of the sound.

My question is, is the reach and quality of the audio from the mics of the Zoom H4n better or similar to the Rode VideoMic Pro?

Cheers
Click to expand...

Do you use a shock protector with the H4n?
 
If by "reach" you mean will the Zoom's X-Y stereo mic array record the sound of a distant subject as well as the Rode's mono shotgun mic, then yes, it will. But if by "reach" you mean "isolate", then no, the Zoom won't ignore all sounds in the room except for the narrow beam of focus you point at your subject. That's what a shotgun is for, and nothing else works as well for that.

That said, the crossed cardioid stereo mic array on the Zoom will sound much more like the original acoustic event than the mono shotgun mic on the Rode. Shotgun mics by design trade away fidelity for side rejection -- they attenuate sounds coming from the sides of the subject, but the phase cancellation needed to achieve this effect really colors the sound something fierce. Even the best shotguns have a phasey, cupped hands coloration that some don't mind and others can't live with.

I'm one of the others. I find the basic sound quality of the Rode shotguns unacceptable for spoken word, though I accept that the "run'n'gun", "low rent rap video in loud horrible club" mentality doesn't really work well with a higher fidelity mic array like the Zoom's stereo X-Y. Maybe it's the "shotgun" name that appeals to some: "I got me a SHOTGUN!"

I know it's not nearly as phallic/firearmy, but I get vastly better results with a lav mic plugged into a Zoom H1, bypassing the internal mics. It isolates the subject nicely, and the sound quality is miles ahead of any shotgun. Even something cheap like the $30 AT lav used with the $99 Zoom would give much more professional results than the Rode, old or new version.

A good example of what I'm talking about is a recent Vimeo mic shootout between the new and old Rodes and a cheap Rode lav. The intro's a bit long-winded but if you FF to 2:40 you'll hear the difference between the new Rode, the old Rode, and a lav.

 
shaveblog said:
If by "reach" you mean will the Zoom's X-Y stereo mic array record the sound of a distant subject as well as the Rode's mono shotgun mic, then yes, it will. But if by "reach" you mean "isolate", then no, the Zoom won't ignore all sounds in the room except for the narrow beam of focus you point at your subject. That's what a shotgun is for, and nothing else works as well for that.

That said, the crossed cardioid stereo mic array on the Zoom will sound much more like the original acoustic event than the mono shotgun mic on the Rode. Shotgun mics by design trade away fidelity for side rejection -- they attenuate sounds coming from the sides of the subject, but the phase cancellation needed to achieve this effect really colors the sound something fierce. Even the best shotguns have a phasey, cupped hands coloration that some don't mind and others can't live with.

I'm one of the others. I find the basic sound quality of the Rode shotguns unacceptable for spoken word, though I accept that the "run'n'gun", "low rent rap video in loud horrible club" mentality doesn't really work well with a higher fidelity mic array like the Zoom's stereo X-Y. Maybe it's the "shotgun" name that appeals to some: "I got me a SHOTGUN!"

I know it's not nearly as phallic/firearmy, but I get vastly better results with a lav mic plugged into a Zoom H1, bypassing the internal mics. It isolates the subject nicely, and the sound quality is miles ahead of any shotgun. Even something cheap like the $30 AT lav used with the $99 Zoom would give much more professional results than the Rode, old or new version.

A good example of what I'm talking about is a recent Vimeo mic shootout between the new and old Rodes and a cheap Rode lav. The intro's a bit long-winded but if you FF to 2:40 you'll hear the difference between the new Rode, the old Rode, and a lav.
Click to expand...

Great! thanks for the class ;)

Yes, i use a lavalier mic plugged to the H4N to isolate my subject, but in a Gun´n´Run situation i´m using only the Zoom over the camera, can monitor the audio and record to the GH1 at the same time with almost no loss of quality. First i use the Panasonic DMW-MS1, later the Audio Technica ATR-6550, now i using the zoom H4n as mic and have a much better sound of course, but with the release of the VideomicPro i have my doubts if is really will have a better recording with it.

Thanks
 
The H4N will sound better than the mic plugged directly into the GH1 because of the auto level control.
 
About lav mike versus shotgun. Mr oleg in sound forum say any shotgun better outdoors than even top lectro lav because physics. I cannot argue with mr shavebog but maybe someone can esplain more. I'm confuse.
 
Well, there's two components of sound quality to consider -- the quality of the voice that is being recorded, and the amount of extraneous noise recorded along with the voice. A good shotgun will always deliver a better sounding voice track than a lav (that's where the physics come to play), but a lav, more often than not, will record less background noise that will muddy up the track. That's why, typically, the shotgun track is used when recording indoors (where there is less bg noise and the shotgun can get closer to the speaker) and the lav track is used predominently outdoors where there is more noise and the shotgun is further away.

That said, the best way to record audio (when possible) is to use both shotgun and lav and have the luxury of choosing the best track in post-production.
 
What physics are you referring to when you claim "a good shotgun will always deliver a better sounding voice track than a lav"? I can't think of a single professional sound recordist working in film or broadcast who shares this opinion.

With a typical lav you've got an omnidirectional electret mic capsule, the most linear mic transducer there is, mere inches from the subject's mouth. How do you feel a shotgun mic outperforms such a setup?

I'm also interested in your claim that shotguns are typically used indoors while lavs are used predominantly outdoors. Again, that's the opposite of what I or most other pros would recommend. Shotguns have their place, and that place is in an outdoor setting, where their gross off-axis colorations are largely minimized due to lack of room echo. And lavs often do poorly outdoors with a lot of ambient background noise because being omnis they don't discriminate.

We're all entitled to our opinions but I'm curious how you arrived at yours, because they're 180-degrees from generally accepted pro audio practices.


trickhog said:
Well, there's two components of sound quality to consider -- the quality of the voice that is being recorded, and the amount of extraneous noise recorded along with the voice. A good shotgun will always deliver a better sounding voice track than a lav (that's where the physics come to play), but a lav, more often than not, will record less background noise that will muddy up the track. That's why, typically, the shotgun track is used when recording indoors (where there is less bg noise and the shotgun can get closer to the speaker) and the lav track is used predominently outdoors where there is more noise and the shotgun is further away.

That said, the best way to record audio (when possible) is to use both shotgun and lav and have the luxury of choosing the best track in post-production.
Click to expand...
 
I found shotgun bad inside. Reverberate. Omg! Lav better, outside shotgun nicer. Mr. Shavbog you say advantage is closer to mouth, but you can put gun closer too. Being closer to mouth does not make mike itself better. Just better location normally. oleg is real soundman he won't agree with you. Me? I just want to find out about because I'm confuse.
 
Gotta go with Trickhog on this one. A shotgun or cardioid on a boom will almost always sound nicer than any lav, but that doesn't always mean they are the correct choice for the shot. There's a reason that so many different types of mic's exist, and each one has their place. There is no do-it-all mic. But holding a wired mic in the sweet spot directly over a speaker's mouth will yield the most natural sounding audio (especially vs strapping an omnidirectional mic to someone's chest, which picks up too much low-end and is very susceptible to clothing noise and interference). Also, I have to add that in all my years of experience, I've never worked with a single professional sound operator that preferred lav's over a mic on a boom. Lav mic's often sound "thinner" than a boomed mic, and don't give any perspective.
 
Last edited:
shaveblog said:
What physics are you referring to when you claim "a good shotgun will always deliver a better sounding voice track than a lav"? I can't think of a single professional sound recordist working in film or broadcast who shares this opinion.

With a typical lav you've got an omnidirectional electret mic capsule, the most linear mic transducer there is, mere inches from the subject's mouth. How do you feel a shotgun mic outperforms such a setup?

I'm also interested in your claim that shotguns are typically used indoors while lavs are used predominantly outdoors. Again, that's the opposite of what I or most other pros would recommend. Shotguns have their place, and that place is in an outdoor setting, where their gross off-axis colorations are largely minimized due to lack of room echo. And lavs often do poorly outdoors with a lot of ambient background noise because being omnis they don't discriminate.

We're all entitled to our opinions but I'm curious how you arrived at yours, because they're 180-degrees from generally accepted pro audio practices.
Click to expand...

I should have prefaced my comments by stating that I'm only referring to film/tv production, not interview/industrial/news applications, which I am not familiar with. But I am a professional in sound post-production and have never heard a lav mic that sounds as full and rich as a properly positioned shotgun mic. I'm guessing the "physics" have to do with the microphone resting on the chest and not being positioned to point directly at the lips, covered by clothing, etc. I can tell you with 100% certainty that with any film or tv show you see, that if they are able to get the shotgun mic close enough to the actor to get clean, on-mic sound, that they use it, even if there is a wireless lav mic also recorded.

EDIT:

I should also add that I'm discussing big budget shoots where they have access to all the gear they need. All that really matters is getting the best sound you can, within your budgets and restraints. Whatever works to get you the sound you need, is the best solution... :)
 
Last edited:
I agree, every type of mic has its place, and have no problem with someone who prefers the sound of shotgun mics over lavs. It's when "physics" is cited as the reason shotguns will "always deliver better results" that I have to ask for more supporting data, or any.

Yes, everybody's experience is different. It's been my experience that shotguns are used mainly out of laziness and on productions that lack sophistication, a knowledgeable sound man, and/or adequate setup time. And yes, if you bury a lav under thick clothing, aim it to the side, and position it too low on the chest or too high, it won't sound very impressive. It's my experience that a sound man who misuses lavs like this will always go with a shotgun instead because all he has to do is point it at someone.

I suppose one could justify the mediocre sound of a shotgun by factoring in its no-brainer setup and use, but I've never, ever heard an audio professional who knows what he's doing express a sonic preference for shotguns over lavs until today. And I would invite anyone thinking about buying their first external mic for their Lumix to actually do some comparison listening tests between shotguns and lavs and see for yourself what sounds better to your ears.
 
Let's just get one thing straight - Shaveblog, I think you're talking about a one-man band ENG type operation with a shotgun mounted on-cam, right? Yes, I would take a lav over a camera-mounted mic. But on a set, with a dedicated boom op, the audio from a properly operated microphone on a boom will almost always be preferred over the audio from a lav microphone, unless something goes terribly awry with the boom's audio channel.

And I'm just going to have to take offense to anyone who thinks that booming is just pointing a mic at someone. It's a far, far more difficult job than that. To me, that statement tells me you don't really know any professional boom operators - I don't think they consider their profession a "lazy" one... sheesh...

And how is the sound of a shotgun "mediocre?" Don't you think if that were true, they wouldn't be used every set from the lowest budget student film to the highest budget Hollywood blockbuster? Are you telling us that the sound from a Neumann KMR 81 is "mediocre"? Come on, now...
 
Last edited:
Cowpunk52,

Yes, I am referring to the one-man band hot shoe mount shotguns like the Rode which started this thread. I see a lot of DSLR guys automatically slapping a Rode shotgun on top of their cameras and thinking that audio's now taken care of, and I keep hearing all these crap sounding Vimeos because of it. I don't see this forum as being a place for real pros who work on real sets with boom-mounted Sennheisers/Neumanns hovering a few feet from the actors. I see this place as 96% amateurs, 2% guys who sometimes get paid to shoot video but by no means earn their living from it, 1% genuine tech experts from other fields who have an interest in DSLR video, and 1% actual video and broadcast pros. So yes, I am addressing the majority demographic here, that segment of the shotgun mic market that buys a $300 Rode "Pro" and mounts it to his DSLR thinking he's got audio knocked.

Good boom operators are certainly talented and valued, but they never entered my end of the discussion. I have, however, been both in front of and behind the camera on numerous TV shoots, from network news to the DIY Network to local affiliates. And ten times out of ten, talent wears a lav. Period. Shotguns are a rare sight, and when they are used it's never to pick up talent. I know it's different on a Hollywood film set, but then this forum isn't exactly chock full of guys who work the big game. So my critical comments about shotguns are aimed squarely at the user base here, because a lot of young guys here think you just slap a $300 Rode shotgun on your GH1 and Mission Accomplished. And it just doesn't sound very good for most shooting scenarios, especially those you're most likely to find yourself in if you're shooting DSLR.
 
About boom operator, first your experience is that they use shotgun out of "laziness and inexperience" but at the same time boom operator "talented and valued"? I know my english bad but these comments conflict.
 
Ah, yes - I see. We were just getting our wires crossed. In that sense, I do agree with you 100%. Given the option, I would take a lav mic over any of the camera-mounted shotgun microphones, and it will produce much nicer noise. In a run'n'gun environment, those camera-mounted mics will get you by and do better than the on-board, but should never be relied on as primary sound unless absolutely necessary.
 
shaveblog said:
Cowpunk52,

Yes, I am referring to the one-man band hot shoe mount shotguns like the Rode which started this thread. I see a lot of DSLR guys automatically slapping a Rode shotgun on top of their cameras and thinking that audio's now taken care of, and I keep hearing all these crap sounding Vimeos because of it. I don't see this forum as being a place for real pros who work on real sets with boom-mounted Sennheisers/Neumanns hovering a few feet from the actors. I see this place as 96% amateurs, 2% guys who sometimes get paid to shoot video but by no means earn their living from it, 1% genuine tech experts from other fields who have an interest in DSLR video, and 1% actual video and broadcast pros. So yes, I am addressing the majority demographic here, that segment of the shotgun mic market that buys a $300 Rode "Pro" and mounts it to his DSLR thinking he's got audio knocked.

Good boom operators are certainly talented and valued, but they never entered my end of the discussion. I have, however, been both in front of and behind the camera on numerous TV shoots, from network news to the DIY Network to local affiliates. And ten times out of ten, talent wears a lav. Period. Shotguns are a rare sight, and when they are used it's never to pick up talent. I know it's different on a Hollywood film set, but then this forum isn't exactly chock full of guys who work the big game. So my critical comments about shotguns are aimed squarely at the user base here, because a lot of young guys here think you just slap a $300 Rode shotgun on your GH1 and Mission Accomplished. And it just doesn't sound very good for most shooting scenarios, especially those you're most likely to find yourself in if you're shooting DSLR.
Click to expand...

cowpunk52 said:
Ah, yes - I see. We were just getting our wires crossed. In that sense, I do agree with you 100%. Given the option, I would take a lav mic over any of the camera-mounted shotgun microphones, and it will produce much nicer noise. In a run'n'gun environment, those camera-mounted mics will get you by and do better than the on-board, but should never be relied on as primary sound unless absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...

Agree. We weren't discussing the same thing. When I was mentioning mic'ing with a shotgun, I meant on a professional boompole situation, getting the mic real close to the talent, not a mic attached to the camera. And like I said, I'm referring to single-camera film and tv production, not newscasting, industrial, run-and-gun and doc situations.
 
I'll take a shotgun over a lav ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. (not on-camera, but an a pole). Nearly ever time I use a lav (I have really good one), there's some kind of issue. Boom--done!
Now, if I could just cowboy-up the dough for a CMIT5! :-)
 
The rode lav did pretty good job in isolating subject voice from the background sound.

This video has very good beginning sound from ATR3350 Lav mic + Zoom H1. The mic is so cheap. $20 from ebay. But what a difference it made.


Haha. It's so small that I can carry it everywhere with my iphone just for fun.


I'm getting VMP, too. Sometimes it's just not possible to clip a lav on candid subject(s). Having both a lav and a shutgun could be useful. Connect both to a device like JuicedLink DS211 (not released yet), monitor live-audio, adjust sound on each channel, output to GH2.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top