Why a lavalier instead of a boom on a stand?

[combatentropy]

many years ago I stopped delivering more than 1 source for standard interviews (99% of the time).

Kudos to you, Rippie. Too often we do something to keep something that has just a 1 in a 1,000 chance from happening (boom failing),
only to open ourselves up to something that has a 1 in 10 chance of happening (editor mixing in the lav wrong).

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler," said Albert Einstein, and it takes courage to do that.

 

[Richard Crowley]

But as several have pointed out, sometimes the people move around too much, even in their seats. So they add a lav, for back-up.

Yes, certainly high-profile, non-real-time productions still use that technique. But can anyone show an example of your typical local or network live studio production using anything but lavs?

 

[alaskacameradude]

Yes, I absolutely can. Are you thinking of just one boom mic, being moved around? I was thinking one boom mic per person, just as you have one lav per person. A hypercardioid or shotgun on a mic stand that holds it above the frame, pointed down at the talent. Anchors and interviewees hardly move. They're sitting. That's why I was thinking I could get away with stands. In fact, this is what Thom Shafer does.

View attachment 97767

But as several have pointed out, sometimes the people move around too much, even in their seats. So they add a lav, for back-up.

I am honestly not trying to be insulting so please, please don't take this the wrong way. Have you ever worked in news?
A shotgun mic on a pole (which is what I think you mean when you say boom mic) works just fine in narrative, or for
sit down interviews where you can control framing to make sure the mic isn't in frame. But lavs are always (as far
as I am aware) used on anchors. Every TV newstation I have ever worked for (9 different TV newsrooms) have used lav
mics for the actual studio live newscast. Primarily, because there are several different cameras, you are usually cross
cutting between two or three anchors, plus throwing to a sports and weather guy or gal, and then you also have the
wide shot with all 4 or 5 anchors in it, which is almost impossible to boom and not show up in the shot.....because the shot
is so wide that to have the mics out of frame, they would be too far away from the anchors to do any good....(plus
you'd need several boom ops when they do their 'happy chatter' and talk to each other before going to a commercial break,
and no, this 'happy chatter' is NOT scripted.)
For example hard to have boom mics in this shot....


And that is why live news shows use lavs on the anchors.

 

[alaskacameradude]

IMO the rise of the lav follows the rise of the solo camera op... I usually prefer the sound of a boomed mic and will set one up whenever time and cargo space allow, but so many gigs now have no budget for assistants, no accommodation for gear offload, and a wired/wireless lav and cable simply take up much less room than any stand and boom setup (even though there are some very compact alternatives). That compromise of acceptable but thinner dialogue vs. having to haul 6 more pounds over several city blocks becomes very real.

There are of course multiple other reasons to opt for the lav over a boom, but I believe that's been one of the greatest motivators in recent years.

Yup.....what you just said is one of the main reasons that people (including me) will sometimes use a lav mic for a
'talking head'/sit down interview. A sit down interview is a perfect place to slide a boom mic just out of frame,
because you control the framing. But as I am already packing a light kit with 5 lights, and light stands, plus a
reflector, dimmers for each light, stingers, a couple power strips, a couple cameras and tripods,
and a bag full of lenses, the last thing I want to do is carry more stuff. A good (and expensive) lav mic
can be pretty decent. Yeah, it's not the same, but if you are doing everything yourself and doing low to mid
range corporates, it works just fine. For narrative projects or high end corporates or high end TV commercials,
when you have a crew to help carry and set up, I'd say go with a boom. But just like a slider isn't quite the same
as a dolly and tracks, but will get you most of the way there, without having to have assistants to set up track and
push the dolly, a lav will get you 'good enough' sound for many projects. And I totally, absolutely hate that I
just said 'good enough' because I hate the 'good enough' mentality. Budgets being what they are these days
though.....it is what it is. If I'm getting a 3 grand budget for a corporate, I'm not going to want to spend $200
a day for an assistant to help carry gear around just so I can get all the scheduled interviews done in the
tiny amount of time I have access to the 'talent'. I'll just go with a lav.

 

[Alex H.]

But can anyone show an example of your typical local or network live studio production using anything but lavs?

What do you mean by "typical"? Saturday Night Live still uses booms.

And, though not live, network sitcoms are still boomed. Whatch the first 1:30 of this:

 

[Richard Crowley]

Worthy of note that both of those examples are pre-scripted, pre-blocked, pre-rehearsed drama productions with professional performers.
The SNL time-lapse video was notable for the number of segments that did NOT use the boom mics. Even some of the scripted bits.

 

[Noiz2]

Since Richard is specifically talking News in the studio, I think he is right. I have an old "real" Lav (hangs from a cord around the neck) and that was pretty common in the 60's. If you look at old Cronkite footage he is wearing one. These were wired but for a sit down why not? And they really replaced the desk top mounted Ribbon mics of the fifty's. So I think , maybe because of the history on radio, that booming was never a big thing with news. It was always acceptable to see the mic, so why go to the trouble to boom?

OK did a little searching and Cronkite may have stuck with desktop mics? But I did find a shot of David Brinkley with a lav.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/walter-cronkite/6/

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/walter-cronkite/14/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntle...ile:Huntley_Brinkley_Report_NBC_News_1963.JPG

 

[Rick R]

Neat pictures Scott.
As I recall the neck cord lavaliere's were dynamics. The first 'lapel' mic to get significant 'air time' was the early 1970's Sony ECM-50. The electret condenser ECM-50 and 55 was (according to Sony) a 'proximity type' mic and had a pronounced bass response, a 'tight' omni pattern but not very forgiving of off-axis sounds. The lower cost ECM44, was slightly smaller and more open sounding than the ECM-50 or 55, still suppressed background noise to a degree. The 44 exhibited a slight warmth in the mid-range and but did not have the beefy bass response of the ECM-50 and 55 that news readers so admired. The original ECM-50 used a 'N' cell battery, the 55, a AA or Phantom Pwr.. The 55 was available in both silver and black, (55S and 55B) The 55 is still being manufactured AFAIK.
Uncle Walter w/ two ECM50s. Two were for redundancy.. not stereo, since you ask.

 

[Noiz2]

Yes they were dynamic. I have a very eclectic mic cabinet. I have Shure 570S (about 4 1/2" long and about 1/2" in diameter) that I got as NOS in the box with the cord. And a SOny ECM 50 with it's wind screen. I've never tried the 50. It doesn't use Phantom power (or it's broken?) and I haven't gotten a battery for it. I don't generally go out and buy old weird mics they just end up coming my way. I used to have a original SM55 with the strange three pin screw on connector. I gave that to a friend who was in love with it. I rescued it from the pro department of a theatre. I traded some stuff they could use for the mic. It had the connector with the cable chopped off and nobody knew if it worked. I rewired it and it had a great "radio announcer" sound to it.

 

[Rick R]

I'm pretty sure the ECM50 was battery only.
I still have a mint condition ECM-55B but haven't even looked at it in years.

 

[Rippie]

Yup.....what you just said is one of the main reasons that people (including me) will sometimes use a lav mic for a
'talking head'/sit down interview. A sit down interview is a perfect place to slide a boom mic just out of frame,
because you control the framing. But as I am already packing a light kit with 5 lights, and light stands, plus a
reflector, dimmers for each light, stingers, a couple power strips, a couple cameras and tripods,
and a bag full of lenses, the last thing I want to do is carry more stuff. A good (and expensive) lav mic
can be pretty decent. Yeah, it's not the same, but if you are doing everything yourself and doing low to mid
range corporates, it works just fine. For narrative projects or high end corporates or high end TV commercials,
when you have a crew to help carry and set up, I'd say go with a boom. But just like a slider isn't quite the same
as a dolly and tracks, but will get you most of the way there, without having to have assistants to set up track and
push the dolly, a lav will get you 'good enough' sound for many projects. And I totally, absolutely hate that I
just said 'good enough' because I hate the 'good enough' mentality. Budgets being what they are these days
though.....it is what it is. If I'm getting a 3 grand budget for a corporate, I'm not going to want to spend $200
a day for an assistant to help carry gear around just so I can get all the scheduled interviews done in the
tiny amount of time I have access to the 'talent'. I'll just go with a lav.

I'm sure this won't change your mind, but you mention all the gear you have to carry so you don't want to carry a boom.
While I totally understand where you are coming from, realize you're making a major compromise regarding what is truly half (or more)
of the reason you're there interviewing someone. Their story. Most likely the actual "visual" interview ends up being a very small section of a finished piece
because of b-roll put over it. Yet the audio from the interview is what holds it all together.
You mention you take 5 lights. How about 4? Use the 5th stand and replace the light with a smaller, easier to carry boom.

There are reasons a 1 man band should use a lav over a boom, but when you mention all the other equipment you take
it's really no longer an excuse.

 

[Rippie]

Yes, I absolutely can. Are you thinking of just one boom mic, being moved around? I was thinking one boom mic per person, just as you have one lav per person. A hypercardioid or shotgun on a mic stand that holds it above the frame, pointed down at the talent. Anchors and interviewees hardly move. They're sitting. That's why I was thinking I could get away with stands. In fact, this is what Thom Shafer does.

View attachment 97767

But as several have pointed out, sometimes the people move around too much, even in their seats. So they add a lav, for back-up.

I just did 2 booms 2 days ago.

As others mentioned though, I think they are referring to "live" news.
In that situation I'd always use a wire.

As far as people worried about talent moving and the boom not working...
It's absolutely a non issue. If you set it up at a proper angle they will have more than enough wiggle room
and if they do a complete lean in, most likely they will be out of their key anyway or out of focus or etc.

I ALWAYS set up shop (my bag/cart) right next to my booms so I can move them an inch or two between questions without anyone even noticing.

 

[alaskacameradude]

I'm sure this won't change your mind, but you mention all the gear you have to carry so you don't want to carry a boom.
While I totally understand where you are coming from, realize you're making a major compromise regarding what is truly half (or more)
of the reason you're there interviewing someone. Their story. Most likely the actual "visual" interview ends up being a very small section of a finished piece
because of b-roll put over it. Yet the audio from the interview is what holds it all together.
You mention you take 5 lights. How about 4? Use the 5th stand and replace the light with a smaller, easier to carry boom.

There are reasons a 1 man band should use a lav over a boom, but when you mention all the other equipment you take
it's really no longer an excuse.

My 5 lights all fit inside one fairly small (but heavy) case. Possible to fit a
boom inside that case as well? No, unfortunately. The audio from a nice lav
(say a Tram 50) isn't really what I would call 'majorly compromised'....just
a difference of opinion I guess. I'm not doing any narrative so as long as I get
clear audio, that's what matters. Losing a light isn't an option (and even if I
did, a boom wouldn't fit in the light case) so I would have
to add another stand, plus a pole, and clamp. Would the audio be better?
A little, but I could get better B-Roll with an Epic instead of a FS700 too.
Now I'm not saying I never use a boom, but for 95% of what I do and the
budgets I have to work with......it's just not happening. You always have to
draw a line somewhere or you end up making 5 trips in and out just to get
all the gear in. I mean I 'could' also bring a dolly and track or if not that
a 'second shooter' slider, the one that automatically moves back and forth,
to add movement to the 2nd camera. Or a portable green screen so I could
decide on the background I wanted later. I mean if I already have all this
other gear, a portable green screen is just one more stand and a folded disc.
I guess as a one person band everyone has to make some decisions on what
to bring and what to leave behind. I have never once had a client complain
about the quality of the audio, and I have shot between 5,000 and
10,000 interviews using pretty much the same basic set up.

 

[PegLeg Media]

A lav can be cheaper, faster for run and gun and picks up less of the surrounding stuff than a shotgun mic like the NTG-1.

here is an example of where I used the lav and why:

I went on a ghost hunting investigation. I wanted to get interviews from 5 different people in different backgrounds in under 30 minutes. I did not have time to set anything up since i was also running around following them documentary style. When it was time for the interviews i used 1 $30 lav plugged into the camera and 1 $60 LED small light i held up in the air with my hand. I made sure to find a background with light behind it and for under $100 (minus the camera) I got 5 of these interviews in under 30 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOb8aQfI3Nw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N-8Hryx1RI

There were also people walking all around us and talking so my rode NTG-1 and my rode videomic pro would have picked all of that up. These run and gun fast interviews may not be perfect, but for under $100 getting as many on site interviews as i could, the Lav was a no brainer. here is what i used:

LAV - http://amzn.to/1w2H15F
Light - http://amzn.to/1B5gScq

 

[combatentropy]

I didn't mean to challenge solo shooters to switch from lavs to booms. I started this thread from an armchair, imagining circumstances when they are ideal. In particular I was thinking of national network news specials, where the crew and budget are more comfortably sized. Just speaking of budget, three boomed mics cost a lot more than three lavs.

Now a $25 lav sounds better than a camera-mounted shotgun, because closer is better. For many years I took the rule to the extreme: closer is always better. So a lav will sound best of all. (Hollywood doesn't use lavs just because they can't have them in the shot, I thought.) But recently I came across articles and demonstrations saying that a boom actually sounds better. What?, I thought. Do you mean that if I already have a boom, and if I just shoot one or two people at a time, in controlled environments, then I don't need to buy a couple of lavs? That was my first thought. My second thought was, well, if a boom sounds better, then why do even those who have lots of money and controlled environments, like sit-down interviews on 60 Minutes, still use lavs? The answers are:

1. They don't always just use lavs, actually. See Tom Shafer's video, Boom vs Lav, in which booms are used in the first part of a special on 20/20.

2. Sometimes they use both. The lav for back-up. Since you see the lav and not the boom, you might not know.

3. Even high-budget, controlled environments have their limits. For example, head-and-shoulder shots are not the only ones done of anchors, as alaskacameradude reminded me. Or, even a high-budget interview can be rushed, with no time time to persuade the DP to move his lights, as Noiz2 pointed out, so that your boom doesn't cast a shadow.

a lav will get you 'good enough' sound for many projects. And I totally, absolutely hate that I just said 'good enough'

I prefer to think of the 80-20 rule. Usually you can reach 80% of the best possible with moderate toil and money. To add that last 20% of quality often costs several times more. For example, I've stayed at middle-class hotels and luxury hotels. The nicer hotels are nicer, but I don't enjoy them that much more. I've eaten dinners costing more than $100, but I don't enjoy them 10 times as much as a $10 meal. Maybe they were just two or three times as good. You can buy a $20,000 cinema prime, but most people won't see a 100x difference between it and a $200 used Nikkor.

I'm wondering how close you can get there in post --- if you use a lav and apply equalization, maybe a touch of reverb, etc. I feel for the harried cameraman. The editing suite is much more relaxed, and there's more time to spend on getting that last 20%.

BONUS SECTION:

Some people mentioned how a boom is at risk if the talent moves around too much. Lavs are at risk too, if you clip them too high up. See this interview of Mike Rowe, with a lav all the way up on his collar. Every time he moves his head, the volume and character of the sound shifts. Instead, clip the lav near the heart, or even a bit lower --- especially if you're using one lav for two people (a million sound guys cried out in terror) like for wedding vows. This is because of the Inverse Square Law, where sound changes more quickly than you might guess. If you move twice as close to a sound source, it's twice as loud, right? Wrong. It's four times as loud. If a lav is just a few inches from the head, and the head moves one or two inches, it's gonna be a noticeable difference. If the mic is 12 inches from the head, and the head moves one or two inches, it's less of a difference. (I credit Adam Wilt for teaching me this, in his old column Technical Difficulties ("It's the Law," DV magazine)).

 

[Richard Crowley]

I associate using shotgun/hyper mics on a boom with more formal setups with full 3-point lighting, etc.
The kind of thing you see for the TV magazine (60 Minutes, et.al.) or interview (Barbara Walters, et.al.) shows.

And using lavs with quick-n-dirty, raw location production you would see with "hard news"

My hero for formal interview lighting (and micing) is the information posted by Walter Graff.
He published an article (widely re-published in various places) documenting his portable light kit.

http://www.bluesky-web.com/light-kit.htm



And his home-made "GraffLight"

http://www.bluesky-web.com/broadcastvideoexamples-30bucks.html



Yes, I know this seems more like a posting for the lighting forum, but we aren't recording audio in a vacuum here.

 

[combatentropy]

Yes, I know this seems more like a posting for the lighting forum, but we aren't recording audio in a vacuum here.

I record a radio show from the Space Station, you insensitive clod. No seriously, thank you for the reference to Walter Graff. There are a lot of interesting articles on his website.

 

[Noiz2]

Setting up a stationary boom will take longer than using a lav that is visible, but if you are using a boom op then that isn't the case. Also if you are hiding the lav it may well take longer than setting up a stationary boom, really depends on your experience and the talent.

From a post perspective (on low budget films) a boom doesn't always sound best. Mostly do to bad boom work. The less repair you can do in post the better, and you are very unlikely to get your lav to sound like a well placed boom. The patterns are different the direction is different the sound qualities of the microphone are different, etc. I have tools that will "match" the spectrum of two different sounds, and while it helps get things in the ball park it's not identical - usually not even close.

But that is not necessarily bad. Depending on other things the lav may be the clear winner.

 

[Rippie]

My 5 lights all fit inside one fairly small (but heavy) case. Possible to fit a
boom inside that case as well? No, unfortunately. The audio from a nice lav
(say a Tram 50) isn't really what I would call 'majorly compromised'....just
a difference of opinion I guess. I'm not doing any narrative so as long as I get
clear audio, that's what matters. Losing a light isn't an option (and even if I
did, a boom wouldn't fit in the light case) so I would have
to add another stand, plus a pole, and clamp. Would the audio be better?
A little, but I could get better B-Roll with an Epic instead of a FS700 too.
Now I'm not saying I never use a boom, but for 95% of what I do and the
budgets I have to work with......it's just not happening. You always have to
draw a line somewhere or you end up making 5 trips in and out just to get
all the gear in. I mean I 'could' also bring a dolly and track or if not that
a 'second shooter' slider, the one that automatically moves back and forth,
to add movement to the 2nd camera. Or a portable green screen so I could
decide on the background I wanted later. I mean if I already have all this
other gear, a portable green screen is just one more stand and a folded disc.
I guess as a one person band everyone has to make some decisions on what
to bring and what to leave behind. I have never once had a client complain
about the quality of the audio, and I have shot between 5,000 and
10,000 interviews using pretty much the same basic set up.

While I appreciate your reply I guess we'll agree to disagree.
I have a travel pole that breaks down incredibly small and could go right in with your other light stands.
A mic and shockmount are incredibly small. You can say all day that it's too much of a hassle
to bring a boom but I am simply saying you're choosing not to bring one, not because it's a hassle but because you would rather have more
toys on the visual side.

Of course you're entitled to make what ever decisions you want to make
but this is a discussion in an audio section of a forum and I think a lot of people here strive for a bit more
than "never had a client complain".
Will a lav "work"? Sure, no one is debating that, but you could go available light and that could work
too.

I'm just surprised you think a boom is only "a little" better though.
A mic that is buried under clothing, never knowing what the talent will wear so that will be hit or miss
compared to a quality mic in the open air above them? Yes slightly more than " a little" to me.
Not to mention having to invade someones personal space when it's not necessary.
If you're just clipping the mic to the person where it's visible well that's affecting your visual now isn't it?
If that's the look you want to go for then great.

Once again, I'm not bagging on your choice, but if you're truly not using a boom for your stated reasons
I think it's a silly choice when it's such an easy fix.

Obviously just my opinion.

 

[alaskacameradude]

While I appreciate your reply I guess we'll agree to disagree.
I have a travel pole that breaks down incredibly small and could go right in with your other light stands.
A mic and shockmount are incredibly small. You can say all day that it's too much of a hassle
to bring a boom but I am simply saying you're choosing not to bring one, not because it's a hassle but because you would rather have more
toys on the visual side.

Of course you're entitled to make what ever decisions you want to make
but this is a discussion in an audio section of a forum and I think a lot of people here strive for a bit more
than "never had a client complain".
Will a lav "work"? Sure, no one is debating that, but you could go available light and that could work
too.

I'm just surprised you think a boom is only "a little" better though.
A mic that is buried under clothing, never knowing what the talent will wear so that will be hit or miss
compared to a quality mic in the open air above them? Yes slightly more than " a little" to me.
Not to mention having to invade someones personal space when it's not necessary.
If you're just clipping the mic to the person where it's visible well that's affecting your visual now isn't it?
If that's the look you want to go for then great.

Once again, I'm not bagging on your choice, but if you're truly not using a boom for your stated reasons
I think it's a silly choice when it's such an easy fix.

Obviously just my opinion.

It's pretty easy to make claims without having any idea of what
you are talking about. For example, you somehow 'know' that
a travel pole could fit in my existing light kit with the light stands?
Umm....no. The kit I have is so tight, it is almost impossible to
actually get the kit that it shipped with to fit back inside. I think
they must have had a degree in engineering to get everything to
fit at the factory, and once you actually use the kit and take
stands and lights out, it is very hard to get everything back inside.
I don't care how small your boom pole, mic, and shock mount are,
they are not fitting in my light kit.....I'd also need some way to
attach the boom pole to a stand and I'd need another stand as well.
So no matter how much you may want to assert that it wouldn't
be an additional hassle for me, that is just not true. It IS true that
if I removed enough other stuff from my light kit, I could fit in a portable
boom pole, use one of the light stands, and fit in a shock mount and a
clamp. And then I would compromise my ability to light the scene.
Compromises.....it's kind of a theme of this post.

Also, anyone that has ever worked in broadcast TV knows that you
don't bury a lav mic 'under clothes'. The tiny mic part of the lav mic
is in open air, and the cord is what you hide. Behind a tie, under a collar
or similar. Is that what you meant? You don't want the mic itself
under clothes or you get to much rustling. So yes, sometimes you have
to 'invade their space' to dress the cord. Can you see the mic? If you look
closely, they are pretty small these days. I wouldn't say it's a 'look' I'm going
for but it doesn't bother me....others may feel different.


And yes sorry, but I do only think it is a little better. And I have recorded
dual track audio with a boom AND a lav on quite a few interviews so I'm
quite familiar with the sounds of both. So at the very least I can say it's an
informed decision. You of course are welcome to disagree.
There are plenty of people on here who do. Some think 'available light' is only a
little worse than lighting an interview. Some think the GH4 or 5D or other DSLR is
only a little worse than a C300, FS700 or even Red Epic.....and some even have
convinced themselves these DSLR's look better! We all compromise somewhere.
And you are right, many on here are not looking for 'client is fine with the quality of
audio.' Unfortunately, I am not a narrative filmmaker like many here. Also not a
high end music video or TV commercial producer.
I make lower range stuff striving towards mid range but budgets being what they
are, I do lower mid range at best.....things that have a 2-5k budget usually.
Therefore, to me, it is highly important that the client is fine with the quality of what
I give them. But I think you knew that. I think your observation is that I could
do 'more' and make the quality 'even higher'.

Could I do even more? I sure could. As I said, I have a green screen that
folds into a disk and a stand for it. I have a motorized slider. I have a Steadicam.
I could bring all kinds of stuff to a shoot. I could rent stuff. I could do all kinds of things.
Pretty much every one of us who doesn't work with or on a large crew with everything
imaginable makes decisions. As I said, we all compromise somewhere.
Without huge budgets, making a 'film' or video is always a compromise,
you either draw some lines or spend 1000 hours to make $3000.

For example, you may bring the boom pole and mic, and instead use more 'available light'.
I may wonder why you don't just bring more lights after all, it makes a 'big difference'.
You may think the extra visual quality improvement are 'not that big'.
You may choose to shoot an interview with 1 camera instead of having two different angles,
because who would ever want to cut to a different angle of a talking head anyways?
You may choose to use a GH4 or a 5D and think that is fine. To you, the difference
in sound between a boom mic and lav mic is a big deal, but having some of the other stuff
I have is not. Or maybe you use everything I have and more! Maybe your films are
much higher quality than what I do! And maybe you spend twice as much time on making
sure every aspect is perfect.........there's always some sort of compromise or tradeoff.
Is it a 'silly choice'? Maybe. I could make an extra trip and bring in a boom mic,
and then take the extra time to set it up and make sure there were no shadows in
my shot from the boom. And then get paid the exact same amount as I do without the
extra time and work, but have the satisfaction that the sound is the highest quality
available?

In the end, isn't it basically what you are saying is that you would make different compromises
than me? I think that's great, honestly. Because the world would be an awfully boring place
if we were all the same!