Am I screwing myself?

[Marc Wielage]

Very good advice from Mr. Strangways above. :thumbsup:

I would add that if you're going to do sit-down interviews in difficult locations, your best course may be to use lavaliar microphones attached to the interview subject. Good lavs include the Sanken Cos-11, Tram TR-50, and Countryman B6. The advantage of using lavs for documentaries is that it tends to takes the room out of the vocal. Normally, this is bad for dramatic situations, sounding a little artificial and isolated, but if it's a doco in a noisy location, then this may be an advantage.

To me, nobody does documentaries better than 60 Minutes, and this is their typical strategy -- and it's one of the best-looking and best-sounding shows on TV. For run & gun situations, a Sennheiser 416 is hard to beat as a go-to mike.

I would also add that hiring an experienced location sound mixer on your crew is the best idea. This will save you money in the long run, mainly in not having to fix or redo bad tracks.

 

[Ryan Richardson]

Very good advice from Mr. Strangways above. :thumbsup:

I would add that if you're going to do sit-down interviews in difficult locations, your best course may be to use lavaliar microphones attached to the interview subject. Good lavs include the Sanken Cos-11, Tram TR-50, and Countryman B6. The advantage of using lavs for documentaries is that it tends to takes the room out of the vocal. Normally, this is bad for dramatic situations, sounding a little artificial and isolated, but if it's a doco in a noisy location, then this may be an advantage.

To me, nobody does documentaries better than 60 Minutes, and this is their typical strategy -- and it's one of the best-looking and best-sounding shows on TV. For run & gun situations, a Sennheiser 416 is hard to beat as a go-to mike.

I would also add that hiring an experienced location sound mixer on your crew is the best idea. This will save you money in the long run, mainly in not having to fix or redo bad tracks.

Yup all the wireless stuff and cables and boom poles etc. are already in my budget. I was just looking for the main components. I have a Senn G3 wireless already included with a CM B6 mic.

I will be using a lav AND boom and ntg1 on-camera mics for my interviews, so Im hoping I should be able to get some good data to mix with room noise and isolated stuff for post. Same with my run-n-gun situations: lav and boom and camera mics (there should be no intense action or movement, just walk arounds and daily activities. very relaxed). Pigs will fly before we lose a shot due to no audio recorded.

I have a dedicated sound guy that has some experience with booming and mixing. He is a film teacher at a media arts high school as well as an experienced PA on all the big TV shows here in hawaii.... and free. (volunteering for the project because he believes in it, same as everyone else involved including myself)

 

[Brian Ferguson]

Did you ever say what camera they were using? I didn't see it mentioned which is a huge factor. If it is a RED - it is REDUSER after all - use a mixer and record on the RED - the onboard RED audio is great with an external Mixer like a SD 302, when you know what you are doing. Almost all cameras outside of the DSLR's can record pretty good audio once you take the mic pre-amps out of the equation. DSLR and you better get a good recorder.

 

[Ryan Richardson]

Well I will be a future red owner when the scarlet comes out, but this project is going to be shot on an AF100. I want to boom the main mic so I think a separate system would be better. I don't want to tether my audio guy to the camera guy if yah know what I mean.

 

[Mike P.]

Can anyone suggest an equally capable recorder to compliment the SD302?

Right now, 3 channels seems optimal for me -- one boom, two lavs on two actors for dialogue (lavs are for backup if the boom op isn't good/close/fast enough). Hoping to find a 302 used for around $800, although I'll admit that might be somewhat wishful thinking. I don't have lavs or an indoor boom mic yet either (thinking I'll go with the Oktava MK012 hypercardioid "movie set" or "film edition") but I haven't even begun to look at lavs... I will probably settle with a couple of G3s and upgrade to CM B6s later when I have the spare cash or a project that really requires hidden lavs (how much for just the B6? I found a kit for $450, but I think it came with a G3 transmitter & reciever... or was it $450 for just the B6?)

So 416 for outdoor boom, MK-012 with hypercardioid cap and low-cut filter for indoor boom, and then a couple of lavs for backup or to cover errors in boom op...Does that sound good?

 

[Marc Wielage]

I will be using a lav AND boom and ntg1 on-camera mics for my interviews, so Im hoping I should be able to get some good data to mix with room noise and isolated stuff for post.

I don't think that's necessary. I would consider three mikes: overhead boom hyper for interview subject, as close to his head as possible without getting into frame; wireless lav on the interview subject (director's choice -- hidden or visible); wireless lav on the interviewee, so you can hear the questions. No need for a camera mike. Consider a cardioid lav like the new Countryman B4 for noisy locations.

Very good to hear that you have an experienced sound mixer helping you with your project.

Can anyone suggest an equally capable recorder to compliment the SD302?

Yeah, the SD 744t. People are dumping them left and right in order to get the 8-track 788, so you can get them at a very affordable price. I think it blows everything away under $3000. That's unless you want to wait for the new Zaxcom Nomad, but that's still a few months away.

The Countryman B6 is generally about $300 (or less) if you buy it new without a connector and wire your own. I'd also suggest the Sanken COS-11, which is a little more expensive, and harder to hide, but is arguably the best-sounding lavalier mike in the world at the moment.

BTW: don't forget that every major documentary made from about 1930 to 1995 or so was originally recorded on location in mono. Even going to 2-track was a relatively new phenomena, after the introduction of DAT in 1992. You may be overthinking this too much.

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Right now, 3 channels seems optimal for me -- one boom, two lavs on two actors for dialogue (lavs are for backup if the boom op isn't good/close/fast enough). Hoping to find a 302 used

Bear in mind that the 302 has 3 channel input, but only 2 channel output. Standard procedure with that kind of mixer is to pan the boom to one channel, and pan both lavs to the other, mixing them as you go, but you won't be able to record all 3 inputs separately for mixing in post.

MK-012 with hypercardioid cap and low-cut filter for indoor boom, and then a couple of lavs for backup or to cover errors in boom op...Does that sound good?

If you are using a mixer or pre-amp with a low-cut filter built in, you won't need the low-cut filter for the MK-012.

 

[Mike P.]

Bear in mind that the 302 has 3 channel input, but only 2 channel output. Standard procedure with that kind of mixer is to pan the boom to one channel, and pan both lavs to the other, mixing them as you go, but you won't be able to record all 3 inputs separately for mixing in post.

Is it possible to pan one lav to the left-channel and the other to the right channel in the "lav output"? If so, then I can separate them in post (put two copies of the track in the timeline and fill left with one, and fill right with the other.) Not the best, but it would still allow separate post-tweaking. I see a huge potential problem combining the lavs; if one isn't receiving properly or one actor's clothes are making ruffling noises, it'd take down the other track... That's not good.

If you are using a mixer or pre-amp with a low-cut filter built in, you won't need the low-cut filter for the MK-012.

The "MK-012 Movie Set" kit comes with the low-cut filter instead of the -10db filter... plus it'd make piping into the camera an option if I was ever doing some quickie work that didn't require (or didn't budget for) full on sound gear... OR, if I needed the separate channel, I could potentially pipe it directly into the recorder (although I'm sure higher-end recorders have low-cuts built-in.)

Yeah, the SD 744t. People are dumping them left and right in order to get the 8-track 788, so you can get them at a very affordable price. I think it blows everything away under $3000.

Don't get me wrong, $3000 for an awesome recorder is awesome, but I was hoping for something around a third of that cost (used). I was hoping to spend around $3000 total have a set up that could handle most situations. ~$800 for the mixer, $300 for the indoor boom mic, and ~$800 for TWO wireless lavs (with entry level mics until I can get B6s), which leaves approximately ~$1100 for the recorder. I was going to look for used simply because the gear I'm looking at should, hopefully, last a life-time if properly taken care of. ALSO, personally I'd imagine a mixer as being slightly more important than a recorder since the recording is only going to be as good as what's piped into it.

 

[oleg kaizerman]

zoom hn4 could record up to 4 tracks -350 usd inc remote and ext battery
or if you have a real sound man ,he can do it for 2 tracks

tascam 680 could go up to 8 with 302 or even with SD mix pre which cost 650 in front, you will have complete fader control for 3 mics -800-new , ONE OF THE BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK

audix sc-1 HC is much better mic then octava which cost the same , have excellent mbho capsules , German made .

 

[Mike P.]

zoom hn4 could record up to 4 tracks -350 usd inc remote and ext battery
or if you have a real sound man ,he can do it for 2 tracks

tascam 680 could go up to 8 with 302 or even with SD mix pre which cost 650 in front, you will have complete fader control for 3 mics -800-new , ONE OF THE BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK

audix sc-1 HC is much better mic then octava which cost the same , have excellent mbho capsules , German made .

Thanks Oleg, I've actually already out-grown an H4n which is why I'm back on the sound market. Have you tried using the Tascam 680 withOUT a mixer in front? It says 60db of gain (the MixPre is only 66db) so if the pre-amps are decent it may allow me to put off buying a mixer right away... So, are the pre-amps of the 680 are decent/clean/quiet? That's the biggest problem I have with the H4n; I have to boost the recording level to 95+ to get it decently loud, but at that point it's hissing and picking up stuff that it shouldn't be.

I'll look into the Audix as well... I was just about ready to pull the trigger on the MK-012 with HC cap. Is there are a reason the SC-1 is better? Is it the pick up pattern or the sensitivity or does it have better noise/wind handling? If it 'just sounds better' that'd be subjective (any one have audio clips of the two mics?)

thanks again guys (including you, Ryan, for starting the thread).

EDIT: I'm really second guessing the MK-012 based solely on the wind/handling noise sensitivity... I'm a fairly haphazard boom op and feel that it will only work against me (as in, even with its pickup-pattern the 416 I own would probably be more functional indoors than the MK012 do to wind/handling.) So, it looks like I'm still looking for a decent indoor HyperCardioid... aside from the Audix, can anyone else recommend any other moderately priced indoor mics? Around $500?

 

[oleg kaizerman]

the problem is not the pre amps which are more then ok , but the ergonomics to work with 1 fader knob for all the inputs , with mix pre you are set for 3 channels . the gain is really not a problem.
the nh4 i not recommend as stand alone device but with any normal mixer /pre in front.
the audix sounds better to my ears - have same capsules with my mbho rigs and there is really nothing to compare to oktava .
wind problem indoor ?close the windows
do me a favor , buy A good suspension ( PSC SHORT one is cheap and good) and couple of foams , regular and double from Olson +mike muff to go over both ( 1 small and one large) , the small for light wind , the large as good as any other softy . engage the low cut for 80/100 hz .
now - do you really have sound man as that stuff is ABC ?

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Is it possible to pan one lav to the left-channel and the other to the right channel in the "lav output"? If so, then I can separate them in post (put two copies of the track in the timeline and fill left with one, and fill right with the other.)

Sure, you could do that, but then your boom mic would have to go directly to the camera or the recorder, and then you're at the mercy of the limiter, preamp, and low-cut filter (or lack thereof) in the camera or recorder.

If you're running lavs wirelessly, you might as well run those directly to the camera. Once the mic signal has entered the transmitter, you're using the transmitter's preamp, and you're too late to run a limiter or low-cut filter as if your signal to the transmitter is clipping, there's nothing you can do about it later in the signal chain. So, if I'm short mixer channels, I usually use my wireless lavs direct to the camera or recorder, then use the mixer for the boom, where the preamp, limiter, and low-cut filter can be used to great advantage.

 

[Ryan Richardson]

Sure, you could do that, but then your boom mic would have to go directly to the camera or the recorder, and then you're at the mercy of the limiter, preamp, and low-cut filter (or lack thereof) in the camera or recorder.

If you're running lavs wirelessly, you might as well run those directly to the camera. Once the mic signal has entered the transmitter, you're using the transmitter's preamp, and you're too late to run a limiter or low-cut filter as if your signal to the transmitter is clipping, there's nothing you can do about it later in the signal chain. So, if I'm short mixer channels, I usually use my wireless lavs direct to the camera or recorder, then use the mixer for the boom, where the preamp, limiter, and low-cut filter can be used to great advantage.

Good to know!

Also, what is everyone's take on the Sanken CS-3e for indoor use? I've heard nothing but great things about it as a multi-use mic.

 

[Ryan Richardson]

And if you're looking for one great mic to spend real money on, listen closely to the Sanken CS3e. Many 416's have been traded in on this mic. There are people who even use it indoors to good effect.

:leaving:

 

[Stephen Strangways]

I think a great many people start out thinking a shotgun mic will be perfectly fine indoors. Could it really have a downside? Do I really need to buy a second mic just for indoors? Eventually, if they stick with it, and get a discerning ear, they end up either running into a problem interior when using a shotgun, or try a hypercardioid just for the heck of it, and once they do, they would never go back, and wonder why they spent so much time stubbornly avoiding buying one. I was one of those people myself, and I've run into several other sound-oriented people who went through the exact same thing. We all say that if we had known then what we know now, we'd have all bough decent hypers for indoors from the very beginning.

Not that I had ever heard anyone complain about the interiors I recorded with a shotgun... But I much prefer the hyper indoors. Not to mention the fact that my hyper mic and suspension system is much lighter than my shotgun and suspension for that, so it is so much nice to boom for long takes!

 

[Mike P.]

I'm totally second guessing the MK012 -- I don't have the temper to deal with self-noise, handling noise, or wind-noise ruining a take. Similarly, I don't want to spend $1700 on the CMC641 and have to worry about humidity (it doesn't get all that humid up here, but I'd just rather not worry about it at all, especially on location in a damp basement or something). So I'm leaning towards an MKH50 for its robustness and low self-noise. I know Senns are typically low-end/bass heavy but I can tweak that in post.

Also, other than the additional channel, is there much difference between a MixPre and 302? Are the pre-amps of the 302 noticeably better or is the button/knob layout vastly superior? Is the LED gauge functionally better on the 302? There are too many options and too big of gaps between sound equipment -- it's either 'close, but definitely not good enough' or 'best in the industry, but definitely overkill... and costly'. I guess if it was easy/cheap, everyone would be doing it.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

The H4n is not very good at maintaining sync over long takes. If you are doing short recordings (2 or so minutes) it'll be fine, and PluralEyes can be used to sync it automatically with a camera reference audio track. If you are rolling continuous takes for several minutes, you can expect the sync to drift significantly, and you'll need to chop those takes up and re-sync them.

This is true, but I've found an alternative solution.

First and easiest if you can get co-operation from Camera is to simply do both a head and tail slate on every long take.

Even a twelve minute with an H4n and a DSLR take can get easy and regular sync with two slate marks.

That saves a lot of effort.

Overall, I still am not a fan of the H4n. It is a great bang for the buck, and its SO much better than nothing.

I can't remember who said it, but the H4n is pretty much a disaster in the sound bag. That's why I'm replacing mine with the Tascam I mentioned earlier. And eventually replacing that rig with a 788T.

Audio isn't my actual business though, so its a low priority, which is why I'm willing to burn money on an intermediate solution.

 

[Stephen Strangways]

I'm totally second guessing the MK012 -- I don't have the temper to deal with self-noise, handling noise, or wind-noise ruining a take.

The only time I've ever cared about wind noise and handling noise characteristics of a mic was when I was handing a mic to talent or people on the street for interviews. I used the Sennheiser MD46 for that. Beyond that, handling noise is eradicated by a good suspension system, boom, and some decent booming skills. Wind noise is eradicated by proper wind protection for the environment you're in. Self noise? Now that's a characteristic you should care about. I think it depends mostly on the ambient noise level of where you are recording. In some places, you have enough other noise to deal with that you'll never notice any self noise from the mic. And I'm not talking about really noisy environments, just your average non-sound-stage venue with active ventilation and non-floating floors. I've never encountered anything terribly objectionable with the MK012, but there is a guy who "mods" them to replace a few components, and it is supposed to improve the mic.

Also, other than the additional channel, is there much difference between a MixPre and 302? Are the pre-amps of the 302 noticeably better or is the button/knob layout vastly superior? Is the LED gauge functionally better on the 302?.

For me, the main advantage to the 302 was always the LED gauge being much better because it was delineated into so much finer increments. The new MixPre-D seems to narrow or eradicate that gap, so I think that's a much closer call right now. The transformers in the 302 are Lundahl transformers and supposedly better than the transformers in the MixPre and MM-1, but as for the practical difference it actually makes... I haven't done any side-by-side tests to know for sure, but my impression from having worked with the MM-1 and the 302 separately is that one might be a Porsche and the other a Lamborghini, but either way, you'd be comparing those to the Ford Tempo and the Geo Metro of the preamps in a Zoom H4 or your average camera.

 

[Mike P.]

If I went with, say, a SD702, is there any way to send an audio output from the 702 into the camera? Is it some frankenstienian cable/connection, or something normal like XLR?

It'd be mostly for reference audio, but also for stuff that needs a quick turn around (in other words, I may only link up to the 702's 24/192 files if the audio clips needed heavy equalization work.)

 

[Marc Wielage]

If I went with, say, a SD702, is there any way to send an audio output from the 702 into the camera? Is it some frankenstienian cable/connection, or something normal like XLR?

The SD 702 has TA3 (aka "mini XLR") line outputs and also a 1/8" mini-phone "tape" output. Me personally, I would advise getting the 702T (with timecode) or the step-up 744t (4 channels with timecode) for filmmaking. There's quite a few 744's out there on the used market because of the number of people who've gone to the 8-track 788. More info here:

http://www.sounddevices.com/products/702.htm

My advice would be to rent one before you buy one.

It'd be mostly for reference audio, but also for stuff that needs a quick turn around (in other words, I may only link up to the 702's 24/192 files if the audio clips needed heavy equalization work.)

I believe 192kHz sampling-rate is gross overkill for motion picture work, except in very unusual sound effects situations. 48K is what nearly every movie & TV show sound crew uses, and that goes for anywhere from $200 million movies to $50 web videos.

Why would the sounds need "heavy equalization work"?