Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Have RØDE NTG-2 and NT1, want to step up advices

Joel Arvidsson

Joel Arvidsson

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
3,044
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
46
Location
Sweden
Hi I want to improve the audio quality. Right now I use the RØDE NTG-2 and NT1 on a boom and then connect straight in the hvx200 (no external mixer).
The microphones of interests is Sennheiser MKH 416 or a RØDE NTG-3.

Im also looking at two field mixers, Sound Devices MixPre and the 302. Whats the main differens of those to? Will the mixpre be enough or what
will I be missing out from the 303. Do you think its ads alot to the soundquality over onboard preamp.

But Im still consider getting a Lavalier instead.

What do you think will "up" the audio quality the most? The work that the mic is going to be used for is comercial and
corporate videos. Both outside, inside companies and studio.



pros of lavailer:I guess its easier to work with in those situations youre a one man crew. With a lavalier you don't fall of axis so easy. Also its kind of hard to get close with a shotgun when doing a wideshot.
cons of lavailer: Everybody keeps telling stay wired ass long as possible. The one wireless I have listens to (I believe it was the EW112-P G2 from Sennheiser) did not have so good audio as I hoped.
The speach was missing the higher ranges. So it did not give so clear impression. We did not use it with a external mixer.

What other lavalier systems in near price range would you recommend?


Thanks for your time
Joel Arvidsson
 
I use Sennheiser MKH60 & MKH50 Mics as my bread and butter.
The Sennheiser G2 & G3 wireless setups can be improved by adding something along the lines of a Countryman mic.
The SD302 is a great little mixer with a pro feature set.

Good Luck!
 
Hi, the MKH60 & MKH50 is out of my league right now. Yea maby use the Sennheiser G3 wireless setups with a Countryman mic. Do you have this setup or just the Countryman mic?


Does sounddevices 302 or MixPre have a toneswitch to match the mixer and
camera?

Is it true that the best sound using a boom inside is with a
Small Diaphragm Condenser Microphone instead of shotgun? This because they does not pick up the reflected sounds on the walls.
 
Joel Arvidsson said:
Hi, the MKH60 & MKH50 is out of my league right now. Yea maby use the Sennheiser G3 wireless setups with a Countryman mic. Do you have this setup or just the Countryman mic?


Does sounddevices 302 or MixPre have a toneswitch to match the mixer and
camera?

Is it true that the best sound using a boom inside is with a
Small Diaphragm Condenser Microphone instead of shotgun? This because they does not pick up the reflected sounds on the walls.
Click to expand...

ANY microphone will pick up reflected sounds from walls.

The problem with shotgun mics, especially cheaper ones, is that reflections arrive off-axis, and because shotguns try to repress off-axis sounds, they don't have the same frequency response off-axis, so the reflections will sound really ugly.

A hypercardiod microphone will pick up more off-axis sound, but the frequency response will be more consistent, so you will get MORE echoes but they will sound better.

At least, I think that's how Jay Rose explained it. I highly recommend his book.
 
I can add that most jobs is inside. Maby this change the recomended mic or Lavalier.
 
Sam Eilertsen said:
ANY microphone will pick up reflected sounds from walls.

The problem with shotgun mics, especially cheaper ones, is that reflections arrive off-axis, and because shotguns try to repress off-axis sounds, they don't have the same frequency response off-axis, so the reflections will sound really ugly.

A hypercardiod microphone will pick up more off-axis sound, but the frequency response will be more consistent, so you will get MORE echoes but they will sound better.

At least, I think that's how Jay Rose explained it. I highly recommend his book.
Click to expand...

So what type of microphones would pick up the least amount of off-axis/reflected sound (when attached to a boom)? A small diaphram condensor?
 
Mike P. said:
So what type of microphones would pick up the least amount of off-axis/reflected sound (when attached to a boom)? A small diaphram condensor?
Click to expand...

The terminology confuses me somewhat, but as I understand it a shotgun will pick up the least off-axis sound. However, in a room where you are going to get a lot of reflections, the best combination of pickup pattern and frequency response is a hypercardiod. I'm not sure about small diaphram condensors.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5Y...&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
Joel Arvidsson said:
Do you think its ads alot to the soundquality over onboard preamp.
Click to expand...

I almost always set up the boom operator with a Sound Devices MM-1 preamp/headphone monitor. The sound quality difference when using that compared to the preamps in the HVX200 is quite noticeable.

I ran side-by-side blind tests using Rode and Sennheiser mics, both listening and looking at spectograms, and it was readily apparent that using the MM-1 preamp resulted in a much cleaner and clearer signal, noticeably less noise throughout the spectrum.

Also, while the Sennheiser ME 66 provided a signal that was "hot" enough for the HVX200 preamp to use with little digital gain, the Rode NTG-2 provided a lower signal that required quite a bit of digital gain on the camera, so running it through the MM-1 preamp showed an even greater improvement compared to the camera preamp than the ME 66 did.

Some easily overlooked little things that make the 302 nicer to work with than the MixPre, even if you don't need all 3 inputs or any of the advanced features: The 302 has a lot more LEDs, making it easier to judge metering, coarse gain and fine fader adjustments across two dials for each input, the ability to individually set phantom power and high-pass filter for each input, and the ability to accept line level inputs in addition to mic level.
 
Thanks Sam...By the way, is that the entire book online? If so, I'd better start reading.

Stephen, do you know if the preamps in the MixPre and 302 are different? As in, is one devices pre-amps better than the other's. Also, would you know (roughly) how long the 302 or MixPre lasts on three AAs? Similarly, how does the 302s or MixPre stand up to piping the mics directly into the RED (Joel mentioned he is using HVX200, but if RED's audio is noticeably better than that maybe I could forego getting an external mixer.)

I recently got a 416 to go along with my ME66, and I'm pretty sure I've outgrown the H4n we were using as a recorder (I think the preamps are fairly poopy). I'm thinking with a 302 or MixPre going into the H4n we would have no excuse not to be getting professional-level audio quality.
 
Last edited:
Please checkout http://www.oktava-online.com/ and www.Oktava.com. There are many serious sound engineers that have worked with them an say that the Okavas are a great Russian copy of the famous Schoeps MK41 that is THE standard SuperCardioid on any serious filmproduction. I find the sound and versatility of the Schoeps second to none and hence got one.

Then lavaliers. The reason for their existence is that the closer one gets to the sound source the better the quality is. But there is no free lunch. With a lavalier you lose perspective. Cheap lavaliers sound horrible. We've got VoiceTechs, others prefer DPAs or Trams. Those belong to the best on the market but their sound is not close to that what a Schoeps delivers when put at the same distance. Lavaliers often require a certain amount of audio post to make sound voices well.

Plus lavaliers need a wireless transmitter/reciever which is the next bottleneck that hast to be dealt with. Again a big budget helps here as well. The minimum, IMHO, that works on a pro level is the Sennheiser G3 series.

Personally I would go with a Oktava Supercardioid as a replacement of your existing Rode. And then later purchase a Tram for instance with a Sennheiser G3 system when the budget is there.

The Sennheiser MKH416 is a classic for many applications and in film/TV production mainly used for ENG because it's great for fishing statements from a unpleasant distance. Apart from this I find it to extreme in its directional characteristics and in interior set it tends to sound like a beer can.

Hans
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
Please checkout http://www.oktava-online.com/ and www.Oktava.com. There are many serious sound engineers that have worked with them an say that the Okavas are a great Russian copy of the famous Schoeps MK41 that is THE standard SuperCardioid on any serious filmproduction. I find the sound and versatility of the Schoeps second to none and hence got one.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Which specific Okavas microphone have you seen compared to the Schoeps MK41?

http://www.oktava.com/oktava?b=1
 
Joel, your main problem is trying to be a one man band in a group exercise. You really can't get "pro" anything in multiple disciplines all at the same time by yourself. You might be able to get a good picture by yourself. You might be able to give good direction by yourself. You might be able to get good sound by yourself. But no way are you going to get more than one of these functions with professional quality by yourself.
 
Mike P. said:
Stephen, do you know if the preamps in the MixPre and 302 are different? As in, is one devices pre-amps better than the other's. Also, would you know (roughly) how long the 302 or MixPre lasts on three AAs? Similarly, how does the 302s or MixPre stand up to piping the mics directly into the RED (Joel mentioned he is using HVX200, but if RED's audio is noticeably better than that maybe I could forego getting an external mixer.)

I recently got a 416 to go along with my ME66, and I'm pretty sure I've outgrown the H4n we were using as a recorder (I think the preamps are fairly poopy). I'm thinking with a 302 or MixPre going into the H4n we would have no excuse not to be getting professional-level audio quality.
Click to expand...

The MixPre and 302 are specced to use the same preamp transformers, but I don't know if there are real-world differences. I expect them to be very close at the least.

The MixPre will run about 6 hours on 2x AA, the 302 about 8 hours on 3x AA. Less if you are using phantom power.

The early RED ONE audio boards definitely needed a mixer as they didn't do mic level very well, just line. The upgraded audio boards are much better. However, it's not just audio quality - a mixer is far easier to adjust levels on than the camera, and a mixer will have a limiter making it virtually impossible to clip with input or output levels that are too hot. You also have high-pass filtering on a mixer, which is quite valuable when recording dialog.

I've got an older H4, and I'd say the preamp quality is below the HVX200. I always ran my H4 with the MM-1 when possible, and the difference is stunning to any critical listener.
 
Does the MM-1 have limiters and high-pass filtering?

Do you still use the H4 or have you upgraded? I'm just wondering if it'd be worth saying 'ta hell with it' and blowing a sh!tload of money on an SD 702 digital recorder, or try to get away with using what I've got, but adding a MM-1 or MixPre (which are half the price of even an 302.)

The 702 is almost double a 302 though (roughly $2Gs), but if the H4/H4n is going to limit the audio quality of the set up (MM-1/MixPre + H4n) than even spending the $400-700 on the MM-1 or MixPre would be money down the drain and we'd be better off splurging to get a 702.
 
Yes, the MM-1 has a limiter and a two-setting high-pass filter.

I still use the H4 from time to time. It's a handy little unit that I can just drop somewhere and record with the built-in mics. I shot a live music performance that was being recorded directly from the mixing board, but I also dropped my H4 on the ground near the guitar amp. I added it to the mix and the ambience it picked up in addition to the guitar amp really enhanced the reality of the live performance, especially in the 5.1 mix.

I also use the H4 as a backup recorder for either the boom mic or the stereo mix-down from a mixer, and for feeding audio into a computer over USB.

The H4 is a digital recorder. The mics aren't perfect, and the preamps aren't perfect, but feed it a line level signal from a decent mic and preamp and the results are fantastic. Of course, you only have a two-channel recorder with no timecode, so that's where the Sound Devices recorders have an edge.

The way I see it, an MM-1 is never wasted money. On a big shoot with a two-person sound crew, you give the MM-1 to the boom op to use as a headphone monitor and send the line level signal to someone else mixing with a 302 or better mixer, so they can be quite far apart with only a single XLR running between them.

One thing to remember about the MM-1: it has a click-stopped coarse gain adjustment rather than a smooth fader. You won't be tweaking it in the middle of a shot. But if you've got someone using a proper mixer, they don't want the boom op making tweaks like that, and if you have no mixer at all, your post sound editor probably doesn't want slow smooth fader adjustments either.

My suggestion: get an MM-1 now and a 302 later or rent it, OR get just a MixPre, but don't get an MM-1 and a MixPre, as you can't run the MM-1 into the MixPre, and they're too close in functionality anyway.
 
The Oktava MK-012 Small Diaphragm condensers sound interesting and has a nice price. Is it any one more here that have done work with this microphon? Hans, you recomended the Oktava Supercardioid, but wich one specific? Can you recomend specific mics from VocieTechs? Does anybody here have good recomendations on any specific mic from Dpa or Tram? The best would be to hear the audio from a production that used the mic.
Thanks Stephen for your input on soundevices mix pre and 302.

Tim Duran said:
Joel, your main problem is trying to be a one man band in a group exercise. You really can't get "pro" anything in multiple disciplines all at the same time by yourself. You might be able to get a good picture by yourself. You might be able to give good direction by yourself. You might be able to get good sound by yourself. But no way are you going to get more than one of these functions with professional quality by yourself.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top