+1 on the lav mic, be sure it's positioned about one hand's spread below the mouth.

Hello,
thanks guys!

Could you be so kind to expound a bit on why it's much better? Just to help me understand.


thanks so much

If the outdoor conditions are poor, a lapel mic cannot be positioned as closely to the lips, so the answer is "it depends."

As it's outdoors and the talent is walking unless there's someone available to hold a boom pole and wrangle cable then you're kind of stuck with using a wireless lapel.

There are windsocks available for lapel mics which would help if the weather isn't favourable. Of course one can also get wireless hand held microphones which if you don't mind them being in shot you can get the talent to hold close to their mouth. Windsocks are also available for them, even the cheap slip on foam thingies help.

Bob.

If you don't mind post-syncing the dialogue, another approach is to use a lapel mic and a portable Zoom recorder, a bit cheaper than most radio mics. The new Zoom H5 will set you back about $300 (cheaper from Hong Kong).

Connect the lapel mic to one of the inputs, set the gain to a comfortable level, enable backup recording, put it in the talent's pocket or strap to body and that's it. Syncing it up in Vegas is dead easy.

And you also get a very useful tool for other work as well.

"Could you be so kind to expound a bit on why it's much better? Just to help me understand."

It's more consistent and the person who is miked doesn't have to think about it. Frequently telling someone who is not an experienced TV person to hold the microphone properly gets tiring.

What is a " **** ". Did the forum nanny think you meant " a male chicken " ?!!!!

More control with a hand-held in an unplanned situation. But if all organised in advance a well-placed and adjust lav better.

geoff

Wireless lavs are best for walk and talk scenes and such. Best placement is usually in on the chest's sternum area . You'll likely want wind protection unless the mic's hidden under clothes... which I would not recommend unless one has that skill set.
A portable recorder with a lav 'can' work, but it can't be monitored.. so if you feel lucky, it's an option.

Yes, outdoors with most any mic, if it is windy you need wind protection on the mic.

A foam cover at minimum, and a "dead cat" would be better (a sound blimp even better but that is beyond the scope of this type of situation .. unless you have a "sound man" that can operate it properly, and keep it out of the camera's frame)

The biggest problem with a lav outdoors is that it's not in line with the talent's sound pressure waves. That means the noise rules. Using a directional lav makes the wind worse, much worse.

If this wasn't true, all our location reporters on the news would be using lavaliers. They aren't.

On a prosumer camera with 1/8" audio in jack, a Rode Video Mic pro with a headphone extension works pretty well. You can get windjammers for these if you want. If you are using a Sony, Nikon or Panasonic camera, you have DC-bias power and can use the inexpensive Rode Videomic Go. If you have a Canon or other camera without DC-Bias, you should use one of the battery powered models.

I don't know how many outdoor interviews I've done with a wireless transmitter attached to the back of a shotgun on a mic stand with a wind jammer. Just pop it in front of the person you are interviewing, step back and shoot. A heck of a lot easier than wiring them with a lapel, especially if you are a one man show.

Thank so much everyone.
Very helpful stuff.

I can put the mic right into my GH2 but the smaller port requires an adapter an often jiggles out with detection so you go home and have no audio at all. Thus the two mic system.. I got a dead cat or whatever you call it, wind muff so I think that should do the trick.

Nice to hear all your input and helps me not waste time with a lav in this situation.

Thank you for posting!

"often jiggles out with detection so you go home and have no audio at all"
> That's why is recommended to always monitor audio.

This really comes down to "horses for courses". If your 'interviewee' is walking, a mic on a stand is obviously out. I've no doubt MV10 know his stuff, and the "sound pressure" thing is true. But how much will it effect the audio? It'll be different every single time.
From my own personal experience, I've shot many outdoor wedding ceremonies with a lav - including windy days. I obviously get to compare that audio with the audio from my NTG-2 (Rode) which is on the camera, and which is a fair bit up the ladder from a Rode video mic. The Lav wins hands down every time. It takes all of 10 secs to "wire up a lav". Maybe a little more if you've got to run it under clothing.

"all our location reporters on the news would be using lavaliers. They aren't."
On the face of it, you'd have to agree. It's the image we've all been brought up with. But do they? This morning I watched around 20mins of BBC Breakfast. 1st reporter from Stonehenge re the proposed new road tunnel to bypass the monument - Lav. (complete with wind gag). 2nd reporter coming from Sierra Leone re this country actually doing something meaningful to help with the Ebola virus at long last - Lav.

Most reporters would use a hand held mic because they may have to ask someone to speak into it. A Lav is definitely NOT the tool for that. There's probably a bit of "I look much more of a reporter with this mic" in there too. Much the same as the sports guys with their headset/mics. They think it looks cool, LOL.

If I do interviews and I can't get close - for instance there's too many in the group, (Have to move back to get wide enough) I use a hand held radio mic. Again the audio from this blows the NTG-2 away if it's more than say 8 feet away. Horses for courses.

The best simple advice I've been given on mics is "a cheap mic up close is better than an expensive one far away". You can't get closer than a Lav. ;-)

"You can't get closer than a Lav. ;-)"

A handheld should be much closer than a lav, even if lav collar-mounted !

geoff

Arthur S. said:

[I]"You can't get closer than a Lav. ;-)"[/I]

You can get any other microphone closer than a lavalier. The problem with them is they're way off axis from the sound source, they cannot be bought closer to the sound source without looking really silly and they're generally omnidirectional. That they manage to pickup the wanted sound at all is just good luck.

Yes, you'll see them in conjunction with a wireless link used a lot by ENG cameramen because that's the cheapest solution. Many ENG cameras have a slot for the receiver and the transmitter and microphone fits into the guy's b-u-m bag. When I say cheap that extra option adds around $5K to the camera but that's way cheaper than having to send a two man crew all the time.

Wireless links for audio are also the worst possible choice. Quite aside from risk of interference there's the problem of setting the transmitter's level. The most important audio level control is on the talent, good luck adjusting that during a shot! Trying to fix audio that's been clipped by a wireless transmitter in post is pretty much impossible. If the gain control in the transmitter is set too low it's also a problem. Today one can buy wireless systems that are so close to using a cable it doesn't matter but they're not much under $10K, not an option for most of us.

A wireless lapel microphone should always be thought of as the option of last resort, if you have to use one, you have to use one but every other option should be considered first if you want a good outcome.

Bob.

well OK, let's be pedantic. I can walk up and shove ANY mic in the face of the person. Really useful that. You don't NEED wireless for a Lav, I just gave a couple of examples where I've used them with wireless. I also use them direct into digital recorders. Once in situ, you have no control over levels etc...but that's where you need to be clever with the settings. I've never lost a single recording via Lav due to bad levels. Radio interference? Now that's a different story. Horses for courses.

+1

I use wireless lavs regularly with great success. Yes, I do prefer the sound of a boomed hyper cardioid or shotgun (for exteriors) if the subject is static or if I have the luxury of a skilled boom operator on the crew. But, often I shoot wide, and I don't want in the shot either a crew person or a cable trailing from the leg of the performer. And, performers generally hate, hate, hate to be tethered by a hard wire. I work mostly in the Chicago area, and I rarely, rarely have rf interference issues. (I might have a different experience if I worked in venues with dozens of wireless mics but I don't.) Yes, there are very expensive wireless systems, but I rely primarily on Sennheisers that cost in the $500 range. They are rugged and their audio quality meets my need for presenters in a wide variety of ambient sound situations. As for omni microphones being chosen because they are the cheapest alternative, I disagree. Omni mics have characteristics that are highly desirable for hand-held use: much less susceptible to wind noise, much less susceptible to 'P' popping, and much easier to manage having no off-axis roll-off. There is a reason that network reporters use EV 635s or RE50s when reporting hurricanes, and it is not their cost; it is because they are almost perfect tools for the job.

I just completed a talking head video shot outdoors with a Sennheiser wireless system.

The first go around was with a Sennheiser omnidirectional lav (ME2) and the ambient noise was a huge problem. I tried a RODE M3 cardioid at a distance of about 14" and that was an improvement, but not enough. Ditto for the Sennheiser ME4 cardioid lav.

It finally occurred to me that a head worn mic might work better... And it did. We tried a Sennheiser ME3 headworn cardioid mic and it eliminated nearly all ambient noise. It's a huge mic, however, and we wanted something smaller, so we tried a RODE HS-1, which still had a bit much background noise and was difficult to fit and uncomfortable to wear.

We ended up purchasing a Sennheiser HSP-4 and that worked well. When used with the wind screen it looks like there's an olive hovering near my mouth and it makes me sound like I have a stuffed up nose.

If a headworn or earset mic is an avenue you would consider I would take a look at Countryman as they cost about $100 less than the HSP-4, are an industry standard, and can be configured for use with wireless transmitters from most (if not all) manufacturers. I was behind on the project so I went with what I knew would work, but at some point I hope to evaluate a Countryman.

This was shot with the omni lav: http://video.seektechinc.com/video_preview/SR20_ST33QPlus/SR-24_ST-33QPlus_Bluetooth_001.mp4

This was shot with the headworn cardioid: http://video.seektechinc.com/video_preview/SR20_ST33QPlus/SR-24_ST-33QPlus_Bluetooth_002.mp4

Countryman earworn is fragile as a bubble. An expensive bubble if you have to replace an element.

A $100 microphonemadness.com is a tougher alternative for everyone except belters.

I wish I had the luxury of having a boom op on a lot of my shoots but the reality is that I'm a one man band and I have to make do with what works for me which, most of the time, is wireless.
I have a Sanken COS-11D lav and a Sennheiser G3 wireless which have so far performed flawlessly for me, indoors and out.
For those of you who don't think a lav (in this case a Countryman B3) and wireless work well together outdoors, read the following blog post by an audio guy on board on a Coast Guard ship documenting training maneuvers.
Cape Disappointment

Mike

Yes, in this case I agree; better a b3 in the wild than an e6!
Wonder if you'd even need the prophylactic for an mke2 gold?