OT: Shotgun mic

jazzmaster wrote on 10/7/2009, 1:55 PM
I have a Sony HVR-V1U which I really like, but I would like to get a shotgun mic that can pic up voice from 10-15 ft. away, yet is short enough to not appear in my picture. Any suggestions? Of course, I'm on a budget. I figure a tight pattern at a distance and also for a conversation with another person about 5-7 ft. away.

Thanks in advance.

Comments

Laurence wrote on 10/7/2009, 1:59 PM
Shotgun mics are typically designed for much closer distances: booming just out of frame above a person's head. Distances like you are describing won't give you good audio with a shotgun regardless of which one you choose.

What you need is a wireless mic. The cheapest decent quality one (IMHO) is the http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/324227-REG/Sennheiser_EW100ENGG2_A_Evolution_G2_100_Series.htmlSennheiser Evolution G2[/link].
farss wrote on 10/7/2009, 2:10 PM
Read what Laurence has said. By your comments I assume you want to put this mic on the camera. You are on a fools errand. There are shotgun mics with a very narrow pickup angle. They are very expensive and VERY long. Get a hidden mic closer to the subject and you will be in audio nirvana.
All this stuff costs money. Audio is 70% of what you see. Taking that on board you should spend more on your audio kit than you spend on your camera. The good news is generally good audio gear keeps it's value which is more than can be said for cameras.

Bob.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 10/7/2009, 3:24 PM

I think too many people assume shotgun mics behave like telephoto lenses. Nothing could be further from the truth!

At best, a shotgun mic could be compared to looking though a toilet paper tube. You're no "closer" to your subject, just your field of view has narrowed.


John_Cline wrote on 10/7/2009, 4:08 PM
There is no way a microphone can be made to sound much closer to the source that it really is. That said, I have had some luck with a large parabolic reflector and microphone much like broadcasters use at football games. It does sort of act like a telephoto lens for audio, certainly much more so than any shotgun mic. Regardless, like everyone else has said, if you want it to sound close, it must be close and a wireless microphone makes that practical and easy.
Spot|DSE wrote on 10/7/2009, 4:30 PM
Nothing reaches out and touche's someone, even though Azden and similar marketing want you to think so. Shotguns are the most wrongfully used microphone type in the world, IMO.
A 5.00 plastic mic at the source will generally sound better than a 5,000.00 mic more than a few feet away from source.
Coursedesign wrote on 10/7/2009, 4:52 PM
If you are ever absolutely forced to pick up voices most clearly from a distance, the best tool is a microphone with a hyperbolic reflector.

This kind of reflector is what you can see used in for example horn tweeters for stage speaker use.

For picking up voice, the horn can be built from four shaped flat pieces of fairly hard but bendable plastic, glued or taped together along the edges, and with a microphone mount in the small opening.

Parabolic reflectors are best for picking up bird song for example, because they have high gain at higher frequencies where the bird tweets are, but the gain drops dramatically in the middle and lower voice register.

Hyperbolic reflectors have a more uniform gain over the practical voice (dialog) bandwidth of 300 Hz to 3 kHz.

For best clarity, voice should be picked up all the way to 4 kHz, and some shaping of the frequency curve after that (slow rise from 300 Hz to 3 kHz, then flat to 4 kHz) will increase the perceived clarity even more (at the expense of absolute fidelity).

Spot|DSE wrote on 10/7/2009, 4:56 PM
arrays such as the AT system work very well too.
rs170a wrote on 10/7/2009, 5:07 PM
Toys for big boys with deep pockets :-)
Lil' Ears Parabolic Microphone Kit ($3,000.00)
Big Ears Parabolic Microphone Super Kit ($4,500.00)

Mike
Coursedesign wrote on 10/7/2009, 5:12 PM
arrays such as the AT system work very well too


Mmmmm, yessss, but at a cost. Good stuff.

Those AT arrays are widely used by some U.S. government agencies, including one that doesn't exist (so to speak).
musicvid10 wrote on 10/7/2009, 8:01 PM
If you can't boom, you are far better off with a wireless lav than a shotgun on-camera.
Even the basic A-T Pro 88W will do a better job than what you are contemplating.
Just be sure to check the TV channels in your area, don't buy 700 MHz, and use a decent element like the Sony 77 or Senn MKE-2.
farss wrote on 10/7/2009, 8:58 PM
The phased array mics are indeed brilliant. Haven't used the AT but I've used one of the Sankens on a few jobs. Works very well. It was built to go on a camera and is not too long. Still it's around $3K which would buy a top shelf wireless setup which as everyone has said is money much better spent.

Just to expand on what Spot has said the difference with the phased array mics is the narrow pickup angle extends into the low frequencies whereas pressure gradient shotguns have poor side and rear rejection at low frequencies making them a bad choice in small rooms.

Bob.
Coursedesign wrote on 10/7/2009, 10:07 PM
I have a Sanken CS-3e shotgun that is a treat to use, because of wonderful sound quality and because its side rejection extends through lower frequencies. This lets it work where no other regular shotguns can be used.

(The "3" stands for the number of mic elements used.)
FuTz wrote on 10/8/2009, 5:18 AM
If you go with the radio mics, a lot of Sennheiser G2 series are for sell for peanuts nowadays on the net. That is because they released the G3 series. But for your usual job, G2s will work great. Especially if you mount them (eventually) with someting like Sankens COS-11 lavs. You can also find or make a cable that you can plug to a dynamic hand mic if you want to record stand ups.
Shotguns: the CS3e is indeed a good choice if you go with a shotgun mic for hard (noisy) environments. But having somebody speak 15 feet away in a Detroit city crowd after the Red Wings win the cup won't give you miracles anyway...
logiquem wrote on 10/8/2009, 6:52 AM
Hum...in a seated interview situation last week, i tried side by side a small AKG lavalier (clipped on the shirt, about 6"-8" from the mouth) and a RODE NTG1 (overhead, about 18"-24" from the source).

The sound from the shotgun was vastly superior in term of speech intelligibility/definition/clarity/noise. No comparaison with the lavalier's muddiness.
Coursedesign wrote on 10/8/2009, 8:12 AM
A lot of lavs are muddy, the record holder is probably Tram's TR-50, i can't stand it. Even with the best lavs, it is easy to get a "chesty" sound that isn't always pleasant.

I don't normally use my CS3e for remote pickup, but I have been able to use it in situations where other shotguns failed, such as in for example a large community room with three hard walls.

The CS3e is also nice in that its sound character doesn't change over a relatively broad pickup angle, so if you have to pick up a dialog between two people standing fairly close, you don't need to be hyperactive with the boom to face each talker right on, as with many other shotgun mikes.

rs170a wrote on 10/8/2009, 8:29 AM
The sound from the shotgun was vastly superior in term of speech intelligibility/definition/clarity/noise. No comparaison with the lavalier's muddiness.

No disagreement here as I've found that most pro audio folks prefer to use a boom rather than a lav for a wide variety of reasons such as you and others have mentioned in this post.
If I had a decent shotgun, it would be my preferred mic for sit down interviews as well.
Clamp it to a C-stand with ah extension arm, aim it and roll camera :-)

Mike
Laurence wrote on 10/8/2009, 8:32 AM
>I don't normally use my CS3e for remote pickup, but I have been able to use it in situations where other shotguns failed, such as in for example a large community room with three hard walls.

I just wanted to make sure that people new to this understood why most shotguns would fail in a "room with three hard walls". All microphone elements are omnidirectional. The way you get a directional mic is by combining these omnidirectional elements at different positions, levels and phases. Sound coming from the direction the end mic is pointed is mostly in just the end mic. Sound off this axis which is coming mostly from the sides is picked up by both the end mic and side mics. The side mics are out of phase with the end mic and so the side sounds cancel out leaving just the directional end sound. In a room with hard walls, all the sounds bounce off the walls in such a way as to make this phase cancellation largely irrelevant. Most shotgun mics sound good and are directional outdoors, but indoors this directionality is lost and what you're left with is a phasey boxy sound. A couple of mics seem to get around these reflectivity problems somehow and while they are more expensive, are well worth the money for these situations. The Sanken CS3e is one of these mics.
Spot|DSE wrote on 10/8/2009, 8:45 AM
Notice your distance was 24". Double that distance and see if your result is the same. It won't be. Lav placement is critical too.
Generally a boom within 2' is preferable to a lav, but the OP specified "several feet." Anything past 48" in the best of circumstances is generally quite poor.
Of course there are always specific variables.

However, take into account that the vast majority of shotgun users have no clue how to use them, and they'll show up at a school play, sport event in a gymnasium, or other similar situation. In those cases, the shotgun hears just as much room boom at the sides as it does at the element. In other words, SPL is equal on all sides. This means (generally, depending on the mic used) that the sound will be muddy, hollow, without clarity.

Try this at home; Plug your mic in so you can hear it through headphones or speaker, it doesn't matter. Point the mic element 180 degrees from your mouth. Recite the alphabet. Gradually bring the mic past your mouth, sliding the mic alongside your face. Listen to how the audio changes as you move up the mic, finally reaching the element at the front.
That muddy and tinny sound is what is being added to the audio when the mic is used in any sort of a boomy room at any sort of longer distance from the source. Most wouldn't consider 18"-24" as being "long distance." 48" certainly is.
musicvid10 wrote on 10/8/2009, 9:05 AM
"Lav placement is critical too. "

You said a mouthful. I have seen so many people criticize lavs when no attention was paid to proper placement. The "drooping lav" is a big culprit. So is concealing it in clothing. Most people don't understand that, at the very minimum, the speech "cone" must be exposed to the element to maintain intelligibility.

And when you get in critical vocal situations like live theater and concerts, where lavs are often taped to the cheekbone, a difference of 1" in placement can make the difference between clarity and mud.
Coursedesign wrote on 10/8/2009, 9:44 AM
If I had a decent shotgun, it would be my preferred mic for sit down interviews as well.

I use a Boom Mate boom pole holder on a pro lighting stand with a 5/8" spud for interviews.

The lighting stand is lighter and more discreet than the C+ stands I use for heavier stuff, but equally stable with this load. The boom holder is very sturdy and protects the boom from scratches, as well as allowing instant adjustment, or fast removal of the boom for handheld use.
Laurence wrote on 10/8/2009, 10:00 AM
If you're on a really tight budget, the cheapest good sounding boom mike setup I've seen is a Rode Videomic screwed onto the top of a monopod, with a 1/8" stereo shielded extension plugged into the consumer grade 1/8" mic input on the camera. Looks professional and sounds very good. No good for wide shots but perfect for low budget hand held head and shoulders interviews.
Laurence wrote on 10/8/2009, 10:03 AM
>And when you get in critical vocal situations like live theater and concerts, where lavs are often taped to the cheekbone, a difference of 1" in placement can make the difference between clarity and mud.

Not to mention that when you have a bunch of stage performers all miked up, an inch on each one of them can be the difference between horrible feedback and stellar audio.
Coursedesign wrote on 10/8/2009, 10:07 AM
Not a bad idea, the Rode Videomic sounds quite pleasant, which is really the first duty of a mic.

1/8" connectors really scare me nowadays though. I used to use them for field production for many years with a Sony TCD-D8 DAT recorder, bur I found that even with thick gold-plating they started to "scratch" after a year or two.

If you replace the bits every 12 months or so with moderate use, you should be safe(r).
musicvid10 wrote on 10/8/2009, 10:25 AM
"Not to mention that when you have a bunch of stage performers all miked up, an inch on each one of them can be the difference between horrible feedback and stellar audio."

Oh God, some of my worst recurring nightmares are of actors singing, screaming, sobbing, laughing, hugging, and even kissing their partner's wireless mic. It's pure hell for a live sound tech, and a challenge for post editing, to say the least. And the actors? No matter how much direction they are given, they can't get it right.

EDIT: My second worst recurring nightmares are of actors coiling or removing the antennas, stretching the mic cords, sweating out the mic elements, falling on their bodypacks, or taking them home . . .