MKE 300 vs K6 module mics

55 replies [Last post]
steve5
Offline
Joined: May 20 2006

Hi All

At present I am using a Sennheiser MKE 300 mic, if I upgraded to the Sennheiser K6 module mic system how much better will the quality of sound be.
Regards Steve

mooblie
mooblie's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 27 2001

A lot. But can you take an XLR input, rather than 3.5mm jack plug?

(The best sound comes from mics closer to the source, though. e.g. lapel mics?)

Martin - DVdoctor in moderation. Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

Steve - if you could tell us how and what you're using the 300 for right now it might give us a better idea of whether the (expensive) change of kit will give worthwhile results. The bass response of the K6 assembly will be much improved, but if you're filming sparrows the traffic rumble gathered by the ME66 will annoy you.

Barry Hunter
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2001

Something else to consider is the fact that the K6 mic, if not properly mounted on the cam will pick up every little noise generated by you touching various controls. The ideal answer is the rubber mount made by Sennheiser & I think they are around £110, so you need to factor that into your budget, you might also need a dead hamster to donate it`s fur :-)

Barry Hunter videos4all.org

steve5
Offline
Joined: May 20 2006
Mic

I usually mount the MKE on the camera or a camera bracket the mic has a dead cat on it and the mic is used for every day sound recording inside and outside, I connect through a 3.5 mm input but dont have the gear to connect with XLR. I find the quality of sound from the MKE quite good so I was just wondering if the K6 system mounted on the camera would be even better. Obviously the cost implication is important I dont want to spend £350 if the quality is not proportionate to the MKE 300

Steve

Barry Hunter
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2001

To be able to use the K66 system with XLR you would need something like a BeechTec unit around £135, the "Rat" that you have for the existing MKE300 wouldn`t suit the K66 system, add this to the cost of the mic + mounting & your probably looking at around £750 at least!

Barry Hunter videos4all.org

DAVE M
Offline
Joined: May 17 1999

it also depends what you mean by "proportional".

a crappy mic is 100% better than nothing but as you move up, the cost is less and less.

sad but true. But a decent mic will still be as good in 25 years (so long as you don't drop it) not so with a camera

H and M Video
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 1999

Have both the MKE300 and the K6 unit. The MKE300 is mono, unless you have the 'D' version, whereas the K6 will give you stereo and a much better sound. I would not use my MKE300 (mono) as the main mike but prefer to hook it up to a Sony Minidisc and sit it somewhere out of sight and use it as a back up.

Harry

PC Specialist 3Gz Dual Core, Premiere CS3, Encore CS3, After Effects CS3, Matrox RT.X2, Panasonic HD HS-300, Z1E & PMW-EX3 Cams.
 
Now with a PC Specialist Quad Core i7-3770, 16GB RAM, 180GB SSD, GeForce GTX560 Ti Graphics Card, Blu-Ray & DVD R/W Burners and can't wait to set it up. Now up and running.  What a difference in Blu-Ray footage.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

Not quite sure what Harry means because the MKE300D is also mono, as is the K6 when using any of the interchangeable modules. Might be worth looking at the Rode range of (well reviewed) mics Steve.

Wisz
Offline
Joined: Jan 30 2001

Harry, I don't understand your post, both microphones are mono.

The MKE300D has additional screening to stop RFI from digital cameras.

Richard Wisz Media Services

H and M Video
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 1999

Just realised what Wisz said is correct. Many moons ago I contacted the manufacturer about the MKE300 and was informed that it would cost £40 to fit the screening. My ageing mind has transplanted stereo instead. Sorry if I misled anyone.:o :o

Harry

PC Specialist 3Gz Dual Core, Premiere CS3, Encore CS3, After Effects CS3, Matrox RT.X2, Panasonic HD HS-300, Z1E & PMW-EX3 Cams.
 
Now with a PC Specialist Quad Core i7-3770, 16GB RAM, 180GB SSD, GeForce GTX560 Ti Graphics Card, Blu-Ray & DVD R/W Burners and can't wait to set it up. Now up and running.  What a difference in Blu-Ray footage.

steve5
Offline
Joined: May 20 2006
rode

Just had a look at the Rode mics they get some very good reviews and the price is no where near the Sennheiser, do I just connect it to my camcorder with a xlr to 3.5 mm cable. If I use this type of cable will the sound quality suffer badly.

Steve

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007
steve5 wrote:
Just had a look at the Rode mics they get some very good reviews and the price is no where near the Sennheiser, do I just connect it to my camcorder with a xlr to 3.5 mm cable. If I use this type of cable will the sound quality suffer badly.

Steve

You will be Ok with a short cable XLR to 3.5mm up to about 6 feet in length max, you will also need the rode NTG-2 as it will need to be battery powered, for the level that you are at I wouldn't spend £300 on a better mic the rode will be more cost effective.

Bear in mind though that these mics are a lot longer than the 300 but the laws of physics still apply to whichever mic you use regardless of cost, if its too far away then it will not pick up any better, as a rule of thumb a mic needs to be 2-4ft away from the sound source unless you are recording general atmos tracks.

Have a listen to these two clips using the £120 AT-875 short shotguns I use. They are phantom powered so no good for your application unless you get a phantom box but they are no more than 4 feet away from the actors so pick up very well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH8mVouKkhg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbvCcjrAueI

steve5
Offline
Joined: May 20 2006
mics

After doing some research it seems pointless spending a small fortune on Sennheiser when there are more affordable mics from Rode and Audio Technica offering comparable sound quality. after watching some comparisons on you tube it seems the cost of the Sennheiser does not seem justified. I might even get a XLR mic and phantom box and try and make a small rig.
Thanks for all the advice, once again this forum has helped me out.
Regards Steve

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Steve, I've had the opportunity to compare the latest ATs with the Rodes and I suggest you do the same before purchasing.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

John Willett
John Willett's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 1 2001
Barry Hunter wrote:
Something else to consider is the fact that the K6 mic, if not properly mounted on the cam will pick up every little noise generated by you touching various controls. The ideal answer is the rubber mount made by Sennheiser & I think they are around £110, so you need to factor that into your budget, you might also need a dead hamster to donate it`s fur :-)

Actually the best answer is the Rycote Video Mount - it's very much better than the Sennheiser rubber mount.

I have now changed all my shockmounts for all my mics over to the Rycote "Lyre" mounts.

And the Rycotes are very inexpensive - but are technically the best at any price.

H & M Video wrote:
Have both the MKE300 and the K6 unit. The MKE300 is mono, unless you have the 'D' version, whereas the K6 will give you stereo and a much better sound.

Both the MKE 300 (now replaced by the MKE 400) and the K6 series are "mono" mics.

Anyway, putting a stereo mic. on a camera is a bad thing to do.

steve5 wrote:
After doing some research it seems pointless spending a small fortune on Sennheiser when there are more affordable mics from Rode and Audio Technica offering comparable sound quality. after watching some comparisons on you tube it seems the cost of the Sennheiser does not seem justified. I might even get a XLR mic and phantom box and try and make a small rig.

You get what you pay for.

Yes the AT mics are good value for money, but you *do* get what you pay for.

And don't judge mic. quality by U-Tube. It tells you very little as the sound is low quality compressed which will not tell you the differences in mic. quality.

John
 
A picture tells a thousand words, but sound tells a thousand pictures.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

I'll stick my neck out here and say that the while the Rode NTG3 is good, the new AT gun mics are a lot better. Lower handling noise and wind susceptibility. I don't dispute that the high end Sennheiser and Schoeps are better still but the new ATs give them a run for their money at one half to two thirds of the price. However, the ATs are not RF condensers, and this needs to be borne in mind by anybody likely to be working in damp conditions, whereas the NTG3 is.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

I totally agree with John but I am happy with the AT's that I have, I would love to have 416's but for what I need them for the AT's are fine.

People have to remember that the human ear does not have a memory and the only way to compare mics is side by side, the same goes for speakers but I suppose with my 30 years experience in dubbing and sound recording it's what I do with them that counts.

I did do an A/B with the AT875 and the rode ntg1 though and the AT was better by far and had a more focussed sound for dialogue recording. Some may call it thinner but in 99% of all the drama I have dubbed I roll off the dialogue at around 120hz anyway.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

120Hz! Bl**dy hell, even the feature film boys usually only roll-off at 80Hz to 100Hz at a push.
What do you do at the top end, 6kHz?

Seriously though, I know where you're coming from. People have to keep reminding themselves that we are not in the "reality" business but in the business of creating illusions of reality. Which is how the whole stereo dialogue argument started.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

Not in the reality business but in the intelligibility business.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Pardon? ;);)

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007
Rob James wrote:
120Hz! Bl**dy hell, even the feature film boys usually only roll-off at 80Hz to 100Hz at a push.
What do you do at the top end, 6kHz?

Seriously though, I know where you're coming from. People have to keep reminding themselves that we are not in the "reality" business but in the business of creating illusions of reality. Which is how the whole stereo dialogue argument started.

That roll off is for the AMS digital EQ which is different to the analogue EQ that most of the film guys used to use, on the logics I cut off at 120 for dialogue but add a little bit at 150 to compensate and warm it back up a bit.

I would do an 80-100 on an analogue desk but the AMS Eq needs you to be more severe, at the top end I just let is go and add a slight bump up at 3-4k for TV.

Of course it all depends on the source material but the dubbing at The Bill was audio recovery a lot of the time.

Maybe having these speakers allowed me to hear all that rumble and get rid of it:

H and M Video
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 1999
Quote:
Anyway, putting a stereo mic. on a camera is a bad thing to do.

John, could you explain and expand (in non-technical terms for novices like me) why this is bad?

Harry

PC Specialist 3Gz Dual Core, Premiere CS3, Encore CS3, After Effects CS3, Matrox RT.X2, Panasonic HD HS-300, Z1E & PMW-EX3 Cams.
 
Now with a PC Specialist Quad Core i7-3770, 16GB RAM, 180GB SSD, GeForce GTX560 Ti Graphics Card, Blu-Ray & DVD R/W Burners and can't wait to set it up. Now up and running.  What a difference in Blu-Ray footage.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

My take on this Harry asks that you 'see' the audio capture fields. A shotgun mic would look like a long funnel spreading out from the mic. Longer shotguns would have slimmer funnels, and short shotguns would have wide funnels.

If you could see a stereo mic's fields you'd see a pair of big Micky Mouse ears atop your camera. To capture stereo they have to be listening L & R. That may be fine if you shoot with a fisheye all the time, but generally you're filming things within the shotgun's funnel.

tom.

steve5
Offline
Joined: May 20 2006
Ntg 2

Just tried the Rode NTG 2 and I am very disappointed, the noise from this mic is quite high, I know the XLR to 3.5mm lead will unbalance the mic but I did not expect it to be this noisy with a 2m cable. Am I doing something wrong or is a 2m cable to long for this mic. My MKE 300 makes less noise.
Any suggestions.
Steve

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Sure I posted this before but here goes.

It's all down to the difference in the way we perceive the world aurally and visually.
Our eyes dart around all over the place and the brain accepts this. Hence the way in which cuts in film and video 'work'. OTOH ears are fixed and expect a constant audio image within a scene. If you have a stereo mic on a camera then, every time you pan it, the audio image changes. If you are shooting reverses the audio image is back to front and so on. The ideal is to pick up dialogue in mono with the mic as close as possible to minimise external sound and a separate stereo (or 5.0 or 5.1) atmosphere recording where the atmosphere is worth having.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

Dugi
Dugi's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 2 2009
Rob James wrote:
Sure I posted this before but here goes.

It's all down to the difference in the way we perceive the world aurally and visually.
Our eyes dart around all over the place and the brain accepts this. Hence the way in which cuts in film and video 'work'. OTOH ears are fixed and expect a constant audio image within a scene. If you have a stereo mic on a camera then, every time you pan it, the audio image changes. If you are shooting reverses the audio image is back to front and so on. The ideal is to pick up dialogue in mono with the mic as close as possible to minimise external sound and a separate stereo (or 5.0 or 5.1) atmosphere recording where the atmosphere is worth having.

Brilliant Rob. I've worked with Sound Recordists for years who haven't been able to explain this to me so succinctly.

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

I am sure Rob will also agree that it is easier to balance in mono and certainly all dubbing I have done in 30 years has had the dialogue in mono with only the odd voice out of vision panned in the stereo image. Certainly 99.9% of the recorded material for interviews or dialogue has been recorded on location in mono and if it wasn't it always ended up mono in the dub.

I have however added stereo reverb to a mono voice source but that also keeps the image static and is only for effect, e.g voices in a large room or warehouse etc.

Why people still think that they can re-invent location recording into stereo when the industry has been doing it pretty much mono and with the same type of mics puzzles me or is it just the effects of camera people struggling to match the sound to their pictures.

5.1 mics and location recording are an even bigger joke than stereo but that is another story altogether.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Dugi, I'm glad it was clear. Those of us who specialise in post are on the receiving end of all the possible mistakes, so tend to have a clearer idea of what we want and why.
When I was at the BBC I wrote a longer, but essentially similar, document for freelance crews, known as the "Blue Peter rules" :) :)

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Absolutely agree with most of what Gary says. However, 5.0 certainly has a place in location recording but never for sync dialogue. The idea of mounting a 5.0 or 5.1 mic on a camera is too horrible to contemplate except maybe for sports on a locked-off camera.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

Dugi
Dugi's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 2 2009

Rob what does 5.0 and 5.1 audio mean?

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Dugi, 5.0 means Left, Right, Left Surround, Right Surround and Centre channels recorded discretely. 5.1 adds the Lfe or Low Frequency Effects channel on the end. (Commonly and misleadingly often referred to as the Sub-woofer channel) Both are convenient shorthand. to avoid just such a list as I have written above although the order of channels varies in different work flows. In microphone terms, these fomats can be recorded using one capsule for each channel or in a variety of other ways, double M&S for example. The Lfe is often derived from a mix of the other channels, most commonly the front ones with a high-pass filter and a gate involved to prevent unwanted material ending up in the Lfe channel. 5.1 location recording is generally a waste of time and effort since the Lfe can be derived easily in post where appropriate. However, 5.0 location recording can be very useful where there is a lot going on all around which is, crucially, relevant to what is happening on screen. For example, in sport and in live music recording.
With the lfe channel the clue is in the name. It is an effects channel NOT a means of generally boosting the bass. In the cinema, it is often known as the "boom" channel. If used judiciously, to hit the audience when you want to blow them out of their seats, it can be very effective. Used injudiciously it is headache inducing and loses its impact.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

John Willett
John Willett's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 1 2001
H & M Video wrote:
John, could you explain and expand (in non-technical terms for novices like me) why this is bad?

Putting a stereo mic. on a camera is very bad because the stereo image moves around as you move the camera and sounds horrible.

It's always best to keep the stereo mic. *off* the camera as the best place for the audio.

If a stereo mic. is on-camera, the camera should not be moved in any way and positioned at the centre of what you want the stereo image to be - normally not doable.

John
 
A picture tells a thousand words, but sound tells a thousand pictures.

H and M Video
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 1999

Thanks for your reply, John. I knew it would be something so simply that I didn't understand it. :D (BTW not suggesting that I would have understood if it had been too technical :D )

Harry

PC Specialist 3Gz Dual Core, Premiere CS3, Encore CS3, After Effects CS3, Matrox RT.X2, Panasonic HD HS-300, Z1E & PMW-EX3 Cams.
 
Now with a PC Specialist Quad Core i7-3770, 16GB RAM, 180GB SSD, GeForce GTX560 Ti Graphics Card, Blu-Ray & DVD R/W Burners and can't wait to set it up. Now up and running.  What a difference in Blu-Ray footage.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999
Rob James wrote:
5.1 adds the Lfe or Low Frequency Effects channel on the end. (Commonly and misleadingly often referred to as the Sub-woofer channel).

I've never understood this. Is the point one bit just to accommodate modern living rooms where loudspeakers the size of coffins would be unacceptable, and a hidden sub (sorry) does almost the same thing?

Surely a 5.0 set-up is better technically? That way you have full range speakers that put the bass where the audio designer wanted it to be.

tom.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Tom, that is just exactly the misunderstanding I was referring to. The ".1" refers to the LFE channel which, as the name implies, is the Low Frequency Effects channel or "boom" channel. It has an extremely narrow bandwidth of around 20Hz to 120Hz (hence the ".1" designation rather than adding it to the other channels to make 6) and is reproduced through socking great big sub-woofers specifically for the purpose. In the cinema this is used to blow you out of your seat/punch you in the stomach at appropriate moments hopefully. The front three channels are FULL RANGE in their own right I.e. the subs that reproduce the LFE channel play no part in reproducing the other 5 channels. (The rears/sides channels are also full bandwidth but the speakers are usually limited bandwidth, but none of the surround information ends up on the big subs either.
In the domestic situation subwoofers are often used to extend the frequency response of a set of smaller "satellite" speakers. The confusion arises because the LFE channel from a 5.1 (or 7.1) source is also fed to the same sub-woofer.
So, to answer your original question, full range speakers for the front channels are optimal along with slightly more restricted ones at the back/sides. In this kind of set-up, just as in the cinema, the sub-woofer is then only used to reproduce the LFE channel.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

Thanks for the explanation Rob. But again. why not simply employ (full) full range L & R speakers? My IMF TLS80As either side of my screen whack me in the chest, but are you saying they're not being fed the really deep bass because it's being filtered off for those that want to hide their sub?

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

It's simply the way in which 5.1 came about. It is a cinema format designed for those particular circumstances. To answer the question though, it depends on your amplifier/decoder set-up. Some decoders/AVamplifiers have a menu which asks if you have a sub-woofer. If you do, then it sends the LFE to it. If you don't, and have full-range speakers, as in your case, it may allow you to route the LFE to the Left and Right front speakers. More commonly, decoders/AV amps allow you to route the bass component of the LCR channels to the sub-woofer to compensate for their lack of bass. (Of course, the LFE also goes to the sub)
In my set-up I have identical full-range speakers for LRC and slightly smaller ones from the same range at the back. I also have a 15" servo sub-woofer, purely for the LFE channel.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

RayL
Offline
Joined: Mar 31 1999

Rob,

Out of interest, what make and type are the speakers that you use?

Ray

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

The fronts are Dynaudio BM15s and the rears are Dynaudio BM10s. The sub is some US monster I cannot remember the name of but it shakes the house when required.

It might be helpful to say a little about how movies are mixed.
When we want extra impact from a sound that does not have a huge amount of bass a number of tricks can be employed to give it more wallop, sub-harmonic synthesizers, pitch changers and frequency conscious gates/expanders to extract something to work with.
If you scroll down this page, you'll get the idea:
http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=54
In many cases sounds are layered with specific components placed for the LFE channel.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

RayL
Offline
Joined: Mar 31 1999

Rob,

What, then, is your feeling about using a sub when mixing or monitoring music in stereo?

A quick peep at the spec for the BM15 suggests that it is -3dB at 43Hz. If your sub will go an octave below that , should it be used to give a more accurate balance when used with 5-string bass, the bigger diapasons, open-fronted kick, etc?

Or are you of the school that says "a sub should not be used when mixing music"?

Ray

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

No reason why a decent sub should not be used for mixing music to get that extra octave. I would emphatically not use the one I have now for that purpose, it is a brute designed for films, not music. However, setting up such a monitoring system so that the "joins" are seamless is not a trivial task. Same applies in loudspeaker design, in effect, a multi-unit loudspeaker is just a satellite and sub in the same box. The most critical factors are group delay, in effect, time-alignment such that phase errors are minimised and crossover design. The good-old LS5/8s we used to use are appalling in this regard, hence not brilliant at imaging.
In my days on the old "loudspeaker committee" I remember comparing a commercial voice recording with a BBC one on both BBC speakers and PMCs. Most revealing. The BBC recording had an audible dip at the crossover frequency of the BBC speakers but sounded good on both. The commercial recording sounded great on the PMCs and horrible on the BBCs. I suspect most of us used to either cut at the crossover frequency or boost elsewhere to mask this effect.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

MAGLINK
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2007

I have the dynaudio BM10's and use a 1x10" powered sub to give them more bottom end, I use them for mixing music and audio post for video.

The sub does make a difference and gives them a full range sound with plenty of level if i am playing along with tracks on the guitar or drums.

RayL
Offline
Joined: Mar 31 1999

My recent choice was to go for active speakers and (having a lower budget than Rob or Gary) I chose a pair of Mackie MR8s. A good analytical sound and plenty of oomph for the size of my control room. The MR8s have a 12dB/octave high-pass at 60Hz just prior to the LF amp (to prevent the cones from bottoming out on extreme LF) so, like Gary, my 1 x 8" 60w powered sub brings can reveal useful information about the bottom end.

Ray

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

'useful information about the bottom end' can mean, oops - what's all that rumble and rubbish grumbling away down there? Without full range monitor speakers you can be letting all sorts of mush out the door.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

My policy always was and remains to chop off anything outside the range of the monitors.

Listening to Radio 4 on full-range monitors is frightening!

Ray, although you can set up such a system by ear, it would be a lot better to do it on pink noise with a instrumentation mic and a spectrum analyser. Need not be an expensive excercise, a (cough's politely) Behringer measurement mic can be had for £65 list and a lot less if you look around and I'm guessing you already have a spectrum analyser as a plug-in to an NLE or DAW. (or am I teaching granny? ;) )

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

RayL
Offline
Joined: Mar 31 1999

Rob

Setting up both rooms (the studio and the control room) is on my 'To Do' list. Jules (bass player extrordinaire and long-time friend) says he has a mate with a spectrum analyser kit. All it needs is time.

Ray

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Time, now there's the thing.
Don't expect to achieve perfection, especially at the bottom end. Probably obvious, but the measurement mic should be where your ears will be in the control room.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

steve5
Offline
Joined: May 20 2006
Mic

Bought the Rode NTG2 and after a couple of days I sent it back the noise it generated was far to much, even using it outside away from the 60hz in the house with a short lead there was still a great deal of hum with this mic. I did not expect that much noise, my MKE 300 is quieter. Still searching for a mic.
Steve

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

You definitely shouldn't be getting hum with the Rode. Must be something wrong elsewhere or a dodgy example. Noise, maybe, but that would be white noise and not hum.

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Hum sounds like a faulty earth connection somewhere. Very unlikely to be the mic itself.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

steve5
Offline
Joined: May 20 2006
mic

Been doing some acoustics research over the last couple of weeks and speaking to a guy in our local music shop, the results are quite interesting.

It seems the position of the shotgun mic for capturing good dialogue is far more important than the mic itself. About half a metre from the person speaking and pointing the mic downwards from above. (Just like on the telly)

Manual settings of the camera's AGC is also vital.

A good shielded cable is important with a shock mount if on a boom.

So taking all of this into account I bought a cheap £24 XLR shotgun mic off e-bay, made a new shielded cable with XLR female on one end and a 3.5mm stereo jack on the other, I then got this mic close to the subject and recorded some speach.
Now I know that I am no expert on sound, I did some sound measuring during my degree but that is it, however I know what I like when I hear it and this mic was not bad at all, yes I know some people out there will huff anf puff about a cheap Chinese mic, but hey £24 for a mic that looks good and sounds halt decent who cares.
The point I am trying to make here is the best mic in the world mounted on a camera 10ft from the subject will do worse than a cheap mic that is positioned better (Probably)
My only gripe is I only get audio on the left channel, it must be the wiring in 3.5mm jack plug, any suggestions.

Regards Steve

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Yep, spot on. You've discovered how the broadcasters do it.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

No need to gripe Steve, as you won't get any better audio recordings by having it on both channels, and it's easy enough done on the timeline.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Mono to left is absolutely normal. Most video recording works that way.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Rob James
Offline
Joined: Jun 26 2001

Congratulations Steve, on re-inventing the wheel! :) :)

You can spend as much as you like on a mic but unless it is in the right place the results will be mediocre. However, in the real world of filming, mic placement like everything else, is a compromise. And when you have to compromise you need all the help you can get. Hence spending a lot on good mics. (Not to mention reliability issues.)

Rob The picture is only there to keep the sound in sync