Mic suggestions for longer distance recording

[TLS Guy]

OK, let me take this a different direction then. I'd love to buy the better stuff, but budget does matter. Let me pick one of our projects, a lecture, that in 18 months has sold maybe 300 copies. Let's say it's $20 profit per sale so this project made $6000. If I subtract some overhead and what not, it wouldn't be worth it to buy $15 grand in equipment, it would never make it back, and it would not pay for itself. Now obviously there is more than one project and more profit coming in than that, but I guess what I'm asking is, HOW should we try to calculate what it's "worth" in terms of equipment budget? I don't believe they will buy equipment that won't pay for itself until the third year, if you follow me.
I suppose what I'm saying is, maybe you can help me convince them to spend more on this enterprise if I come at it from a money standpoint. Just a thought. If they are making 15K a month on DVD sales, I'm sure we can budget more than $2K on equipment. Maybe that line of thinking will help me.

One thing I CAN say is, and this is a hard sell, increasing the production value of the projects may have marginal difference in volume of sales. People buy our stuff because of our reputation and quality of training. Just because it looks or sounds better, isn't going to change the market we sell to, they will still buy one way or the other. It's kind of hard to explain. It's like if Michael Jordan recorded a video on improving your basketball skills, I'd buy it whether it's fantastic production or not. Because it's more about the content and the instructor than the production.
In other words, I can't convince my boss to spend more, on the basis that it will increase sales. Funny as that may sound.

Thanks for your continued interest in my situation, as much as it annoys you. I'm researching, and collecting resources, and learning.

I think there is enough money in the game for recording in stereo, mixer and radio lavalier system.

I think there is the expectation that educational materials will be professional.

I would never have bought an anatomy book as a student, that did not have high quality illustrations.

Professionalism is important and vital. In institutions of leaning professionalism at all levels is important and that includes the educational materials.

There is now a lot of discussion about whether a University education is worth it. I fear the tragedy is, it may be becoming not worth it. One of the leading causes being a loss of professional standards and knowing what they are, and how to maintain and develop them.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I think there is the expectation that educational materials will be professional.

I would never have bought an anatomy book as a student, that did not have high quality illustrations.

As a poor student I would buy cheap xeroxed cliff-notes rather than glossy and expensive published test book, as long as the prior is usable...

Just my 2c

 

[Rickster71]

..... sometimes our characters have to move around so we shoot wider shots. The point is we need to record audio from farther away.

Just a thought from another perspective; is it vital that the characters have to move around and require the wide shot and hence the need for the longer distance mics?
Perhaps this can be solved through alleviating the need to shoot from a distance?

 

[Vigilante]

I think there is enough money in the game for recording in stereo, mixer and radio lavalier system.

Yes you're probably right. Question now is, do I interface with a separate recorder or try to convert all my signals to go strait into the camera?

I think there is the expectation that educational materials will be professional.

I have the opposite expectation actually. If I watch something that is meant to "entertain", I like good and pretty quality. If I watch something meant to be boring and educational, I rarely see exceptional quality, I expect "training" DVDs to be sub par. Content over beauty. But that's neither here nor there. For example every "martial arts" dvd, or self-defense, "how to repair X" or public debate I've seen. I'm not sure I've ever watched a decent educational DVD. But I do notice the ones that pretend to be quality, cause they have all the nifty swishy 3D effects, over-produced stylistic cuts, and that ever-popular super-narrow depth of field filming to make people's nose hairs "pop" more. Boring and lame. Just give me quality information so I can hear and see it, leave your gay effects and stylization at the university. In the real world, people just want their information in a timely and productive manor. I'm not impressed when a video wasted my time so I can watch their 3D logo flying through glowing neon effervescent space particles for 28 seconds. Yes, we're all very impressed down here I can tell you!

There is now a lot of discussion about whether a University education is worth it. I fear the tragedy is, it may be becoming not worth it. One of the leading causes being a loss of professional standards and knowing what they are, and how to maintain and develop them.

Or maybe because the universities just breed arrogant liberal snobs who think they are better than everyone else? Maybe because the expense of said education takes 30 years to pay off and all the "extra" money you made by having said education is spent on the loans anyway. And by the time you ever get the loans paid off all the knowledge you learned in the first place has become obsolete because the industry has changed so much. Maybe because the "standards" set by university are artificial and unrecognizable by any lay person who really doesn't care in the first place and probably wouldn't know the difference if he heard a lecture in stereo or mono. Maybe because people are starting to realize that even after their university training, if they get a job in that industry they find out they don't know crap about how to actually DO the work, and they end up learning by real world experience anyway.
Maybe because people realize they just paid about $40,000 for an education which basically involved learning the materials in 5 or 6 books they could have got from the library for free, minus the professor. But then again, that all important $40k "college experience", you know, gotta learn how to "socialize", have to make those "connections" to further your career later on.
Maybe because people are tired of having to pay for schooling for a year or more learning prerequisite studies that don't even have to do with their chosen field.
Maybe because the Internet has opened up a vast world of quality information that thousands of professionals use to share their real world knowledge with those looking to study and that most subjects can be learned quite well with online instruction and even free instruction. Maybe because the real quality of university education is nothing more than the symbols you get after your name, when it quite often is the case someone with real experience is worlds smarter than the college kid, but the college kid has a "degree" so this artificially inflates their worth in the eyes of ignorant employers who favor symbols over experience or think that symbols somehow guarantee a quality employee.

All in all I really don't know why people would avoid a university education.



(For the sarcastically impaired, don't take this rant too seriously and get all butt-hurt about it, it's meant to have a level of snark to it.)

 

[Vigilante]

Just a thought from another perspective; is it vital that the characters have to move around and require the wide shot and hence the need for the longer distance mics?
Perhaps this can be solved through alleviating the need to shoot from a distance?

This type of shot is probably not 10% of the time. If we're filming something in a self-defense category or an "action" shot in general, then I may have one or two people rolling around.
I guess if we plan it correction and get our cameras as close as possible, I could boom over them. Even so, some of the scenes I've looked back on, the boom would still have to be a few feet above their head, but then the boom pole itself would have to remain high and out of the way of the shot.

I've been exploring getting more into wide angle lenses, I figure I can get the cameras closer to the subject and get my mics closer. It just so happens we have a wide angle lens, but it's SO wide that it distorts the image off center. Not like a fish eye but darn close. It looks more like what a security cam lens would be. Up till now they've been filming with the camera's built-on lens which may be too narrow and why we have to back the cameras off so far to get a good shot.
As an example, when doing a two-person interview-type shot, they are sitting across from each other or next to each other, getting a medium sort of stomach-up shot, the camera is still some 8 feet away or so. I'd like to see shots like that with the camera perhaps half that distance. They will also tend to put the cameras farther away and zoom in a little, I'd like to see that practice go away as well.

LOTS of room for improvement.

 

[TLS Guy]

Yes you're probably right. Question now is, do I interface with a separate recorder or try to convert all my signals to go strait into the camera?


I have the opposite expectation actually. If I watch something that is meant to "entertain", I like good and pretty quality. If I watch something meant to be boring and educational, I rarely see exceptional quality, I expect "training" DVDs to be sub par. Content over beauty. But that's neither here nor there. For example every "martial arts" dvd, or self-defense, "how to repair X" or public debate I've seen. I'm not sure I've ever watched a decent educational DVD. But I do notice the ones that pretend to be quality, cause they have all the nifty swishy 3D effects, over-produced stylistic cuts, and that ever-popular super-narrow depth of field filming to make people's nose hairs "pop" more. Boring and lame. Just give me quality information so I can hear and see it, leave your gay effects and stylization at the university. In the real world, people just want their information in a timely and productive manor. I'm not impressed when a video wasted my time so I can watch their 3D logo flying through glowing neon effervescent space particles for 28 seconds. Yes, we're all very impressed down here I can tell you!



Or maybe because the universities just breed arrogant liberal snobs who think they are better than everyone else? Maybe because the expense of said education takes 30 years to pay off and all the "extra" money you made by having said education is spent on the loans anyway. And by the time you ever get the loans paid off all the knowledge you learned in the first place has become obsolete because the industry has changed so much. Maybe because the "standards" set by university are artificial and unrecognizable by any lay person who really doesn't care in the first place and probably wouldn't know the difference if he heard a lecture in stereo or mono. Maybe because people are starting to realize that even after their university training, if they get a job in that industry they find out they don't know crap about how to actually DO the work, and they end up learning by real world experience anyway.
Maybe because people realize they just paid about $40,000 for an education which basically involved learning the materials in 5 or 6 books they could have got from the library for free, minus the professor. But then again, that all important $40k "college experience", you know, gotta learn how to "socialize", have to make those "connections" to further your career later on.
Maybe because people are tired of having to pay for schooling for a year or more learning prerequisite studies that don't even have to do with their chosen field.
Maybe because the Internet has opened up a vast world of quality information that thousands of professionals use to share their real world knowledge with those looking to study and that most subjects can be learned quite well with online instruction and even free instruction. Maybe because the real quality of university education is nothing more than the symbols you get after your name, when it quite often is the case someone with real experience is worlds smarter than the college kid, but the college kid has a "degree" so this artificially inflates their worth in the eyes of ignorant employers who favor symbols over experience or think that symbols somehow guarantee a quality employee.

All in all I really don't know why people would avoid a university education.



(For the sarcastically impaired, don't take this rant too seriously and get all butt-hurt about it, it's meant to have a level of snark to it.)

I would tend use a separate recorder for audio, edit it and synch it to the video later, or keep it synched in the field.

I actually agree with most of what you say about the University system currently.

There is too much teaching of useless knowledge.

The problem is we are not training the people we need to keep us a technology leader and a world power.

My son, who is an electrical engineer, was in a high powered research unit of Seagate, developing satic hard memory to replace rotating hard drives. He was the only American born engineer and the only one trained here on the team.

So Seagate moved the whole unit to Asia.

Now he works for Broadcom, who are at present leaders in the chips for mobile communication devices. Again he is the only US trained engineer.
He has been hiring recently and he never gets a US graduate capable of doing the work. The acceptable applicants are all from Asia.

He is very worried about the whole situation and very gloomy about prospects for the US going forward.

He is so worried about it he founded this non profit to improve math skills. He devotes a lot of time to it.

He founded it just out of college. He was helping out with remedial math in the school system. Unfortunately he had to do remedial education with the teaching staff first. He was forced out by the teachers union. They really are a useless obstructionist bunch.

So he founded his own organization.

So we have to stop paying for college courses that will have no economic impact, except possibly a negative one and really build up the vital ones we need. I fear it may be one more item we have neglected too long. I'm personally very gloomy about the prospects for the western democracies. I subscribe to the view, that more likely than not we are on the verge of the "Greatest Depression."

 

[Vigilante]

I would tend use a separate recorder for audio, edit it and synch it to the video later, or keep it synched in the field.

I liked the idea of taking like a COS11D and plugging into a Zoom in their pocket. Even less complicated than trying to get wireless into the video camera. Then as a compliment, run a boom shotgun and a camera-mounted stereo mic into a two channel mixer into the camera. Or maybe run the boom and a stereo mic into a multi-track recorder and leave the on-camera mic as a reference.

My hardware list is looking like this:

*Sennheiser EW 100 ENG G3 (has an XLR wireless adapter in case we want to use a regular mic over the lav)

*A complimentary LAV such as the Rode Lav or the Sanken COS11D with appropriate adapters for wired or using the G3, or with the Zoom.

* DVeSTORE's Location Sound Package 4, this includes the NTG-3, Rode blimp, boom, cable, and adapters for a grand

*Juicedlink CX231 XLR adapter with camera mount. It's 2 channel but only needed if I bring the audio into the camera. I may have to bump this up to the next model up with 4 channels, or use a multi-track recorder instead.

*Zoom H1 as a run-n-gun recorder for wired LAV, or getting samples, overdubs, etc...

*Upgrade the camera-mounted mic to the Rode Videomic Pro or maybe the Stereo Videomic.

I would have to use the Videomic for indoors where the NTG-3 wouldn't be appropriate. Or get some other short shotgun or mini as a backup to the LAVs.

As I mentioned before, our software is basically Vegas Pro 9 and SoundForge Audio Studio 10.

Do you think it would be absolutely required to bump some of these up to something else? Or can we start with this but add other devices later as needed? This is pushing $3k once all the adapters, doodads, batteries and what not are filled in.

 

[TLS Guy]

I liked the idea of taking like a COS11D and plugging into a Zoom in their pocket. Even less complicated than trying to get wireless into the video camera. Then as a compliment, run a boom shotgun and a camera-mounted stereo mic into a two channel mixer into the camera. Or maybe run the boom and a stereo mic into a multi-track recorder and leave the on-camera mic as a reference.

My hardware list is looking like this:

*Sennheiser EW 100 ENG G3 (has an XLR wireless adapter in case we want to use a regular mic over the lav)

*A complimentary LAV such as the Rode Lav or the Sanken COS11D with appropriate adapters for wired or using the G3, or with the Zoom.

* DVeSTORE's Location Sound Package 4, this includes the NTG-3, Rode blimp, boom, cable, and adapters for a grand

*Juicedlink CX231 XLR adapter with camera mount. It's 2 channel but only needed if I bring the audio into the camera. I may have to bump this up to the next model up with 4 channels, or use a multi-track recorder instead.

*Zoom H1 as a run-n-gun recorder for wired LAV, or getting samples, overdubs, etc...

*Upgrade the camera-mounted mic to the Rode Videomic Pro or maybe the Stereo Videomic.

I would have to use the Videomic for indoors where the NTG-3 wouldn't be appropriate. Or get some other short shotgun or mini as a backup to the LAVs.

As I mentioned before, our software is basically Vegas Pro 9 and SoundForge Audio Studio 10.

Do you think it would be absolutely required to bump some of these up to something else? Or can we start with this but add other devices later as needed? This is pushing $3k once all the adapters, doodads, batteries and what not are filled in.

That sounds a good list for starters. I would use more than a two channel mix though.

 

[Vigilante]

That sounds a good list for starters. I would use more than a two channel mix though.

Yes, but I picked two channel only because I'm going into the camera. Silly question, but if I have 4 channels I would HAVE to use a recorder correct? Or would I just mesh 3 or 4 mics into a stereo or mono-mono signal into the camera? In other words, does it even benefit to have 4 channels if my only way to record is still via the camera's own input?
I'm assuming the camera can only accept stereo and doesn't have some secret way of recording more channels.

 

[TLS Guy]

Yes, but I picked two channel only because I'm going into the camera. Silly question, but if I have 4 channels I would HAVE to use a recorder correct? Or would I just mesh 3 or 4 mics into a stereo or mono-mono signal into the camera? In other words, does it even benefit to have 4 channels if my only way to record is still via the camera's own input?
I'm assuming the camera can only accept stereo and doesn't have some secret way of recording more channels.

No, because the mixer will mix four channels to two.

You need a mixer with the right number of inputs, and leave at least one or two for expansion, if you can afford it. The mixer will output two channel.

You don't need to do surround recording! Stereo will help you though, as it will help separate the voice from the sense of space you want in your background. That helps with speech intelligibility.

 

[Vigilante]

That's what I thought. My only worry would be if, say, for some reason a LAV is introducing too much noise like clothes or wind, but the boom is picking it up okay, I could discard parts of the lav signal. But if the mixer is putting them together, then all the noise would get recorded and I wouldn't be able to knock out signals selectively. That's why I was thinking multi-track, so I could "mix" them myself in post, picking the best signals as needed.

Could I leave that option open I wonder? Get a 4 channel mixer that also has the option of outputting each channel separately, OR mixed.

 

[TLS Guy]

That's what I thought. My only worry would be if, say, for some reason a LAV is introducing too much noise like clothes or wind, but the boom is picking it up okay, I could discard parts of the lav signal. But if the mixer is putting them together, then all the noise would get recorded and I wouldn't be able to knock out signals selectively. That's why I was thinking multi-track, so I could "mix" them myself in post, picking the best signals as needed.

Could I leave that option open I wonder? Get a 4 channel mixer that also has the option of outputting each channel separately, OR mixed.

Multitrack is the high road, but I was trying to keep cost down. If you can afford it, doing the mix down after the recording is the best way to go, but it will cost you more money.