Jump to content
Viscount Omega

Using shotgun mic indoors

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, daniel said:

Wasn't listening on anything fancy but 435 sounds alright - especially at distance for intelligibility. It's more coloured than the others and the HF boost seems more conspicuous than the 416, maybe where post might take an EQ if they had to. In terms of retro mic sound I prefer the slightly warmer 416 here (even with its off access sound). Would like to have heard the 40 and 50 without mic body low cuts engaged (but the same recorder ones) as it adds a richness to some voices and with the 2 low cuts involved it lost some depth - but maybe it was too much in this case. For me they felt the most natural though, especially at the further distance, you can hear the room around the voice in a nice way and the voice is still distinct.  

 

I second that, using the 40 and 50's lo-cut ( -3dB point around 150 Hz if I read the graph correctly)  in addition to the 80 Hz HPF on the mixer really hurts the 40 and 50 in this comparison, otherwise I believe the 40 would have fared better than all the other ones. The 416 sounds decent, the 435 sounds thin but useable. A Schoeps MK 4 or MK 41 would have slain them all as far as off-axis response is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a post guy, in my opinion, the 416 outshines the 435, but the 435 might do better in a tight room.

 

I agree with the comments on the 40 and 50, too much low cut. I always tell my production guys 80 only. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TVPostSound said:

Being a post guy, in my opinion, the 416 outshines the 435, but the 435 might do better in a tight room.

 

I agree with the comments on the 40 and 50, too much low cut. I always tell my production guys 80 only. 

 

Not to sidetrack completely, I think use of the 80Hz HPF really depends on whether it's a digital filter after the AD converter or an analog filter before the AD converter. If it's analog then by all means, it'll help the AD converter out a lot not to have to deal with all that unwanted low end rumble ( even though I'd prefer a lower -3dB point for male voices, 60 Hz would be great) but if it's in the digital domain ( Zoom F8 ???) then I'd prefer to just capture flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it after 23 beers!

 

You want more beef with the 40 & 50.  Well, here ya go.  I switched off the low cut.

 

I think it's better to cut lows at the source rather than put strain on the A/D converters.in the recorder.  No?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Viscount Omega said:

I get it after 23 beers!

 

You want more beef with the 40 & 50.  Well, here ya go.  I switched off the low cut.

 

(Testing purposes only)

 

I think it's better to cut lows at the source rather than put strain on the A/D converters.in the recorder.

 

 

 

 

Amazing what 23 beers will do to the quality of your voice.

Regarding straining the AD converter, there's hardly anything in indoor dialog recording ( other than standing in front of a fan or an open window on a windy day) that would "strain" the ADC. unprotected Large Diaphragm Condensers at close range , yes, but not an SDC mic on a boom (unless it's unprotected and swung wildly). Regular HVAC rumble, while audible, does not affect the ADC's performance, outdoor windblasts on insufficiently protected mics do, they become the dominant part of the electrical signal, clobbering the ADC and killing headroom. That's why high end digital consoles come with HPFs on the analog front end as well as the digital domain.

If you did another test with the 80Hz HPF turned off we might actually get a sense of what the 435 really sounds like.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More beef/beer and you sound happier (and broader)? No way I could drink 23 of my favourite beers (if anyone's asking: https://images.app.goo.gl/TRCvcE2ULLFTL52G7 / https://images.app.goo.gl/BTPHsYC93q4upDef8 ) and read anything, let alone talk. Nice work.

Can the next (no low pass) test involve 23 'morning after' coffees (and pain killers if you must)? Aside from the mics, it would be interesting to compare the vocal aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Werner Althaus said:

 

Not to sidetrack completely, I think use of the 80Hz HPF really depends on whether it's a digital filter after the AD converter or an analog filter before the AD converter. If it's analog then by all means, it'll help the AD converter out a lot not to have to deal with all that unwanted low end rumble ( even though I'd prefer a lower -3dB point for male voices, 60 Hz would be great) but if it's in the digital domain ( Zoom F8 ???) then I'd prefer to just capture flat.

Ill still cut i off at 80 or above!! In todays world, theres always hum at 60....and 120...and 240!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you did another test with the 80Hz HPF turned off we might actually get a sense of what the 435 really sounds like."

 

This is done straight into preamp, no EQ, no low cut.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TVPostSound said:

Ill still cut i off at 80 or above!! In todays world, theres always hum at 60....and 120...and 240!!

you mean on movie sets or in general? I don't hear a problem in the flat recording of the 435 provided here.

RX 5 (or 6 or 7) does a good job with those harmonics if they are a problem but if hi-passing it works for you that's all that matters.

 

I should clarify my earlier remarks regarding HPFs and ADCs for the benefit of the OP because they read like a contradiction to me now. Sorry if I'm repeating myself.

If the HPF is a digital filter ( I believe the Zoom H6 or F8 recorders are like that) then I wouldn't bother with it because anything applied in the digital domain can be done in post as well. If low end is a problem I'd prefer to use the built-in lo-cut of the mic or some inline analog HPF.

If you actually mix on location then  use them if necessary to achieve a good mix . But many times a recorder just records ISOs so why bother committing to a digital HPF at 80 if you can do it just as well in post.

If the filter is before the ADC then the capture of ISOs as well as the mix can of course benefit from a good HPF because if the low frequency energy is excessive ( windy outdoors or in proximity of heavy machinery or whatnot) then the headroom at the ADC is affected. Limiters will also not work too well if confronted with a ton of unnecessary low frequency content. But on a recording like the examples provided by the OP ( typical low end rumble of HVAC) I don't think the ADC is affected by the low frequency energy. here I'd rather get full range recordings because not all HPFs are created the same with regards to phase shift, ringing, overshoot, etc. The recording of the 435 flat proves this in my mind. It just sounds best when recorded flat, inebriated subject notwithstanding.

If it's not needed in the field I'd prefer to do it in post. But other microphones behave differently, Our Calrec Soundfield MK IV flat will turn even moderate HVAC rumble into earthshaking low end, given a capable playback system. In this case you'd really want to record with HPF, although not at 80Hz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Izotope is terrible as a de-hum filter. Fabfilter is pretty much the best EQ out there.

 

Anything under 80 in dialog is wasted, and unused. 

How can you properly listen to dialog nuances in the field without a high pass!!

Oh yeah, those 7506s don't reflect low end and hype the high freq.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TVPostSound said:

Izotope is terrible as a de-hum filter. Fabfilter is pretty much the best EQ out there.

 

Anything under 80 in dialog is wasted, and unused. 

How can you properly listen to dialog nuances in the field without a high pass!!

Oh yeah, those 7506s don't reflect low end and hype the high freq.

 

 

I had to use RX 5 a few times to deal with those AC generated harmonics and if the dedicated module didn't get it, spectral repair surely did, but I see no need to argue about it. Whatever gets results is the correct choice..

I agree about FabFilter BTW.

We're only talking about this because the OP's initial recordings of the 40 and 50 sounded gutted in the low end.

I think we all agree on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...