Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Art Welter]

Maybe I'm missing something here but why would you want to walk around  the room filming with the sound and levels constantly changing from the mic on the camera?
 

Yeah, you missed post #4, where Bob wrote:
"Most of the video/audio I would be doing is from a fixed position (FOH).  However, I may occasionally drift to either house right or left for different angles (not too far right or left). "

[Bob Faulkner]

Bob,

Generally speaking, a shotgun mic is a "last resort"- even a good one has lousy off-axis sound compared to a cardioid or omni.
The MKE600 on axis response is quite smooth, but the room reflections won't be.
It is also 10 dB down at 50Hz, pretty weak bass response- but that's not what shotguns are designed to pick up.

If the Takstar's response curves are accurate (it appears to be cardioid, not shotgun), it should sound better overall for live band stuff, though it's response above 2kHz is pretty ragged, with a 6dB "presence" peak at 6kHz, most decent cardioid condensers used for drum overheads would be an improvement. It's "boost from 200Hz to 500Hz" is probably due to ceiling/floor reflections, it has very little side rejection compared to rear.

Anyway, each room, PA, and band may require different mic solutions, there is no "one size fits all" choice when it comes to polar patterns in microphones.

If you don't already have a set of isolation headphones, I'd recommend getting some GK Ultraphones, you could then set up several mics, PFL them while the band sound checks, and choose which works best in-situ.

A boundary mic (like the Crown PCC-160 Matthias suggested) an AT PRO37, EV RE-20, or an SM-58 (with appropriate compensatory EQ) might be the best choice for the venue, better to hear for yourself and choose.

Art

Thank you Art!  Great info.

Was hoping to use a mic that can attach to my camera, but it appears (at least for the best "over the air" sound quality), I would need a more appropriate mic.  Trying to capture audio with video is not my strength... been trying to find the simplest solution (which I know may not be the right one).  So far, the bands have been pleased with the results, but I know it could be better.




Looks like I need to work on other possible solutions (and other mic selections). 

Thanks again.

Bob

[brian maddox]

Thank you Art!  Great info.

Was hoping to use a mic that can attach to my camera, but it appears (at least for the best "over the air" sound quality), I would need a more appropriate mic.  Trying to capture audio with video is not my strength... been trying to find the simplest solution (which I know may not be the right one).  So far, the bands have been pleased with the results, but I know it could be better.




Looks like I need to work on other possible solutions (and other mic selections). 

Thanks again.

Bob

It appears that this thread has reached a good conclusion, but no one really explicitly mentioned this one point so I thought I'd add it for anyone who might see this in the future. Plus I've been doing a lot of thinking a lot about the complexity of this thing we call audio lately so you get to "benefit" from my current obsession.

One of the things that is largely overlooked when we talk about the "pickup pattern" of a microphone is that the pattern changes significantly depending on frequency. In fact, a LOT of a directional microphone's sonic signature is dictated more by it's off axis frequency response than by it's on axis response.

Getting a microphone to be more sensitive in one direction requires a careful set of tradeoffs since we're intentionally introducing sound to the "wrong" side of the capsule element using "ports" [literal holes to let sound in] in order to create an out of phase/polarity situation for sounds that are arriving from a certain direction. Since sound varies dramatically in energy as well as wave size at different frequencies, it's not possible to create a "perfect" cancellation at all frequencies, so we "choose our poison" depending on the desired outcome.

So, with a shotgun mic we are trying to make the microphone as directional as we can at as wide a frequency pattern as physically possible. This means we optimize the side cancellation at the cost of linearity off axis. This means that the off access polar pattern varies WILDLY in a shotgun mic depending of frequency, far more than in a traditional cardioid mic designs.  So you end up with these very non linear situations off access which makes using shotgun mics to capture broadband sound sources [like a band] inherently problematic. Typically shotgun mics are also optimized for speech [capturing dialog is where shotgun mics are most often used], so often their low frequency response is intentionally compromised as directionality is very difficult to achieve at lower frequencies anyway.

Google "shotgun mic polar patterns" and look at some examples and you'll see what I mean. The off axis pickup patterns on a typical shotgun mic are Ugly to put it kindly and vary WILDLY depending on frequency. There's also a HUGE lobe 180 degrees from the front of the microphone which can create another can of worms since you're picking up a LOT of sound in the exact opposite direction of the sound you're trying to emphasize.

Shotgun mics are just another lesson in how there is no such thing as a free lunch. You don't get Mega Directionality along with Flat Response for the simple reason that the Laws of Physics are The Law, not suggestions. Stupid Physics!

[Chris Grimshaw]

Just to tack on to Brian's great post above, it's worth noting that shotgun mics gain their extra directionality from the interference tube at the front of the mic. The capsule itself is at the far end of said tube, and will exhibit its own polar characteristics.

Now, the interference tube works by diffraction. Sound coming in from some angle will hit the diffraction slots (which can be a variety of shapes), and some sound will travel down the length of the tube towards the capsule.

Because you've got a bunch of different arrivals (at different points along the tube), you get interference. The net result is mostly cancellation. Ish. That's why the off-axis response is so ugly.

Further, that interference effect will only work where the tube is comparable in size to the incoming wavelength. A 20Hz wave (17.2m) isn't going to care about a 0.3m interference tube - the path length differences are too small, so the wave arrives at the capsule largely intact. You end up relying on the capsule's own directivity down there.

A longer shotgun mic, therefore, will be more effective towards the lower frequencies. I'm not aware of one that would cover the full audio band, but it might make an interesting project.

Chris

[Paul Johnson]

As we're expanding the original topic out a bit, we should also consider what happens when we pan a camera with a short shotgun. As has been said - the frequency response vs polar pattern tightening is often forgot - so if the camera is not far from the stage because it has a good wide angle, following the singer can be interesting. In a big amplified show, the audio mix is usually very mono - maybe a bit of width for effect on some instruments, but as the singer moves around, the sound doesn't follow them. If you zoom in a bit, then when they are centre, your shotgun polar pattern is actually pointing at a place where there is no audio, so your pickup is bass heavy - from the frequency range that is more cardioid than lobar. If you follow the singer so the speakers (especially the HF drivers) appear in shot, sound changes to be quite tinny and hard, pan away and it goes back to muddy. I often have a camera with locked off full stage width set on the zoom. It is always the better sound than the ones at the sides and worse, in the pit, or stage side of the barrier. There, you might get the sound from monitor wedges, but modern bands can often have a really silent stage with IEMs in their ears, and guitars DI'd. It's very strange to see the band but hear only the drummer and guitarist who still have amps.
Worth keeping in mind.

[lindsay Dean]

I said that in a much shorter explanation recommending the wireles Iems as camera inputs.
   As soon as you pick up the camera and move no matter what mic is stuck on top of the camera, the response going to change.

[Bob Faulkner]

Thanks again for the continued input on this!

Considering the physics issues with shot-gun mics, these may not be the best choice for what I'm trying to do. I'm not opposed to trying a regular vocal mic, but have not worked out a low-budget (but functional) mounting option.   

Though... looks like I may have a solution... I'm going to mount my Tascam DR-07mk2 portable audio recorded onto the camera (using the Tascam's mount).  Then, connect the headphone output from the Tascam to the mic input of the camera (all 3.5mm).  Did some initial testing with it (though, not with live music), and it appears it will work well.  I'll need to adjust the mic input level of the Tascam and the input level of the camera to find a good balance if I/O. 

[Patrick Tracy]

The real Achilles heel to this whole thing is having to give the SD card to the band at the end of the night. If that weren't the case then you could put a mic where it sounded best and/or get a board feed, then put it all together in post. That would make better product a lot more attainable.

[Ned Ward]

Bring a Zoom hand-held with the mic adapter and put it up on a mic stand at FOH.

Record the video, and then you can align the camera audio with the Zoom audio. Or hand them the Zoom SD card and the camera Zoom card. An 8GB SD card holds 6 hours of stereo 24/96 and are <$10 cost. You'll get your great video but better audio to boot. I typically record our shows this way, and when we get a board mix as well it's helpful to see if our other guitar player is so loud (again) that they've muted his channel...

[Bob Faulkner]

Bring a Zoom hand-held with the mic adapter and put it up on a mic stand at FOH.

Record the video, and then you can align the camera audio with the Zoom audio. Or hand them the Zoom SD card and the camera Zoom card. An 8GB SD card holds 6 hours of stereo 24/96 and are <$10 cost. You'll get your great video but better audio to boot. I typically record our shows this way, and when we get a board mix as well it's helpful to see if our other guitar player is so loud (again) that they've muted his channel...

Sorry to bring this thread back up again...

Using Ned's suggestion (above), I put my Tascam DR-07mkII (mk2) on my camera (cold-shoe) and ran the output of the recorder into the input of the camera... this was for a recent event with a few bands and a decent PA.  It worked great... however, the sound quality of the Tascam appeared to be less than the shot-gun mic I was originally using.  The Tascam was compressing/limiting the audio a lot... which may have added to the lack of sound quality.

I found that passing the audio directly to the camera from the recorder works well... for the logistics of getting audio into the camera.  This means no post work and I can give the SD card directly to the band afterwards.

Anyone capturing audio this way...?  What recorder are you using?  I'm open to getting a much better recorder than what I currently have.  Perhaps the issue with the DR-07 recorder are the mics.

Been watching some Youtube videos on various Tascam and Zoom recorders; haven't found anything that covers the recording of live concerts with them.

[ProSoundWeb Community]