Mic + preamp choice for narrative audio

[Gerry Gallegos]

I wasn't trying to push any mics. I was just giving alternatives that are more affordable and arguably as good sonically as the Shoeps. if budget was any consideration a 600 dollar km185 will stand up to the Shoeps. and their fore-fathers (KM84 family) have been in use for over 35 years in the studio world. at this point youre choosing between lobster or fillet mignon. not a Bigmac like the Oktava. and it would leave you enough money to buy a much better preamp/interface than the Maudio (perhaps an Apogee). I was just looking at the context of the gear and not trying to be elitist. there are alot of great mics out there that will do the job just as good, and sometimes even better. but lets be real, read the original post(Radio Shack Lavs)... if you have a 1600 budget , youre better off getting a less expensive "great" mic and a "killer" pre or interface. than a great mic thru a crapy interface.

[Ty Ford]

Originally Posted by Gerry Gallegos

I wasn't trying to push any mics. I was just giving alternatives that are more affordable and arguably as good sonically as the Shoeps. if budget was any consideration a 600 dollar km185 will stand up to the Shoeps. and their fore-fathers (KM84 family) have been in use for over 35 years in the studio world. at this point youre choosing between lobster or fillet mignon. not a Bigmac like the Oktava. and it would leave you enough money to buy a much better preamp/interface than the Maudio (perhaps an Apogee). I was just looking at the context of the gear and not trying to be elitist. there are alot of great mics out there that will do the job just as good, and sometimes even better. but lets be real, read the original post(Radio Shack Lavs)... if you have a 1600 budget , youre better off getting a less expensive "great" mic and a "killer" pre or interface. than a great mic thru a crapy interface.

Come on Gerry. Schoeps mics are not elite, they are industry standard. That's what's real. I'm guessing you don't own any Schoeps.

I have talked many folks over the transition. To date, every one of them has thanked me.

For a mixer/preamp, look at the Sound Devices MixPre. If your camera only has mic level inputs, you'll need the Sound Devices connverter cables that knock the line level down to mic level.

Welcome to the pros. Once you hear the difference, you will understand.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Ben Syverson]

First of all, thank you VERY much to both Ty and Gerry. Gerry, I appreciate what you're saying, but the reality is that whether I get CMC641 or a different high end mic, I'll want a really great pre-amp. The choice of mic is unlikely to affect that choice -- it doesn't make much sense to get a high end mic and then skimp on the pre, right?

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Please tell us what camera you now have.

Heh -- I'll tell you my camera, but because my choice may cast doubt on my credibility, I have to preface it by saying that I'm also an image processing engineer. I am very picky when it comes to image quality.

The reality is that this is a golden age camera-wise. Yet a lot of people are sinking $25k on Red setups, which seems to me like a terrible allocation of resources unless you can make the camera MORE than pay for itself in under 2 years. The sweet spot right now for fiction filmmaking cameras is, bizarrely, in the consumer range. Not prosumer, consumer! It's as if it's the 1970s, and instead of the pro, semi-pro and consumer formats being 35mm, 16mm and 8mm, they are 35mm, 28mm and 25mm.

I'd been waiting for a camera with a reasonable chip size, a real 24fps mode, and a decent level of resolution. I figured I should budget $4000 or so -- so I was totally blown away when Canon introduced the HV20. I picked mine up for $600 used. (!)

Now, obviously this camera will record more first birthdays than first features... But as Stu Maschwitz says, you can get great footage "if you hop on one foot and wave the rubber chicken just right." You have to light as if the camera is ISO ~100 (I rate it at 120), and do some hoop-jumping to manually set the exposure. The 1/8" mic jack essentially forces you to do double system sound (a good thing, actually). But it's tiny and packs great resolution, so it's a perfect candidate for 35mm DOF adapters. And in two years, I can upgrade again without taking out a home equity loan.

The prosumer 3-chip HD cameras cost 3 or 4 times as much, but only deliver slightly more resolution. They're also much larger and heavier... If I'm going to spend $3000 more on my setup, I'll spend it on the lighting, sound and actors. Those will have a far, far larger impact on my final product than a marginal 25-50% increase in my already-great resolution. (I would not hesitate to proudly project the HDV output from the HV20 on a large screen.)

The cinema-level camera has never been so accessible. Hopefully over the next few years we'll see more and more emphasis placed on filmmaking (sound, lighting, writing, directing and acting) instead of resolution charts!

[Ty Ford]

You said: (after making me wade through a huge waddle or words)

"The 1/8" mic jack essentially forces you to do double system sound (a good thing, actually)."

OK, you may or may not need to double record. Get a Sound Devices 302. Get a regular XLR/headphone return snake. At the camera end, get two XLR female to RCA male adapter cables and wire-tie them together, one for each input. They get a combiner -- that's the opposite of a splitter -- that has two female RCA jacks coming together to one 1/8" TRS.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Ben Syverson]

Originally Posted by Gerry Gallegos

I wasn't trying to push any mics. I was just giving alternatives that are more affordable and arguably as good sonically as the Shoeps. if budget was any consideration a 600 dollar km185 will stand up to the Shoeps.

I've researched the KM185 a little more now, and it looks interesting. However, I haven't been able to find many references on the web about it being used in film production. Looking at the specs, it stacks up favorably to the Schoeps, but I have a built-in skepticism of spec sheets.

So, does anyone have experience with both mics and an opinion?

[Gerry Gallegos]

Ben.

Neumann is considered to be the Rolls Royce of microphones especially in the recording studio world, (the world that I'm from), every time you see some one doing ADR, 9 out of 10 they are using a Neumann U-87, that IS the industry standard for that application. Schoeps is also considered to be the Bentley of mics, if you watch the new documentary on Bob Dylan , you'll notice most of the time he was being recorded was with the omni version of this series Neumann (well the sub 100 versions) which is the equivalent to the 180 series of today. most orchestral recordings use Neumann. Before I retired from the recording industry I was lucky enough to own alot of Neumanns (8xU87, 12x 184, 2x 49's, 1 x86, 2x 89) among many other more esoteric ones, when I sold my Microphone locker I netted close to $90k, Even though I never owned any Schoeps I have used them countless times for choir recordings (so I do know what the Pro's use), and yes they are phenomenal, but like I said in a previous post its like choosing between lobster and filet mignon, they both are great examples of excellent microphones, Neumann is the work horse of the recording industry since the 40's, its is almost guaranteed that 9.9 out of 10 major label sound recordings have included Neumann microphones as a large part of the quality of the sound. and perhaps in this industry people tend to latch on to a certain piece of gear that works well, and like they say , if its not broken , dont fix it. But in the recording business we were constantly trying out different solutions and experimenting and perhaps being more open minded to different solutions because we had the latitude and time to do so. something a film crew would probably never do is to re-take just so they can hear what a different microphone would sound like in this room, where as a recording session for music this happening is quite normal, so we get to experiment and find nice ear candy goodies that perhaps other fields don't get to mess with, because they prefer to use "industry standards" because they with out a doubt know its a safe choice. The thing I was getting at is that for the price of the Schoeps you can have your recorder, cables, and the Neumann, and I would challenge any one to tell the difference between the 2 mics when blind folded, you will hear a slight difference but you will not be able to identify which is which.

[Ty Ford]

Ben,

We seem to have jumped the track from audio for video to studio recording. Two related, but decidedly diffferent animals.

Don't get me started.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Gerry Gallegos]

I was trying to qualify the validity of the Neumann, since it seems that perhaps Ben was not familiar with the brand. and ultimately the last sentence of my statement is the core of my point.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks Gerry -- and know that I'm not trying to start a holy war, just want to hear a bunch of opinions. I was definitely not aware of the Neumann studio heritage, so that was interesting...

The KM185 and Schoeps look similar on paper -- my main concern is being able to boom from 1.5 - 4 feet (hopefully not this far too often) reliably, so sensitivity and low self-noise are obviously crucial. I know the character of the sound will be different between the Neumann and Schoeps, but will I get a similar amount of usable signal from either, when I'm, say, 3 feet away?

[Ty Ford]

On paper is one thing. In the field is another. If the 185 was practically the same, you'd see more of them out there. Thing is, you don't.

It's not just me jawing on about Schoeps. The users are pros, not sheep. This is not just momentum. They care very much about their sound. You see cmc641, even cmc541. You just don't see 185s much. The 185a have been around a long time. If they were equivalent or better, they would have caught on by now.

I am curious about the new 8000 mics, I'm not sure they're shipping yet.


Regards,

Ty Ford

[David Tamés]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

On paper is one thing. In the field is another.

Wise, wise words. One thing you might try is rent (or borrow) the mics you are considering and record with them and listen to the results. There is no substitute for using and listening to microphones. Also, it's often good to own something you can easily borrow or rent, for if you need a second, it's nice to be able to match. That's why I like the MKH60 so much, good value, performance, and I can rent it from two places in town.

[Michael Nistler]

Hi Ben,

You might also want to check out M-Audio's Sputnik microphone. Some compare it favorably to the CMC641 but I'll refrain from that argument:

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Sputnik-main.html

Certainly the Schoeps or other recommendations are good investments and will hold their value when you decide to upgrade/downgrade.

Warm Regards, Michael

[Ben Syverson]

Excellent points, one and all. Off to Fletcher Chicago to rent some mics!

[David W. Jones]

Originally Posted by Gerry Gallegos

Neumann is considered to be the Rolls Royce of microphones especially in the recording studio world, (the world that I'm from), every time you see some one doing ADR, 9 out of 10 they are using a Neumann U-87, that IS the industry standard for that application. .

Gerry, over the last 30 years I have done more than my share of voice work in many studios, including a ton of ADR.
And 99.9% of the time I do ADR, the mic in front of me is not a U87.

[Ben Syverson]

I would think ADR would utilize a lot of large diaphragm condensers -- but what do I know!