New to external mics

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Nick Mirro

...

Can I just say I won't do it and ask how the 2 mics may be made to work (if possible) with the mixer?

What mixer are you asking for compatibility information on, make and model? If it's the Rolls you pictured earlier in the thread, it has XLR inputs only so while the AT 875 will work just fine with it, the Oly lav will be a problem. Connecting the Oly through the Rode 1/8 to XLR adapter you pictured earlier takes the left and right signals coming through the TRS plug and parallels them both to pin 2 of the XLR. This means at best it will give you a mono mix on one recording channel only. But as discussed before, to give you any sound at all the Oly needs to be fed plugin power which is both a different voltage and fed into the mic cable in a completely different arrangement from the phantom voltage that mixer supplies. Connecting the Oly to the Rode adapter and plugging them into the Rolls (or any other brand) mixer will not give you any sound and turning on the phantom power is liable to destroy the mic's internal electronics. To use the AT 875 there's nothing you need do other than plug it in with a regular XLR cable, for the Oly lav there's nothing you can do to get it to work with that mixer.
You could custom build a breakout "Y" cable to take a female inline TRS jack you plug the mic into and feed the tip to pin 2 on one XLR, the ring to pin 2 on a second XLR, and the ground to pin 1 on both XLRs while connecting pin 3 to pin 1 in each XLR - that would get a stereo signal in through a pair of the mixer's XLR inputs, but it still doesn't solve the power problem - no sound without power but turn on the phantom and zzzzzp scratch one mic.

[Greg Miller]

Nick,

You're making me repeat myself, and that's why I'm getting annoyed.

In an earlier post I told you there are two basic mic powering schemes: phantom, and "plug-in power." I said clearly that those are not compatible.

You've posted the specs for the Olympus mic, it is "plug-in power."

You've finally posted the specs for the (rather non-standard economy) mixer, it is "phantom" power.

Therefore, that mic and that mixer are not compatible. You didn't need to ask that question... again.

Yes, in theory, they could be made to work together, if you had the correct interface electronics. But two sets of interface parts (one for each channel of the mic) would probably end up outweighing the cost of the mic.

Frankly, I've become rather annoyed by your ongoing stubbornness and unwillingness to accept suggestions from experts (hence my conclusion that you're a high school student). I am not going to attempt to explain all the necessary theory to you concerning the necessary interface electronics. And I am not going to waste my time looking through numerous catalogs to see if anyone makes the kind of interface that you need. Basically, you're asking for a huge amount of time and tutoring here, and generating a fair amount of frustration, because you're too cheap to replace your $50 consumer mic. (If you're really a doctor, you can surely afford a real mic.)

If you really want to persist with this folly, please take my previous advice: go to a dealer (reputable or cheap, as you prefer) and let them put together the pieces of the puzzle for you.

(My gosh, when I get chest pains, I don't go on some online forum, ask for a free diagnosis, and then disagree with what I'm told -- that's exactly what you're doing here. When I get chest pains, I go to my doctor and let him solve the problem -- that's what you need to do. Go to a dealer. Why would you NOT?)

Then the dealer will at least make a few dollars for all the grief, and you will have somewhere to turn if and when you're not satisfied or you want to make changes down the road.

[Nick Mirro]

Thanks Steve. That makes things clear.

Greg, consider that your last point about the compatibility of the Olympus mic was this...

If you get the correct mixer, it will provide power for the mic; you won't need a battery box at all.

This comment was the sole reason I have pursued this option. Think about this. I posted the specs for the mixer I subsequently found, hoping you would tell me yea or nay, which you never did. You just got angry along with other posters, who were angry about things that weren't true (e.g. the Olympus mic was not even a lapel mic).

Maybe you are being too sensitive here. I've done nothing but compliment you and remained patient through a seemingly endless barrage of negative comments. I accept that you guys have tons of experience and knowledge and that I am just starting, and on a shoestring.

A happy conclusion is still possible. Is there a pair of lapel mics that I could twist and connect to the xlrs of my cheap mixer :-) that might sell for under ~ $80 together? I am not stuck on the Olympus. It just seemed reasonable to use it since it cost me $69 and made good sound. Now it has been stuck in the drawer back with its recorder - permanently.

[Brian P. Reynolds]

Quote.... "A happy conclusion is still possible. Is there a pair of lapel mics that I could twist and connect to the xlrs of my cheap mixer :-)"

WTF?

We are 4 pages into such a simple topic and at this rate will be onto page 8 soon....
I have never seen a more frustrating thread on a forum.

[Greg Miller]

Originally Posted by Nick Mirro

I posted the specs for the mixer I subsequently found, hoping you would tell me yea or nay, which you never did.

Nick, the point is that I explained long ago about the two different (and incompatible) types of mic power. You have the ability to read the specs. The specs for your mic say "plug-in power" and the specs for the mixer say "phantom power." If you had taken the time to read the specs, and pay attention to the info given to you, you would have known that this was not a compatible mixer for your toy microphone.

There was no reason for you to waste time by asking the question again, when it had already been answered.

And, by the way, you originally didn't post any specs for the mixer, you just posted a picture. Now think about it, Nick, how much use is that little picture to anyone? I have repeatedly mentioned, and asked for, specs. How long did it take you before you got around to posting them. And even then, if you had read them yourself, you wouldn't have needed to ask.

Originally Posted by Nick Mirro

You just got angry along with other posters,

What does that tell you, Nick? Are we all wrong? Could it be that there's something wrong about your approach? (But based on what I perceive as your huge ego, you will probably answer that we are all wrong, and your interaction here is absolutely rational and faultless.)

I am glad to answer intelligent questions, and glad to help someone learn a bit. But I am not here to answer the same questions over and over again, and I am not here to hold someone's hand. If I had wanted that role in life, I would have studied elementary education, rather than broadcast engineering.

Please get a clue: nobody here is going to recommend a pair of cheap plastic microphones that you can twist together.

Go to Radio Shack, they will sell you something that will fulfill your wildest dreams. With luck, they may even tell you it's a great idea.

[Nick Mirro]

Brian. It is hard not to see that you and Greg are frustrated that I am not frustrated. Isn't that kind of a weird thing? You're angry at someone who is not angry at you. And that keeps making you angrier.

Please don't try to pin this on me. I'm a happy go lucky sort that ran into a brick wall of serious pride and ego. Participants in this thread have been and continue to be rude and insulting. It is not taken personally, I'm sorry to say.

It would be a false accusation to say that I have been unwilling to take advice. That's not me. Just read my last comment.

There is nothing wrong with my ignorance of the subject. There is also nothing wrong with my desire to make something low end work, even if it doesn't fit with someone's view of how things "should" be done.

Apologies for your state of frustration, but I don't see any of this as a refection of my personal ability to communicate or get along, so it really doesn't affect me.

I am a patient, bright and friendly person. Having a background in social networking, I am also well aware that it is very common for users to misread or read into statements due to the lack of normal social cues. The gang up on the new comer theme is also well represented.

If this is all good enough as is, then no good ending here. I am not a proud person and am always willing to try, sorry to say...

[Nick Mirro]

Wow Greg, that's a serious effort to get the last word on everything. What actually happened is now all stretched out of shape.

Then a gigantically glib and insulting last line. Thanks! The brains behind this really important section on dvinfo actually despises me. Yikes!

Maybe you're like my cyber-bully : - )

[Chris Soucy]

HMOG, what a shambles. I can't even be bothered to read it all it's become such a "never ending story".

Nick, why not just go for a cheap handheld (mono) voice recorder for the (by now famous) "David Attenborough" whispered field commentary and do some serious work on how you're going to get those 50' sounds?

I realise I probably missed some salient points over the last few pages, but coming back to basics for what one (1) man can do with a camera and sound gear out in the field, the old KISS principle holds, else it simply won't work.

Use the voice recorder for your third channel, forget bloody mixers and concentrate on how you get the other sound on the available two (2) channels.

Or am I being bloody difficult too?


CS

[Nick Mirro]

No that is a great suggestion, which I appreciate. I considered the DR-40 (because I am needing stereo ambient sound recorded to), but here are the issues with it.

First

I often make lots of short clips (e.g. many macro clips using a Canon 500D diopter) and talk about the subject live in an interactive way. This means that while adding audio after is a simple matter, there are usually 20 or so clips per outing, so this post-mix approach (in my case) will add quite a bit of work.

Second

I was hoping to improve my past problem with voice level variation. This happens as my head repeatedly moves near and away from the camera as I interact with close-up subjects.

Regarding the 50', that is the really the very upper limit. I have used a shotgun with the HG10 and it served well for the types of clips being capturing.

HMOG :-)))

[Chris Soucy]

Hmm, I sense the goal posts keep getting moved on this one.

Macro? Stereo? Nick, just how many audio crew are you taking out there?

talk about the subject live in an interactive way.

Erm, WTF? Since when have you got the BBC WildLife crew on board?

as I interact with close-up subjects.

Just what are we talking about here, exactly?

Honestly, I need to know what you're really trying to do before saying another word, because I think you're attempting the utterly impossible for a one man band and a zero budget enterprise.

(I have, however, been known to be wrong, so don't let that get in your way)


CS

[Nick Mirro]

Just me out there (well others, but no crew. I'm not a professional). There have been no changes to my audio mix goal, which is this.

1. My voice
2. Ambient stereo
3. Shotgun (Booooo!!!! yes I know...)

3 (or 4 depending on what approach) channels into 2 camera xlr channels, all recorded in the field, hence the field mixer. I love the idea of a recorder but do not want to remix a gillion short clips after every outing. Personally I would rather limit post-processing. As a naturalist first, my mantra has always been to get meaningful content first requiring minimal video editing or photoshop-ing.

I've already been doing this minus the #1 above. My learner, was a Canon HG10 with a "multi-mode" shotgun mic. No crew needed. Doing what I do without one is not that hard. Been in photography since 1995 and a naturalist since forever. Just new to xlr. Camcorder on a tripod with a fluid head, me with a remote...

Macro working distance for this setup is 13". Plants are easy since they don't really move much.

WTF is kind of provocative, don't you think?

Why the big deal about narrating? That's what everyone expects me to do. I"m not a pro, but am very serious about this. Yes there are ever fewer naturalists these days. For good or bad, I love identifying trees, plants, filming spiders and all sorts of critters doing their thing.

[Chris Soucy]

Well, well, now we're getting somewhere.............

Usefull info Nick, thanks.

WTF is about:

talk about the subject live in an interactive way.

Qute how you have an interactive conversation with a plant or bug is a bit, er, out there.

At this point, it getting late and a lot of info to process, I might suggest we call a temporary truce here and all just return to our fox holes to rest up for the finale.

Off the top of my head Nick, I simply don't have any answers for you with your stated mission and expectations, so I have to try to process what, in my limited experience, could even come close to satisfying all of your stated requirements within the limited budget you have.

Hope that will hold till tomorrow, 'cos I'm out, for now.

Regards,


CS

[Brian P. Reynolds]

Nick, you are actually trying to use 4 sound sources.... The stereo mic is actually 2 mics in one case, there is a left output and a right output.

[Greg Miller]

Brian,

Please, don't confuse him with facts. I mentioned that earlier, and you yourself stated that two days ago. There is a real disconnect here where even simple technical details are concerned. (That's why I've suggested that he go to a dealer who can walk him through this whole process; but for some reason he's resistant to that concept.)

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Nick Mirro

Just me out there (well others, but no crew. I'm not a professional). There have been no changes to my audio mix goal, which is this.

1. My voice
2. Ambient stereo
3. Shotgun (Booooo!!!! yes I know...)

3 (or 4 depending on what approach) channels into 2 camera xlr channels, all recorded in the field, hence the field mixer. I love the idea of a recorder but do not want to remix a gillion short clips after every outing. Personally I would rather limit post-processing. As a naturalist first, my mantra has always been to get meaningful content first requiring minimal video editing or photoshop-ing.

I've already been doing this minus the #1 above. My learner, was a Canon HG10 with a "multi-mode" shotgun mic. No crew needed. Doing what I do without one is not that hard. Been in photography since 1995 and a naturalist since forever. Just new to xlr. Camcorder on a tripod with a fluid head, me with a remote...

Macro working distance for this setup is 13". Plants are easy since they don't really move much.

...
Why the big deal about narrating? That's what everyone expects me to do. I"m not a pro, but am very serious about this. Yes there are ever fewer naturalists these days. For good or bad, I love identifying trees, plants, filming spiders and all sorts of critters doing their thing.

As a photographer taking pride in the quality of his work, you don't want to produce out-of-focus or improperly exposed images do you? You don't mind cropping a still in Photoshop to tighten up the framing and render the subject in a more pleasing way, do you? So why should you give less attention and commitment to the quality of the sound you record than you do to the quality of the images you capture? Ansel Adams likened the image captured in the field with a camera to the score of a piece of music - and just like a score isn't music until it's performed, an image isn't a photograph until it's been refined in post production, in Adam's case that was the darkroom while in our case that's post production. Video are not made in the field in the camera, they're made in the editing suite in post-production. The camera original is only the raw material, not the final product, and is just one of the elements that comes together to make the final video production. Your voice commentary is another of the elements. And just as you need to do whatever it takes with your camera to capture perfect images of the subject out in the field, you also need to do whatever it takes to capture as perfect as you can recordings of your voice doing the commentary. That's why we're so critical of the frankly kludge'y half-way measures you've been proposing - not out of some arbitrary standard of "the right way" but rather out of an understanding of what works to produce a quality output and what doesn't work. We assume you want to produce a finished video that you can show in public and be proud of and we're trying to educate you on what it takes to accomplish that result. As a photographer you wouldn't be happy with compromised image quality and we're coming from the perspective that when you move from stills to video production you shouldn't be happy with compromised sound quality either. Sound is a crucial element in a video production and in many cases is even more important in communicating with the audience than are the images themselves.