Lavalier Microphon recomendation

[Steve House]

Zoom can utilize only one lavalier at the time, right?

You could use two, putting one on the left channel and the other on the right, by putting together a custom "Y" cable - very easily done and would only cost pocket change,

[Greg Miller]

Gustav:

I've already recommended (in an earlier post) a recorder that is smaller and, I think, better than that H-1. It has just one microphone jack, but that is stereo, so you could wire two separate lav mics into one plug, and record both at the same time, one on each channel. (This is quite common practice.) I don't think I need to suggest anything further from a technical perspective.

I feel sure that people will continue to urge you to use two microphones, because that will give a much better recording from a technical perspective. Especially if you are recording outside, where there will be traffic noise, possible wind noise, etc., this is quite important. I understand that you don't want to do this and apparently your mind is made up. I'm just explaining so you will understand why people on this forum may continue to push you in that direction. Their perspective is to adjust the circumstances in order to get the best possible recording; that is entirely different from your goal.

--

Now, to be off topic, and address the legal aspects, just for interest.

Suppose you and I work for the same firm. We're having lunch together at a cafe down the street. I ask you what you think of our boss, and you tell me very candidly that he's a complete fool and ought to be thrown in the ocean without a boat. I then take a recording of the conversation (which I made without your knowledge or permission) to the boss, play it for him, and he fires you.

Or suppose the conversation involves cheating on your taxes. Or sleeping with your neighbor's wife. You see the problem that can arise with surreptitious recordings.

Our law has a concept called "expectation of privacy." If two or more people are having a conversation and they might believe that nobody else will hear the conversation, then the law says they are entitled to expect that the conversation is private. Therefore, it may not be recorded, because the recording will make the conversation available to people whose presence was not known during the conversation.

And, as I said, out of our 50 states, different states place different restrictions on this concept.

Sorry to go off topic, but I thought this might be of interest to someone from another country.

[Gustavs Repse]

Custom "Y" cable huh? Good idea)



The Tascam DR-03 lacks in the external microphones. I know I did not mention that they are important for me to, since I was asking more of a Lavalier type questions, but they are.

And zoom h1 definetely has a better set of external mics, and they can be utilized as a good hand held mic with a proper wind shield.


I looked forward in the Tascam series, and found a Tascam DR-05 which seemd to surpass Zoom h1 in everything except its bulky size and non x/y direction (I prefer x/y stereo, and found that Tascam DR-07 mk2 offers everything DR-05, with x/y stereo, but it gets a bit pricey for me)

Also, I am not sure Tascam DR-05 has Audio interface function which would be a big pluss.

I like Tascams built quality, menu and external mic quality more than the zoom h1, but it seems a bit to bulky to be unnoticed in my backpocket with a lavalier going out of it.




And Greg, thanks for your concerns, I get your point and will keep it in mind.

[Paul R Johnson]

Candid Camera must have had a big problem with the law then? Covert shooting is almost the norm now on TV. Camera crews wiring up houses for vision and sound and trapping fraudsters, fly on the wall stuff - very rarely are the people signed up before the event. Indeed, here in the UK, covert recording is standard practice, and although many people believe you cannot do it, or must warn people in advance, you can record telephone conversations. After it is recorded of course, then releases, waivers and legal stuff may well be brought into play, but the actual act of recording does not need permission. Using it is the bit where proper legal advice is required.

I really didn't believe the US would pass such crazy restrictive laws - I always thought in the States people had huge freedom to do what they want thanks to the constitution. Often I think the UK is backward, but maybe not as much as I thought!

[Greg Miller]

Originally Posted by Gustavs Repse

The Tascam DR-03 lacks in the external microphones.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lacks in." External implies that the mics are separate from the recorder, so you normally need to obtain your own as a separate purchase. If you mean the DR-03 lacks an external mic jack then I suggest you check again; I own a DR-03 and I use the input jack nearly all the time.

Originally Posted by Gustavs Repse

And zoom h1 definetely has a better set of external mics, and they can be utilized as a good hand held mic with a proper wind shield.

I think you're talking about internal mics, not external mics. Internal are an integral part of the recorder. Both the H-1 and the DR-03 have internal stereo mics.

I suppose the X/Y mics on the H-1 might be preferable to the mics on the DR-03. But the DR-03 is a lot smaller and flatter, and is much more easily hidden inside a pocket. So I guess it's a matter of which is more important to you: having a larger recorder with X/Y internal mics, or having a small recorder that's easily concealed.

Originally Posted by Gustavs Repse

I looked forward in the Tascam series

The DR-03 is the smallest (and least expensive) of the DR- series. The DR-05 and original DR-07 do not have the X/Y mics that you prefer. For X/Y you need the DR-07 mkII and as you note, that's relatively bulky.

Good luck with the project, it will be interesting to hear what you decide on and how you're proceeding.

[Gustavs Repse]

Thanks

Yes, I mixed up the names. Internal microphones on DR-03 are lacking, meaning, they are quite bad compared to the Zoom h1, they have quite a noise in them from the examples I got on youtube, and also the preamp seems to be giving more noise in the lavalier then the Zoom's h1 preamp, not by a lot tho.

The bulkynes is a factor, but then again, there wont be any "slipping in the pocket" for these recorders since the lavalier mic jacks are mostly straigh and not "L"shaped (but I guess people are using "L"shape adapters.
I wonder where people place them usually. (a body band case for the recorder?)


Zoom h1 has that nice ring araund the internal microphones and I kinda like that. I remember having my Zoom h4n and always worrying that I might hit the mics on something and they will just break off, because they seemd very fragile.

Yes I have to research this some more.

[Greg Miller]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

Candid Camera must have had a big problem with the law then?

Paul, note that I said different laws apply in different states. In some states, if any [one] party to a conversation gives advance consent to record, then recording is legal. In some other states, every party to a conversation must give advance consent. It's possible that some states have no restrictions whatsoever, although I personally doubt that.

Also, I think a lot of these consent laws are relatively recent, with the proliferation of small covert recording gear (both audio and video). So perhaps when Candid Camera started shooting, there were no such laws to consider. Or perhaps they only shot in states where "one party consent" applied; then if the Candid Camera actor gave advance consent, the recording would have been legal.

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

I really didn't believe the US would pass such crazy restrictive laws - I always thought in the States people had huge freedom to do what they want thanks to the constitution.

It's a fine distinction, but the US did not pass these laws, individual states passed different laws concerning the same activity. These laws relate to recording a conversation by a party to the conversation, recording a conversation by an outside party (eavesdropping), and wiretapping. There's a ton of information online, easily found on http://duckduckgo.com , Google , or the search engine of your choice

And while "freedom" is an important concept, "privacy" is equally important. These laws, in general, restrict the "freedom" of one party from jeopardizing the "privacy" of another party. I am occasionally frustrated that I can't secretly record a conversation; on the other hand, I am glad to know that something I say in confidence won't end up on the radio the next day.

[Al Gardner]

Actually shows like Candid Camera did have consent. They get the consent afterwards. If the person doesn't give consent you will never see that episode. The same goes for shows like Cheaters.

[Richard Crowley]

Originally Posted by Al Gardner

Actually shows like Candid Camera did have consent. They get the consent afterwards. If the person doesn't give consent you will never see that episode. The same goes for shows like Cheaters.

The same goes for EVERY show. NOTHING (except perhaps brief interviews of witnesses for legitimate news reporting) goes on the air without a signed release from all parties. (And signed by parents/legal guardians for legal minors).

Even if you go into a studio as an audience member, your admittance ticket is a legal document that says that your presence in the audience is a de-facto release for your face to appear on the video. And if you end up as a game-show contestant (as on Price is Right, etc.), then you must sign additional releases. Even man-on-the-street interviews, etc. have several production assistants behind the camera chasing down people with a sheaf of release forms on their clipboards.

And, speaking of clipboards, note that quite often on Candid Camera, our protagonist was carrying a clipboard which hid the microphone they used on the unsuspecting subject while getting it closer to their mouth.

A good release technique is to use a small handy-cam (or DSLR, etc) to video record the person signing the form and pronouncing and spelling their name for the camera. That gets video evidence of the release, identifies which name goes with which face, clarifies the spelling if their handwriting is dodgy, and gets the proper pronunciation of their name.

[Steve House]

Often the first question ther interviewer asks is "Do we have your consent to record and broadcast our conversation?" Verbal consent on tape is as binding as a signed paper.

[Greg Miller]

Originally Posted by Al Gardner

Actually shows like Candid Camera did have consent. They get the consent afterwards. If the person doesn't give consent you will never see that episode. The same goes for shows like Cheaters.

That pretty much goes without saying. That refers to consent to broadcast the clip. (This is similar to a "model release" for someone who appears in a photo that will be used for commercial purposes... but AFAIK is not necessary for news photos.)

However, the "expected privacy" concept concerns what happens in the case when consent is not given. Was it then illegal to record the clip in the first place, if the "candid" person had no knowledge before the recording was made?

[Gustavs Repse]

Hey

Could someone please explain to me how I can make Giant squid audio lab Omnidirectional Mono Microphone as a "stereo" with my Zoom h1

Omnidirectional Mono Microphone As I hear, it's a wonderfull microphone.

If I buy this and plug it straight into my Zoom h1 it will give me only mono, as I understand, and then I would have to make it stereo in DAW, which would slow down my workflow tremedously.


Also, have anyone had bought this mic recently?
I read some youtube comments of people saying they have not gotten their mics after 6 weeks, and the phones of the company have been disconnected.

[Rick Reineke]

It's a single channel MONO mic, no two ways about it. If you want 'true stereo', get a stereo mic.
FWIW, most if not all dialog is recorded mono and panned to stereo center or the assigned to the center channel anyway.
That being said, some recorders have a single channel recording option. Other recorders have a combine mode.... which is not a good idea in your case, and would produce some additional noise from the unused/unterminated input channel..
In your NLE or DAW, I recommend removing the silent channel and converting it to a mono file , then if necessary, pan it to the CENTER.
If we knew what kind of NLE or DAW you use, someone could likely explain how to do this.. which in most instances is quick and easy.

[Gustavs Repse]

I see

My main concern is that the audio from this mic would be heard on one headphone.

Aka, left or right would be silent. Or it will be heard in both headphones, and I am mixing what stereo and Mono means?


I would be using Reaper

[Rick Reineke]

In Reaper, Change the 'Channel Mode' by right-clicking the event/clip and choose Channel Mode from the context menu; select either Mono (Left) or Mono (Right) (depending on which channel has sound.
This mono event/clip should by default be panned to the center and will be heard in both Left and Right sides.

Addendum: This is in the Reaper manual, Page 122, Item 6.16
http://www.reaper.fm/userguide.php