Hello there:)

I'm familier with boom mics, and microphones in generall and how they are applied in different aplications, but I have never used nor do I understand the workflow of a lavalier microphones.

I want to get a lavalier microphone so that I can record my colegues voice wile I film him with a zoom lense from a distance.

So, do I need something like a Zoom h4n which will be in my colegues pocket connected with his lavalier mic that goes to his neck tie area?

Or a wireless lavalier microphone with transmitter and receiver? But then again, where the sound will end up? Stored on receiver? And wont the signal be lost from araund 30m?

I'm reading on lavaliers, but they always review them form a point of view that everyone understands their usage workflow.

The receiver has an audio output that either plugs into your camera's audio input just like a mic or into the separate recorder's input if shootimg double system. The problem with a recorder in the talent's pocket is that you're unable to monitor the audio during the take, As to whether 30m is too far, that depends on the quality of the wireless units - cheap consumer toys would be iffy but professional quality mics should be fine.

Have you already been filming with some other type of mic? If so, what mic and camera have you used until now? And are you satisfied with the recording quality you have achieved with this equipment?

In other words, is the lavalier mic just a different microphone from what you have been using until now? Or is "filming, and using a lavalier mic to do so" an entirely new venture?

Using a lavalier mic is an entirely new venture for me

I'v been using Canon 550D (I don't think it has any external audio capabilities), and have done some conventional interviews with people using my Zoom H4n as a microphone and not as a interface for other mics. I have been fairly satisfied with the quality I got out of it.

But the freedom lavalier microphone gives me is essential in what I am planning and can not be done with a microphone in hand.

I will be filming and interviewing people very spontaneouslt, so I dont think the camera man will have time to monitor the audio levels nor the guy who will be interviewing people (since the goal is for people not to see the mic)
So, eather way, no monitoring will be done. Only setting up before going in for the job, and adjusting when some material is aquired.


I asume a quality wireless mic will be a lot more expencive than a normal coupled with, for example, zoom h4n.

But I am quite on budget, and I find Zoom h4n a bit to expencive for my needs.

Would love to get some recomendations on what to get

If you're on a really tight budget, take a look at the Sony recorder and the lav mics I link to in this post I wrote on another forum a while back: some external recorder ideas (http://www.avforums.com/forums/17855682-post24.html)

There's a short sample mp3 linked to at the end, which shows the kind of quality you might expect, when you're on a really tight budget!

Gustavs,

The issue with wireless mics and price is that you're adding two pretty sophisticated electronic components to a basic mic chain to replace one incredibly cheap and dependable one - the wire.

The transmitter and the receiver.

These cost money to design and produce.

In the new digital era with lots of manufacturers around the globe that can design and produce inexpensive electronic circuits, and today there are more inexpensive ways to do this than ever before. But for the manufacturers who want to compete on price, corners have to be cut verses the manufacturers who value performance over price.

So there's a very wide range of quality in wireless rigs.

Basically, the less you spend, the less reliability you get across common use situations. If you're outdoors in an open field away from powerlines, motors, fluorescent lights, and the thousand other things that can screw up a radio transmission - then even very inexpensive wireless rigs can work just fine - particularly if you're quality needs are just to record someone speaking and reproduce that intelligibly.

But that same rig in an industrial situation will often fail to reject RF and other unwanted noise - plus the transmission/recpetion signal might fail over even a modest distance if it's underpowered.

Remember you're paying for two sophisticated matched radio components in addition to the mic element and the connections.

That's essentially why trully excellent and dependable wireless mic rigs can be VERY expensive. It takes a lot of tech to make wireless work as well as just running a cable from mic to recorder.

The topic is discussed here a lot, so look up some of the older threads and you'll find specific equipment that's proved dependable - and other units not so.

Good luck in your search!

...

But the freedom lavalier microphone gives me is essential in what I am planning and can not be done with a microphone in hand.

I will be filming and interviewing people very spontaneouslt, so I dont think the camera man will have time to monitor the audio levels nor the guy who will be interviewing people (since the goal is for people not to see the mic)
...
A lavalier is designed to be worn by the person actually speaking. That means the person you're interviewing, the person you say you don't want to see the mic, will not only see it, it will be clipped to his shirt and the wire run around to the transmitter or reccorder clipped to is belt. Having the interviewER wear the mic means HE'LL be picked up fine but the person being interviewED not so much. What you're describing really requires TWO mics, one for the interviewer and a second for the interviewee, if you're going to do it right.

I asume a quality wireless mic will be a lot more expencive than a normal coupled with, for example, zoom h4n. Not only is a quality wireless more expensive than a regular lav coupled with you H4n, it will be more expensive than just the H4n. Using US prices for an example, B&H lists the H4n for about $275. Arguably the least expensive wireless for serious work is the Sennheiser G3 which sells at B&H for $629 for the basic mic/transmitter/receiver package.

If keeping the cost down is the way to go for you, then a Lavalier and small portable recorder is the best bet in my opinion. I also have a Zoom H1 that I use with a lavalier that gives good results and they are about £80 UK. I also needed another recorder for a quick job this weekend, and thought I would try a real cheap Sony ICDPX312. It arrived today with an included Sony stereo lavalier. I was very surprised at how good it sounded on the highest mp3 setting and at only £32 UK. Also noticeably smaller than the H1 which is already pretty small.

At that price they can almost be spread round like confetti!

Roger

. I also needed another recorder for a quick job this weekend, and thought I would try a real cheap Sony ICDPX312.

Yup - that's the same model I linked to in post #5 -- with a short mp3 sample at the end. As Roger says, it's surprisingly good - especially for the money!

(It also works very well when used at line level, in conjunction with an external preamp. At the highest 192kHz sample rate, the quality and low noise floor, using the line level input selection, were surprisingly good..)

Another very small pocket recorder is the Tascam DR-03. It has the added ability to record uncompressed .wav files. (I think it's been replaced by the PR-10; but either model might be available from one dealer to another.)

But I'm seriously worried by this:
I dont think the camera man will have time to monitor the audio levels nor the guy who will be interviewing people (since the goal is for people not to see the mic)
Unless I misinterpret what you're saying, this makes it sound more like a surveillance job, rather than legitimate audio for video.

As Steve House pointed out (post #7) the mic should be worn by the person who is speaking. Otherwise, you'll get drastically different quality from the two people (unless they are embracing and kissing when you record them). Not only that, but the interviewee, whose audio is usually the most important, will sound significantly worse than the interviewer who is wearing the mic.

Perhaps this point warrants more clarification and/or consideration.


[P.S.: I was in Riga in 1974... beautiful city as I recall.]

Sorry for my latenes. Had some bussy days.

Alright, wireless lavaliers are out of the question then, cant spend more than 120 usd for the whole lavalier set. A recorder and a wire is my best option as I understand.

I know that lavaliers usually go to the one being interviewed, but in this case, the one wearing the lavalier will be the one asking questions, since he can not gear random people on streets with lavaliers :)

But I do hope that the lavalier on the interviewer will pick a decent sound from the person he is interviewing.

We dont want people to be avare that they are actually being interviewed, so we can not use any hand held microphones.

Also it will be outside most of the time.


Roger Shore, that actually seems like a great idea. Maybe Il get a better mic tho, something araund 20+ pounds.

Still have to research some of your recomendations.

And 1974! That's a bit before my time. Glad you liked it :)

No - it won't. The distance to the mouth is the key. Let's say the distance is (to make the maths easier) 1 foot. The distance to the person standing next to the interviewer is 2 feet. This person won;t be half as loud, they will be a quarter as loud because sound follows the inverse square law and doubling distance quarters the level!

The reason proper interview mics have long handles is so they can be held closer to the subjects. One lav mic produces quite feeble and thin sounding audio at a distance. Great for one person, rubbish for two. If you try to increase the level in the edit, the background noise shoots up and down, and worse, if the interviewer talks over the end of the interviewees words, they're gone. Laves are personal mics, not group mics.

...
I know that lavaliers usually go to the one being interviewed, but in this case, the one wearing the lavalier will be the one asking questions, since he can not gear random people on streets with lavaliers :)
...)
Not true. When both the interviewer and interviewee are to be recorded with a lav only, TWO mics need to be used, one on each person. Putting one lav on one of the pair means only he gets recorded with decent sound, the other party will not be very good. That's why 'man-on-the-street' interviews are usually done using a hand-held mic in the hand of the interviewer instead of lavs, the interviewer holding it to his mouth for the question and then to the subject's for his answer. We dont want people to be avare that they are actually being interviewed, so we can not use any hand held microphones.As far as stealth interviews where the interviewee is not aware he's being interviewed "on-the-record", you might want to reconsider that idea. Don't know about Latvia, but in most countries you can't legally use the resulting interview without a release from the subject anyway. This is often best obtained before the fact so the stealth approach could actually prove largely a waste of time, producing nothing but footage you can't legally use for anything.

We dont want people to be avare that they are actually being interviewed

I, too, am curious about the laws in Latvia. In many of the United States of America, recording a person's voice without informing and receiving permission in advance is illegal. In some states, the penalty may be as high as a felony.

As I said before, this isn't proper audio for video... this is surveillance (and possibly illegal). I, for one, can't support such activity without knowing more about the ethics and legality involved.

I see

Well, It's nothing ciminal here.


You can't expect to get peoples unaltered, honest reaction on a question your asking if you are approaching them with permision slips/handheld microphones before the actuall question. The more casual it is the better

A permision to use the footage will be asked after the proper questions will be asked.

And as long as the lavalier picks up even a bit of sound from the interviewer, a subtitling will come in handy.



I'm leaning towards Zoom h1 + ultradisk 4033

I think the zoom h1 is quite solid, but I am not so sure about the mic.


p.s

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

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,

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (http://google.com) , 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 (http://www.giant-squid-audio-lab.com/gs/gs-mono.html) 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.

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.

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

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

Gustavs,

If you want to use a mono (single channel) mic with a stereo (2-channel) input, you will need to use an adapter cable.

Please refer to this photo: File:Photo-audiojacks.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Photo-audiojacks.jpg)

Let's start with the third connector from the left (above 3.5 on the scale). This is a TRS or Tip-Ring-Sleeve plug. The tip is the metal part at the bottom. Above that is a thin black insulator. Next, in the middle, is a metal "ring." Above the ring is another black insulator. Finally, the uppermost metal part is the sleeve.

The H-1 expects you to plug in a 3.5mm (diameter) TRS plug, like the one shown. Sleeve is common ground for both channels, and also the shield of the cable. Tip is the left channel audio. Ring is the right channel audio. (This is standard wiring for unbalanced "consumer grade" stereo mics.)

If you get a mono mic, it will normally be just a TS (Tip-Sleeve) connector, like the one shown above 1.7 on the scale in the photo. Sleeve is still ground plus the shield of the cable. Tip is the audio.

If you plug a mono TS connector into the H-1, it should be obvious that the audio will be heard only on the left channel. The right channel of the recorder (ring) will be connected to the ground of the mic (sleeve) so there will be no signal on the right channel.

You will need an adapter cable with a TRS plug (male connector, as shown in the photo) on one end, and a TS jack (female connector, which mates with the plug - not illustrated here) on the other end.

The Tip and Ring of the plug should be wired together, and connected to the tip of the jack.
The Sleeve of the plug should be connected to the sleeve of the jack.
Use shielded cable for the interconnecting wire, to avoid hum and other electrical noise.

Plug your mono mic into this adapter, and the audio from the mic's Tip will go to the recorder's Tip and Ring, thus it will end up equally on both left and right channels.

Do not use this cable on the output of a recorder, as it's somewhat risky to connect two output circuits together. Use this cable only on inputs to recorders.

(In theory we should consider the issue of impedance. But in general, the mic's source impedance is significantly lower than the recorder's input impedance, so you won't load down the mic excessively by using an adapter like this one. Since the "plug-in power" voltage is the same on both channels, no DC current will flow between tip and ring... both will feed just the mic.)

In a desperate situation of suddenly having one interviewer and two interviewees (and only two mics) I've mounted the lav on the shoulder / sleeve between the two interviewees and asked them to sit very close. Not ideal but it worked at a pinch.
Perhaps your interviewer could have the lav on his left shoulder and stand angled with left shoulder close to the interviewee? If you can even out the distance of mics to mouths it will help with levels. Not great if there is background noise though.
We have laws under the "Listening Devices Act" that prohibits the act of secretly recording audio without permission. Just recording without prior permission is a criminal act unless its 'in the public interest' , even if it is not Broadcasted. I went through a court case years ago where (for a local news show) we secretly recorded a person being bribed. This was deemed "in the public interest". But recording segments for a Candid Camera light hearted segment would be deemed illegal, permission had to be sought first. And its the person who is recording the audio who is prosecuted, not the producer / production company.
It is legal though if you are obvious ie vox pops, where the camera and mic are in full view, still need to have permission to broadcast though.
Make sure you are familiar with the your local laws, here in Australia they vary from state to state.

Sorry to necro this thread from beyond the grave, but I have just read it through and just realised I could use a Y spitter lead to plug a mono shotgun and the receiver (feeding from the transmitter of a wireless lave mic) into a Zoom H1, recording one mic to one track and one to another.

Brilliant!