[genericaudioperson]

Hello,

I read Mr. Dorseys posts very carefully, because he is really smart.

If I understand him, he doesn't like shotgun mics all that much and
would try to get away with using a hypercardioid instead if the
circumstance permitted.

I'm not sure what the dividing line is when you have to abandon
"regular" mics and settle for the shotgun. If you don't have a lot of
ambient noise (like a noisey convention floor or a football game), is
12 feet of distance too far away for a hypercardioid? (Assuming a low-
medium volume acoustic source like two acoustic guitars, two vocals,
and a mandolin in a folk song environment). I'm talking about for
sound reinforcement where you are trying to capture the ensemble (and
you can't get the mic much closer).

With things like handheld dynamics, as soon as you are a few feet from
the microphone, you could practically be screaming and the mic would
barely pick up. At least with a shotgun you know you are going to get
a lot of audio zoom-in. I'm wondering if something like the Neumann
KM series hypercardioid is only good up to about 5 feet away.

Shotguns seem expensive too. All the industry standard ones seem to
be $1200 and up. But it's a fun idea to think you can really zoom
in on the sound with a shotgun mic.

[Scott Dorsey]

genericaudioperson wrote:

I read Mr. Dorseys posts very carefully, because he is really smart.

A lot of smart people are here. I'm just very tolerant, that's all.

If I understand him, he doesn't like shotgun mics all that much and
would try to get away with using a hypercardioid instead if the
circumstance permitted.

This is pretty much how everyone feels about shotguns.

I'm not sure what the dividing line is when you have to abandon
"regular" mics and settle for the shotgun. If you don't have a lot of
ambient noise (like a noisey convention floor or a football game), is
12 feet of distance too far away for a hypercardioid? (Assuming a low-
medium volume acoustic source like two acoustic guitars, two vocals,
and a mandolin in a folk song environment). I'm talking about for
sound reinforcement where you are trying to capture the ensemble (and
you can't get the mic much closer).

Distance has nothing to do with it, the room has something to do with
it.

You would really never want to use a shotgun in any situation (like a musical
ensemble) where you are trying to capture a stereo image, because of the
off-axis nastiness.

For dialogue recording on set, in general a good rule is that if you are
outdoors you should use a shotgun and if you are indoors you should use
a hypercardioid. This isn't a hard and fast rule but it's a good general
place to set the dividing line.

With things like handheld dynamics, as soon as you are a few feet from
the microphone, you could practically be screaming and the mic would
barely pick up.

This isn't true at all. All you need is gain.... you can take an SM-57,
throw 80 dB of gain on it, and you can pick up stuff from a long way away.
It'll be noisy (because the SM-57 is fairly noisy), and it'll sound pretty
dreadful (because the off-axis response on the SM-57 is poor), and there
will be a lot of room sound (because theSM-57 pattern is wide) but you can
do it, sure.

At least with a shotgun you know you are going to get
a lot of audio zoom-in. I'm wondering if something like the Neumann
KM series hypercardioid is only good up to about 5 feet away.

The shotgun does no such thing. And I regularly use hypercardioids more
than 50 feet away from a sound source... but then sometimes outdoors I will
use omnis that far away too.

Shotguns seem expensive too. All the industry standard ones seem to
be $1200 and up. But it's a fun idea to think you can really zoom
in on the sound with a shotgun mic.

You can't. It doesn't do what you think it does. Because the film sound
guy use them a lot, all the film rental companies have lots of shotguns
and you can rent them fairly cheaply. Rent an MKH416 for a weekend some
time and just play with it to get a sense of what you can do with it and
what you can't. It's a one-trick pony, but sometimes it's just the right
trick for the job.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[philper]

On Dec 5, 7:15 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
genericaudioperson wrote:

I read Mr. Dorseys posts very carefully, because he is really smart.

A lot of smart people are here. I'm just very tolerant, that's all.

If I understand him, he doesn't like shotgun mics all that much and
would try to get away with using a hypercardioid instead if the
circumstance permitted.

This is pretty much how everyone feels about shotguns.

I'm not sure what the dividing line is when you have to abandon
"regular" mics and settle for the shotgun. If you don't have a lot of
ambient noise (like a noisey convention floor or a football game), is
12 feet of distance too far away for a hypercardioid? (Assuming a low-
medium volume acoustic source like two acoustic guitars, two vocals,
and a mandolin in a folk song environment). I'm talking about for
sound reinforcement where you are trying to capture the ensemble (and
you can't get the mic much closer).

Distance has nothing to do with it, the room has something to do with
it.

You would really never want to use a shotgun in any situation (like a musical
ensemble) where you are trying to capture a stereo image, because of the
off-axis nastiness.

For dialogue recording on set, in general a good rule is that if you are
outdoors you should use a shotgun and if you are indoors you should use
a hypercardioid. This isn't a hard and fast rule but it's a good general
place to set the dividing line.

With things like handheld dynamics, as soon as you are a few feet from
the microphone, you could practically be screaming and the mic would
barely pick up.

This isn't true at all. All you need is gain.... you can take an SM-57,
throw 80 dB of gain on it, and you can pick up stuff from a long way away.
It'll be noisy (because the SM-57 is fairly noisy), and it'll sound pretty
dreadful (because the off-axis response on the SM-57 is poor), and there
will be a lot of room sound (because theSM-57 pattern is wide) but you can
do it, sure.

At least with a shotgun you know you are going to get
a lot of audio zoom-in. I'm wondering if something like the Neumann
KM series hypercardioid is only good up to about 5 feet away.

The shotgun does no such thing. And I regularly use hypercardioids more
than 50 feet away from a sound source... but then sometimes outdoors I will
use omnis that far away too.

Shotguns seem expensive too. All the industry standard ones seem to
be $1200 and up. But it's a fun idea to think you can really zoom
in on the sound with a shotgun mic.

You can't. It doesn't do what you think it does. Because the film sound
guy use them a lot, all the film rental companies have lots of shotguns
and you can rent them fairly cheaply. Rent an MKH416 for a weekend some
time and just play with it to get a sense of what you can do with it and
what you can't. It's a one-trick pony, but sometimes it's just the right
trick for the job.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

A 416 isn't really a shotgun at all, it isn't really any more
directional than a hypercard. What it does do is make the off-axis
audio more low fi so you have the illusion of "reach", is very rugged
and fairly immune to humidity and RF problems that can plague true
hypercards. In the movie audio biz when we use the term "shotgun" we
mean something more directional than a 416, like an 816, MKH70, Sanken
CS3e, Neumann KMR82i etc.. that really do have serious advantages in
trying to pull a voice out of a noisy background when the mic cannot
be close. That said these mics demand a higher skill level and a good
ear in the operator, since if mis-used they can sound really
terrible. They are specialists' tools, not any sort of general
purpose mic.

Philip Perkins

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
genericaudioperson wrote:

I read Mr. Dorseys posts very carefully, because he is really smart.

A lot of smart people are here. I'm just very tolerant, that's all.

If I understand him, he doesn't like shotgun mics all that much and
would try to get away with using a hypercardioid instead if the
circumstance permitted.

This is pretty much how everyone feels about shotguns.

I'm not sure what the dividing line is when you have to abandon
"regular" mics and settle for the shotgun. If you don't have a lot of
ambient noise (like a noisey convention floor or a football game), is
12 feet of distance too far away for a hypercardioid? (Assuming a low-
medium volume acoustic source like two acoustic guitars, two vocals,
and a mandolin in a folk song environment). I'm talking about for
sound reinforcement where you are trying to capture the ensemble (and
you can't get the mic much closer).

Distance has nothing to do with it, the room has something to do with
it.

You would really never want to use a shotgun in any situation (like a
musical ensemble) where you are trying to capture a stereo image, because
of the off-axis nastiness.

For dialogue recording on set, in general a good rule is that if you are
outdoors you should use a shotgun and if you are indoors you should use
a hypercardioid. This isn't a hard and fast rule but it's a good general
place to set the dividing line.

With things like handheld dynamics, as soon as you are a few feet from
the microphone, you could practically be screaming and the mic would
barely pick up.

This isn't true at all. All you need is gain.... you can take an SM-57,
throw 80 dB of gain on it, and you can pick up stuff from a long way
away. It'll be noisy (because the SM-57 is fairly noisy), and it'll sound
pretty dreadful (because the off-axis response on the SM-57 is poor), and
there will be a lot of room sound (because theSM-57 pattern is wide) but
you can do it, sure.

At least with a shotgun you know you are going to get
a lot of audio zoom-in. I'm wondering if something like the Neumann
KM series hypercardioid is only good up to about 5 feet away.

The shotgun does no such thing. And I regularly use hypercardioids more
than 50 feet away from a sound source... but then sometimes outdoors I
will use omnis that far away too.

Shotguns seem expensive too. All the industry standard ones seem to
be $1200 and up. But it's a fun idea to think you can really zoom
in on the sound with a shotgun mic.

You can't. It doesn't do what you think it does. Because the film sound
guy use them a lot, all the film rental companies have lots of shotguns
and you can rent them fairly cheaply. Rent an MKH416 for a weekend some
time and just play with it to get a sense of what you can do with it and
what you can't. It's a one-trick pony, but sometimes it's just the right
trick for the job.
--scott

I'll heartily second everything Scott said, with one exception. I think
Scott meant to suggest the Sennheiser MKH816, the true shotgun in the
family. The MKH416 is not a shotgun mic. It's a supercardioid using
Line/Gradient technology.

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Scott Dorsey]

philper wrote:
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

A 416 isn't really a shotgun at all, it isn't really any more
directional than a hypercard. What it does do is make the off-axis
audio more low fi so you have the illusion of "reach", is very rugged
and fairly immune to humidity and RF problems that can plague true
hypercards.

That's what a shotgun is, and what a shotgun does. The 416 is a
shotgun because it has an interference tube in front of the diaphragm.
It's a "short shotgun" for the reasons you point out.

The humidity and RF issues, though, have nothing to do with the 416
not being a hypercardioid, and everything to do with the fact that they
use RF electronics. The electronics on the MKH50 hypercardioid are
just as immune to humidity and RF issues because they use the same
basic RF discriminator design.

In the movie audio biz when we use the term "shotgun" we
mean something more directional than a 416, like an 816, MKH70, Sanken
CS3e, Neumann KMR82i etc.. that really do have serious advantages in
trying to pull a voice out of a noisy background when the mic cannot
be close.

These are indeed more directional than a 416 because they have longer
inteference tubes, and thus become directional at a lower frequency.
These are "long shotguns" and opposed to "short shotguns."

That said these mics demand a higher skill level and a good
ear in the operator, since if mis-used they can sound really
terrible. They are specialists' tools, not any sort of general
purpose mic.

Absolutely!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ron Capik]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

genericaudioperson wrote:

I read Mr. Dorseys posts very carefully, because he is really smart.

A lot of smart people are here. I'm just very tolerant, that's all.

If I understand him, he doesn't like shotgun mics all that much and
would try to get away with using a hypercardioid instead if the
circumstance permitted.

This is pretty much how everyone feels about shotguns.

I'm not sure what the dividing line is when you have to abandon
"regular" mics and settle for the shotgun. If you don't have a lot of
ambient noise (like a noisey convention floor or a football game), is
12 feet of distance too far away for a hypercardioid? (Assuming a low-
medium volume acoustic source like two acoustic guitars, two vocals,
and a mandolin in a folk song environment). I'm talking about for
sound reinforcement where you are trying to capture the ensemble (and
you can't get the mic much closer).

Distance has nothing to do with it, the room has something to do with
it.

You would really never want to use a shotgun in any situation (like a musical
ensemble) where you are trying to capture a stereo image, because of the
off-axis nastiness.

...snip...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Strangely enough I just saw on the Today Show what looked
like two short shotguns and another (maybe shotgun) mic'
(hidden in a blimp) being used on a 12 man vocal ensemble,
Chanticleer. Then too, it was live TV and not a recording or
PA situation.

Might be worth noting that the mic's were well under
12 feet away and it was a studio situation.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Eeyore]

genericaudioperson wrote:

Hello,

I read Mr. Dorseys posts very carefully, because he is really smart.

If I understand him, he doesn't like shotgun mics all that much and
would try to get away with using a hypercardioid instead if the
circumstance permitted.

Probably because shotgun mics aren't very appropriate for general use !

Graham

[Jim Weld[_2_]]

"genericaudioperson" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I read Mr. Dorseys posts very carefully, because he is really smart.

If I understand him, he doesn't like shotgun mics all that much and
would try to get away with using a hypercardioid instead if the
circumstance permitted.

I'm not sure what the dividing line is when you have to abandon
"regular" mics and settle for the shotgun. If you don't have a lot of
ambient noise (like a noisey convention floor or a football game), is
12 feet of distance too far away for a hypercardioid? (Assuming a low-
medium volume acoustic source like two acoustic guitars, two vocals,
and a mandolin in a folk song environment). I'm talking about for
sound reinforcement where you are trying to capture the ensemble (and
you can't get the mic much closer).

With things like handheld dynamics, as soon as you are a few feet from
the microphone, you could practically be screaming and the mic would
barely pick up. At least with a shotgun you know you are going to get
a lot of audio zoom-in. I'm wondering if something like the Neumann
KM series hypercardioid is only good up to about 5 feet away.

Shotguns seem expensive too. All the industry standard ones seem to
be $1200 and up. But it's a fun idea to think you can really zoom
in on the sound with a shotgun mic.

I don't think the shotgun (or any type of mic) will do what you want it to.
I'm assuming that your mic placment will endup in the reverberant field, and
with all the gain you'll need, you will just end up with feedback. You
don't actually get "zoom-in" in audio unless you're using some type of
parabolic dish. You'll probably end up with some miniature mics that can be
located near the performer. Anytime you need lots of gain you'll have
trouble with sound reinforcement. Recording is a whole different thing.

jim

[Richard Crowley]

"Ron Capik" wrote ...
Strangely enough I just saw on the Today Show what looked
like two short shotguns and another (maybe shotgun) mic'
(hidden in a blimp) being used on a 12 man vocal ensemble,
Chanticleer. Then too, it was live TV and not a recording or
PA situation.

Might be worth noting that the mic's were well under
12 feet away and it was a studio situation.

It is *TV sound*. Since when was that a standard for ANY
kind of quality (or even best method)? The choice and placement
of the mics was likely dictated by the (video) director who didn't
want any visible hardware in his camera angles. Audio ALWAYS
takes a back-seat in live television.

I have had to make those kinds of trade-off decisions myself, but
getting good sound always trumped getting good video. You can
sell CDs with good sound and no video, but DVDs with nice pictures
and lousy sound (or no sound) aren't as popular for some reason.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 5, 11:21*am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Ron Capik" wrote ...
*The choice and placement
of the mics was likely dictated by the (video) director who didn't
want any visible hardware in his camera angles. *Audio ALWAYS
takes a back-seat in live television.

I have had to make those kinds of trade-off decisions myself, but
getting good sound always trumped getting good video. You can
sell CDs with good sound and no video, but DVDs with nice pictures
and lousy sound (or no sound) aren't as popular for some reason.

I run in to that problem with live PA. Someone will ask if I can just
hang some mics from the grid to pick up the kids singing. I'll tell
them, "yea, but they'll have to be 10 feet off the ground to be
anywhere near being useful for PA". They'll say, "well, can't they be
28' up, we don't want to see them?". At which point I'll have to tell
them that they might as well not have them.

[philper]

On Dec 5, 9:58 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
philper wrote:
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

A 416 isn't really a shotgun at all, it isn't really any more
directional than a hypercard. What it does do is make the off-axis
audio more low fi so you have the illusion of "reach", is very rugged
and fairly immune to humidity and RF problems that can plague true
hypercards.

That's what a shotgun is, and what a shotgun does. The 416 is a
shotgun because it has an interference tube in front of the diaphragm.
It's a "short shotgun" for the reasons you point out.

My point is that to most people who use "shotguns" regularly, a 416
is not a shotgun. A real shotgun is much more directional--that is
how we define it, not because it has an interference tube design.


The humidity and RF issues, though, have nothing to do with the 416
not being a hypercardioid, and everything to do with the fact that they
use RF electronics. The electronics on the MKH50 hypercardioid are
just as immune to humidity and RF issues because they use the same
basic RF discriminator design.

Yes. In my post I listed these as reasons we use these mics because
of
this immunity AND the their directionality. It is the combo of
features
than makes them attractive.


In the movie audio biz when we use the term "shotgun" we
mean something more directional than a 416, like an 816, MKH70, Sanken
CS3e, Neumann KMR82i etc.. that really do have serious advantages in
trying to pull a voice out of a noisy background when the mic cannot
be close.

These are indeed more directional than a 416 because they have longer
inteference tubes, and thus become directional at a lower frequency.
These are "long shotguns" and opposed to "short shotguns."

Or in the case of current movie biz nomenclature, not shotguns at all.
If I ask my assistant or a guy at a rental house for a shotgun, I will
not be
handed a 416.

Philip Perkins

[genericaudioperson]

Thank you, everyone, for your insights. And sorry for the double
post. I was trying to edit the original post, and one extra post must
have stuck in the system.

[genericaudioperson]

Thank you, Jim. This was a major breakthough for me. The rule is to
not have the microphone in the reverberant field (for sound
reinforcement). I've never thought of it that clearly and directly.
I always just knew you shouldn't have the mic face the tweeters, you
should keep the mic away from the speakers overall, and you shouldn't
mic from too far of a distance.

Keeping the mic out of the room ambience area makes perfect sense. If
it's in the room reverb area, the sound will feedback, and then you
will get a "feedback" loop. I feel like I just learned something very
important, like how to divide or multiply a number.

I guess it helps to have a "dry" stage without a lot of reflections to
avoid mic feedback. Is that a fair extension of this idea?

I need a moment to take this all in. This is a profound audio truth I
just learned. Thank you.

[Richard Crowley]

"genericaudioperson" wrote ...
The rule is to not have the microphone in the reverberant field
for sound reinforcement).
....
Keeping the mic out of the room ambience area makes perfect sense.

Or, the first time you tried to set up a reinforcement system with the
mic (ANY mic) 12 feet away, you would learn that lesson instantly.
Reading these things in a newsgroup (even if authored by the planet's
leading experts) is a poor substitute for actually going out and playing
around with a microphone, amplifier and speaker in the Real World.

I guess it helps to have a "dry" stage without a lot of reflections to
avoid mic feedback. Is that a fair extension of this idea?

No. The issue is not "reflections". The issue is sound from the
reinforcement speakers vs. the original sound you are trying to amplify.
(We are assuming you are asking about reinforcement here, not
recording, which has different rules.)

Makes no difference whether the reinforced sound is "reflected" or not.
Reflections are just ONE way of amplified sound reaching the
microphone.

Furthermore, typically, reflections are prefered by the performers and
the audience, to make the room sound "warm" (vs. "sterile", "dry",
"dead", or "cold" with no reflections.)

Now, a soundie might prefer a "dry" stage to make his job easier,
but just the opposite for the performer(s). For the same reason
that people like to sing in the shower, but not in the closet.

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 20:18:40 -0500, philper wrote
(in article
):

My point is that to most people who use "shotguns" regularly, a 416 is not a
shotgun.

I'm going to not agree with you on this point.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Richard Kuschel]

On Dec 5, 12:52 pm, wrote:
On Dec 5, 11:21 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

I run in to that problem with live PA. Someone will ask if I can just
hang some mics from the grid to pick up the kids singing. I'll tell
them, "yea, but they'll have to be 10 feet off the ground to be
anywhere near being useful for PA". They'll say, "well, can't they be
28' up, we don't want to see them?". At which point I'll have to tell
them that they might as well not have them.

Also, when a cardioid microphone is hung form a grid and pointing
straight down, its polar pattern for all prctical purposes is
omnidirectional and will be picking up all sorts of unwanted sound.
the dead part of a cardioid is at the rear and the fly loft doesn't
have a lot of sound being generated there.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Ron Capik" wrote ...
Strangely enough I just saw on the Today Show what looked
like two short shotguns and another (maybe shotgun) mic'
(hidden in a blimp) being used on a 12 man vocal ensemble,
Chanticleer. Then too, it was live TV and not a recording or
PA situation.

Might be worth noting that the mic's were well under
12 feet away and it was a studio situation.

It is *TV sound*. Since when was that a standard for ANY
kind of quality (or even best method)? The choice and placement
of the mics was likely dictated by the (video) director who didn't
want any visible hardware in his camera angles. Audio ALWAYS
takes a back-seat in live television.

I have had to make those kinds of trade-off decisions myself, but
getting good sound always trumped getting good video. You can
sell CDs with good sound and no video, but DVDs with nice pictures
and lousy sound (or no sound) aren't as popular for some reason.

I say this about TV sound: "When movies added sound, a new department was
formed to nurture it. That department exists to this day. When radio
added pictures, sound already was perfected and needed no further
attention." And I made a very good living paying it no attention. ;-)

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"