microphone for camcorder

[Frank]

Can anyone recommend a relatively inexpensive pair of unidirectional
microphones to be used to record small theatrical productions in a
theater to a digital camcorder? Thanks

[Abemeister]

SHure KSM9's ? You may need a preamp.


On Jan 24, 1:38 pm, "Frank" > wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a relatively inexpensive pair of unidirectional
> microphones to be used to record small theatrical productions in a
> theater to a digital camcorder? Thanks

[Abemeister]

KSM9's are expensive.

SM 58's are the old standard.


On Jan 24, 1:38 pm, "Frank" > wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a relatively inexpensive pair of unidirectional
> microphones to be used to record small theatrical productions in a
> theater to a digital camcorder? Thanks

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank > wrote:
>Can anyone recommend a relatively inexpensive pair of unidirectional
>microphones to be used to record small theatrical productions in a
>theater to a digital camcorder? Thanks

No.

You can draw a triangle: directionality, low cost, and reasonable response.
You can have any two of these.

For an application like that, I would tend to recommend omnis as close as
possible to the stage. Or cardioids if you can spend a bit more money for
a good cardioid.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Abemeister > wrote:
>KSM9's are expensive.
>
>SM 58's are the old standard.

For area miking????? I cannot imagine a worse choice.
--scott

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

[Abemeister]

He said unidirectional.

On Jan 24, 2:03 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Abemeister > wrote:
> >KSM9's are expensive.
>
> >SM 58's are the old standard.For area miking????? I cannot imagine a worse choice.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Walt]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Abemeister > wrote:

>>SM 58's are the old standard.
>
> For area miking????? I cannot imagine a worse choice.

I can. But it's still a **** poor choice.

I'd vote for a Radio Shack PZM on the downstage lip of the stage,
assuming you can find one. Or something like a 635A in a mic mouse.
Maybe 2 for stereo, but maybe mono may be better.

Get the mic(s) as close to the performers as you can. If the mics are
colocated with the camera it'll sound bad no matter what you do.

//Walt

[Abemeister]

With a PZM you would hear all the stage noise as the people moved
across the stage. A **** poor choice.

I hooked up a small mixer with OMNI mikes and used a limiter. I plugged
this into my camcorder. Not High quality but it worked.


On Jan 24, 2:52 pm, Walt > wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Abemeister > wrote:
> >>SM 58's are the old standard.
>
> > For area miking????? I cannot imagine a worse choice.I can. But it's still a **** poor choice.
>
> I'd vote for a Radio Shack PZM on the downstage lip of the stage,
> assuming you can find one. Or something like a 635A in a mic mouse.
> Maybe 2 for stereo, but maybe mono may be better.
>
> Get the mic(s) as close to the performers as you can. If the mics are
> colocated with the camera it'll sound bad no matter what you do.
>
> //Walt

[Scott Dorsey]

Abemeister > wrote:
>With a PZM you would hear all the stage noise as the people moved
>across the stage. A **** poor choice.

Depends where you put it.

If you toss it on the stage, you get handling noise.

For the most part, the PZM is a one-trick pony and kind of overrated.
But for fixing slap echo problems, it's very effective.

>I hooked up a small mixer with OMNI mikes and used a limiter. I plugged
>this into my camcorder. Not High quality but it worked.

Again, it depends a lot on where you put the mikes.
--scott


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

[Walt]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> For the most part, the PZM is a one-trick pony and kind of overrated.

Agreed. A PZM on the lip of the stage is probably not how I would do it
if I was doing it myself. But for giving somebody advice over the
internet, it has the virtue of being simple, inexpensive, and relatively
foolproof.

Certainly better than sticking a pair of cardioids on the camera.

>>I hooked up a small mixer with OMNI mikes and used a limiter. I plugged
>>this into my camcorder. Not High quality but it worked.
>
> Again, it depends a lot on where you put the mikes.

Yep. And without knowing anything about the performance space or the
sound sources (is it a musical with a pit orchestra? a one-man show?
chorus lines with tap dancing? theatre in the round? actors running
around in the audience?) I can't begin to give advice about where to put
the mics - other than saying put them close to the performers.

//Walt

[Frank]

On Jan 24, 4:05 pm, Walt > wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:

> > Again, it depends a lot on where you put the mikes.Yep. And without knowing anything about the performance space or the
> sound sources (is it a musical with a pit orchestra? a one-man show?
> chorus lines with tap dancing? theatre in the round? actors running
> around in the audience?) I can't begin to give advice about where to put
> the mics - other than saying put them close to the performers.
>
> //Walt

Thank you all for your thoughts. Here's the deal. This is a small
production put on by teens. There are about 15 in the cast, no pit,
some singing with recorded music but mostly dialogue, no dancing (but
other times there will be). There is also some running down the ailes.
I volunteered to tape it and make it available to other parents on
DVD. I am going to use 2 cameras and do some editing. The sound
quality does not have to be superb and I can't spend hundreds of
dollars. I just thought I could do better than the microphone on the
camcorder. From what I am hearing, I should get omni's and put them
somewhat close to the stage. How important do you think it would be to
have 2 mics for stereo in this scenario? Also, are there impedance
matching issues with camcorders? Thanks again, Frank

[Frank]

What do you all think of doing this with a Marantz PMD 660 digital
recorder?

[Mark]

On Jan 24, 2:30 pm, Chel van Gennip > wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:38:39 +0100, Frank wrote:
> > Can anyone recommend a relatively inexpensive pair of unidirectional
> > microphones to be used to record small theatrical productions in a
> > theater to a digital camcorder?No. Audio in a (digital) camcorders normally is bad. Bad pre-amps, bad AD
> converters, bad AGC, etc.
>
> For piano recitals I use a small, stand alone, flash recorder: the
> M-Audio MT2496. I think sound could already be acceptable when you use
> the small stereo mic that comes with the device. Later on I sync the
> seperate sound track to the sound track from the camcorder.
>
I agree with this, do it both ways, use the built in mics and record
directly to tape but ALSO use your mics to record to some other device
that you have control over...the camcorder will have an AGC that will
be difficult to deal with.

Then combine them when you edit..

Mark

[Richard Crowley]

"Frank" wrote ...
> Thank you all for your thoughts. Here's the deal. This is a small
> production put on by teens. There are about 15 in the cast, no pit,
> some singing with recorded music but mostly dialogue, no dancing (but
> other times there will be). There is also some running down the ailes.
> I volunteered to tape it and make it available to other parents on
> DVD. I am going to use 2 cameras and do some editing. The sound
> quality does not have to be superb and I can't spend hundreds of
> dollars. I just thought I could do better than the microphone on the
> camcorder.

The microphone on the camera is only appropriate in 2%
of all shooting situations. Your situation is not in the 2%.

> From what I am hearing, I should get omni's and put them
> somewhat close to the stage. How important do you think it would be to
> have 2 mics for stereo in this scenario?

Is there sound reinforcement (PA) in the picture here?
Even if no reinforcement for the dialog/singing, I would
most certainly grab a feed from the sound system to
capture the recorded tracks.

Note that depending on the location and loudness of the
PA speakers, you may need to select directional mics and/
or position them for optimal pickup from the talent while
minimizing the bleed from the PA speakers, etc.

Certainly stereo would sound more natural than mono.
Also, two microphones across the stage would put any
performer closer to a mic than with just one mic.

If you are using two camcorders, I'd hook the sound on
one of them up to the PA system to capture the tracks
(or perhaps just one channel if mono, and the other
channel on an omni mic out in the audience for room
tone and audience reaction. And then your stage mics
connected to the other camcorder. That would give you
many more options to produce a more professional sound
when you edit and mix-down.

> Also, are there impedance
> matching issues with camcorders?

Typically not. However, there may be issues of levels,
balancing, plug-in-power, etc. There are commercial
products that make it easy to use professional mic
connectors (XLR) with consumer camcorders. For example,
the products made by Beachtek, etc. But many people
just connect pro mics directly to camcorders. I have
published some info about direct connections here....
http://www.rcrowley.com/CamAdapt.htm

[Abemeister]

With a mixer and a simple DA both camcorders can record
simulteaneously. Easy to do. Get some OMNI Mikes with stands. Choir
type hanging Mikes will work great.

Use Windows Movie Maker to edit. I did a great video for a church
function this way.

On Jan 24, 6:25 pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "Frank" wrote ...
>
> > Thank you all for your thoughts. Here's the deal. This is a small
> > production put on by teens. There are about 15 in the cast, no pit,
> > some singing with recorded music but mostly dialogue, no dancing (but
> > other times there will be). There is also some running down the ailes.
> > I volunteered to tape it and make it available to other parents on
> > DVD. I am going to use 2 cameras and do some editing. The sound
> > quality does not have to be superb and I can't spend hundreds of
> > dollars. I just thought I could do better than the microphone on the
> > camcorder.The microphone on the camera is only appropriate in 2%
> of all shooting situations. Your situation is not in the 2%.
>
> > From what I am hearing, I should get omni's and put them
> > somewhat close to the stage. How important do you think it would be to
> > have 2 mics for stereo in this scenario?Is there sound reinforcement (PA) in the picture here?
> Even if no reinforcement for the dialog/singing, I would
> most certainly grab a feed from the sound system to
> capture the recorded tracks.
>
> Note that depending on the location and loudness of the
> PA speakers, you may need to select directional mics and/
> or position them for optimal pickup from the talent while
> minimizing the bleed from the PA speakers, etc.
>
> Certainly stereo would sound more natural than mono.
> Also, two microphones across the stage would put any
> performer closer to a mic than with just one mic.
>
> If you are using two camcorders, I'd hook the sound on
> one of them up to the PA system to capture the tracks
> (or perhaps just one channel if mono, and the other
> channel on an omni mic out in the audience for room
> tone and audience reaction. And then your stage mics
> connected to the other camcorder. That would give you
> many more options to produce a more professional sound
> when you edit and mix-down.
>
> > Also, are there impedance
> > matching issues with camcorders?Typically not. However, there may be issues of levels,
> balancing, plug-in-power, etc. There are commercial
> products that make it easy to use professional mic
> connectors (XLR) with consumer camcorders. For example,
> the products made by Beachtek, etc. But many people
> just connect pro mics directly to camcorders. I have
> published some info about direct connections here....http://www.rcrowley.com/CamAdapt.htm

[Richard Crowley]

"Chel van Gennip" wrote ...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:47:49 +0100, Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> The sync will drift if he goes over 10 or 15 minutes. You may not have
>> that problem if you resync with each movement.

Even consumer equipment of recent vintage is typically
much better than that.

> On the website you see a 30 minute video of Modest Mussorgsky, Pictures at
> an Exhibition. Both audio and video are one take without resync. The drift
> during this take was less tan 1 frame (about a few meters measured in
> sound delay) BTW I noticed a lot of editing programs are quite sloppy on
> AV sync during conversion to web formats, but the latest video's should be
> OK.

I have also seen 20-30 minutes without noticable drift
(<3 frames) between digital cameras or digital video &
digital audio. Even the cheap 82-cent crystals used in
consumer stuff are much more stable than even pro
equipment of a previous generation. I wouldn't want
to rely on it for a high-stakes production, but usually
I am quite satisfied.

[Richard Crowley]

"Frank" wrote ...
> What do you all think of doing this with a Marantz PMD 660 digital
> recorder?

In your situation, mic selection and placement is a MUCH bigger
factor than whether you record to the camcorder or to an external
digital audio recorder.

OTOH, if you are saying that you have a camcorder(s) which don't
have audio input connectors, then by all means the audio recorder
would be prefereable.

[Meindert Sprang]

"Frank" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thank you all for your thoughts. Here's the deal. This is a small
> production put on by teens. There are about 15 in the cast, no pit,
> some singing with recorded music but mostly dialogue, no dancing (but
> other times there will be). There is also some running down the ailes.
> I volunteered to tape it and make it available to other parents on
> DVD. I am going to use 2 cameras and do some editing.

This is exactly the same situation as I have had to deal with. First time I
used four hypercardoids along the front of the stage. This will however
produce some odd phasing effects. In my latest setup, is still use four mics
along the front of the stage, but at low gain. I also have a ORTF setup in
the middle of the stage which picks up most of the performance surprisingly
good, with no phasing effects and a nice stereo image. Whenever a small
group of actors is performing on one of the sides of the stage, I increase
the gain of the closest front side mic for the duration of that act. This
means that you have to know the play in advance to do the necessary gain
riding.

The outer front mics are "looking" to the center of the stage to cancel the
better part of the PA system.

All mics are fed into a mixer, as well as the music that is played during
the performance. We send all music to one channel of the main cam, the
voices to the other channel, and they are mixed later during post
processing. Simultaneously, we record the voices and music in stereo (total
of 4 channels) using a laptop and a Presonus FireBox.
This gives us the main sound while the camera tracks can be used as backup
and sync purposes.

Meindert

[Meindert Sprang]

"Chel van Gennip" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:38:39 +0100, Frank wrote:
>
> > Can anyone recommend a relatively inexpensive pair of unidirectional
> > microphones to be used to record small theatrical productions in a
> > theater to a digital camcorder?
>
> No. Audio in a (digital) camcorders normally is bad. Bad pre-amps, bad AD
> converters, bad AGC, etc.

We use Canon XL2's which IMO record very decently and the AGC can (should)
be disabled.

Meindert

[Richard Crowley]

"Chel van Gennip" wrote...
> At $8000 listprice there are camcorders with better sound handling. I
> think a simple $350 portable flash recorder wil outperform even that
> sound
> quality. But OP was looking in the "inexpensive" segment. If you are
> using
> $8000 camcorders, more professional flash recorders like the
> Sounddevices
> http://www.sounddevices.com/products/7-features.htm might be good
> recorders.

Indeed. Even $8000 camcorders have pretty marginal
sound performance. See this magazine article for real
measurements...
http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?category=Archive&articleId=23902929

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message

> "Chel van Gennip" wrote...
>> At $8000 listprice there are camcorders with better
>> sound handling. I think a simple $350 portable flash
>> recorder wil outperform even that sound
>> quality. But OP was looking in the "inexpensive"
>> segment. If you are using
>> $8000 camcorders, more professional flash recorders like
>> the Sounddevices
>> http://www.sounddevices.com/products/7-features.htm
>> might be good recorders.
>
> Indeed. Even $8000 camcorders have pretty marginal
> sound performance. See this magazine article for real
> measurements...
> http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?category=Archive&articleId=23902929

If I understand the numbers, some of them are brilliant, while others are
merely very good.

If you've got 52 dB S/N with a signal that is 50 dB down, then you've got
102 dB dynamic range.

If you've got 58 dB S/N with a signal that is 35 dB down, then you've got 92
dB dynamic range.

If you've got 66 dB S/N with a signal that is 35 dB down, then you've got
101 dB dynamic range.

If you've got 41 dB S/N with a signal that is 50 dB down, then you've got 91
dB dynamic range.

The possible fly in this ointment in these numbers would be if they did not
reflect the effects of dynamic range compression.

[Frank]

On Jan 26, 9:20 am, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "Chel van Gennip" wrote...
> > At $8000 listprice there are camcorders with better sound handling. I
> > think a simple $350 portable flash recorder wil outperform even that
> > sound
> > quality. But OP was looking in the "inexpensive" segment. If you are
> > using
> > $8000 camcorders, more professional flash recorders like the
> > Sounddevices
> >http://www.sounddevices.com/products/7-features.htmmight be good
> > recorders.Indeed. Even $8000 camcorders have pretty marginal
> sound performance. See this magazine article for real
> measurements...http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?category=Archive&article...

Well, I just ordered the Marantz PMD 660 flash recorder for $499, the
upper limits of my budget for this project, and I will sync it with the
video from the camcorder. I may use the camcorder audio for some
ambience if necessary. I can buy better mics in the future. Does
anyone think I made a terrible mistake? Thanks for all you input.
-Frank

[Richard Crowley]

"Frank" wrote ...
> Well, I just ordered the Marantz PMD 660 flash recorder for $499, the
> upper limits of my budget for this project, and I will sync it with the
> video from the camcorder. I may use the camcorder audio for some
> ambience if necessary. I can buy better mics in the future. Does
> anyone think I made a terrible mistake? Thanks for all you input.

Sounds great to me.

[Frank]

On Jan 26, 12:43 pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
Sounds great to me.

no pun intended?

[Richard Crowley]

"Frank" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
> Sounds great to me.
>
> no pun intended?

I decided to leave the pun as optional.