- May 11, 2011 at 1:16 am
My only experience is with a Rode NTG-3. I’m thinking of buying a Sennheiser ME-66/K6 shotgun mic for $500 for a micro budget feature film shoot. Unfortunately I can only afford one mic. The Rode was actually a more expensive mic ($700). The specs on all these different mics really don’t seem to vary that much. Maybe I should just buy a $250 Rode NTG-1. Any advice before I lay my money down?
- May 14, 2011 at 11:18 am
I own and like the audio technica 897 but they have others.
- May 17, 2011 at 11:13 am
When it comes to mics you really get what you pay for. A $1,000 mic will work that much better than a $300 one. Meaning, it will be more sensitive and have a longer reach.
You might check out used gear, too.
- May 18, 2011 at 1:28 am
There’s actually a lot of older posts similar to mine so I guess I shouldn’t have asked. Thanks for the input though. I just bought a used Sennheiser ME-66 on Ebay so I should be good.
- May 18, 2011 at 11:19 am
to get the job done professionally, you need a complement of mics and a good mixer. The ME66 is what most students use in school because it’s functional but not that great sounding. You’ll find this out after your next purchase.
- May 25, 2011 at 2:36 am
While I agree with David’s opinion, it’s all about degrees. Is my AT897 really 3x less good than a $1000 shotgun? For interviews or run and gun? In noisy situations, like on a fishing boat with a 100 horse Honda at full throttle and trying to record dialogue? I would bet good money the answer is “no”. Is the $1000 mic twice as good? Maybe. This is about satisfying the need rather than optimizing to get a perfect solution to the need. I have yet to see a shotgun that is worth paying twice what I paid for mine. Please prove me wrong. I’m talking field video production here and not optimal audio studio requirements. I’m willing and ok with being proved wrong on this. If I am, I’ll sell my AT897 tomorrow. I had a laugh out of a recent review that showed three mics, my AT897 as “budget” and others as working horse, and upper range. As if it was an Azden or something (which I also own, by the way). A throw away mic for a cheap price, but worth it if you can’t afford an At897 or better.
- May 25, 2011 at 3:20 am
Hello Al and welcome to the Field Production Forum.
Yes, sad but true. An AT 897 can be bested by a more expensive mic. You want clips, watch Pirates Of The Caribbean: End Of The World for one of, oh, hundreds of feature films. Internal dialog – Schoeps cmc641, external dialog – Sennheiser MKH 60.
Something more tame? https://www.vimeo.com/21181231
A Schoeps cmc641
I’m sorry to learn you bought an Azden and certainly the AT897 is a step up, but I encourage you not to stop there. Raise your sights again. If feature film sound recordists could make it work with an AT879, they would obviously buy one and save a lot of money. What do they have that you don’t? Experience.
Ty FordSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!
Ty, you know, I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic, nor looking for an oh so smart answer. I know the azden is crap, though frankly I’ve done a few videos with it on a 7d that turned out fine. the question I was asking was, is a $1000 shotgun three times better than a $300 at897? You answer is a bit out of line, IMHO. Quite demeaning.
Please point me to proof rather Than tell me to go watch movies that I have no idea what they used or what the gear cost.
Cow users deserve better than that.
And it’s quite irritating to see your self serving huge video ad after every post you make.
first off Ty, a quick apology if I seemed abrupt, as your answer seemed condencending, rather than helpful.
Please just point me to shoot outs rather movies.
I know these guys have “experience” over me, but they also have “budget” and can afford to buy the best specs. my question was, and is, “is it three times better?”
- May 25, 2011 at 11:56 am
‘s all right Al,
I as a forum leader over in the Audio Forum, I’m bound (literally) to tell the truth. That sometimes means the asker (or someone else) wants to kill the messenger.
I’ve been reviewing audio gear professionally for trade magazines since 1986; a lot of those reviews have been of microphones. I didn’t hear my first Schoeps until about 14 years ago. I was quite honestly shocked by the difference in that mic and pretty much any other mic I had ever heard. I bought one and then another a few years later. Once I got an ear for what it sounded like, and learned that it was the mic of choice for film dialog, I began to be able to hear it and really appreciate it.
My comment about “Pirates of The Caribbean” was based on personal experience. I was recovering from the flu. I downloaded the flick to watch on my laptop because “the big set” was in the shop. So I’m listening on MDR 7506 phones plugged into the laptop. When I hear the dialog, I start thinking, “I know that sound. That’s a Schoeps cmc641.”
Because I have made the effort to meet and enjoy the company of as many pro location recording folks as I can, I asked if anyone knew who worked that gig and what they used. Within a few days I got my answer and the affirmation was very cool.
It’s not rational, but people will spend a LOT on camera and lights and yet get the willies when they see the price of good audio gear. About the cost difference. Microphones are long term tools. Longer than most cameras. Using cost percentage differences doesn’t really tell the story. Especially if you consider that buying the right mics once means you’ll use them for decades. And, if you buy the right mics once, you don’t have to buy the wrong mics over and over until you get it right. That’s a even more expensive.
About the video with me playing guitar. You would be the second person in however many years it’s been up there, to object. The other person was also having problems with my answer. Cow owners bestowed that honor on me a few years back. I don’t even know how Kathlyn did it. BTW, the mic I used to record the guitar was a Schoeps cmc641.
Log in to reply.