[Harlan Rumjahn]

It’s good to think about future proofing your gear, but also think about the possibility of actually using that in the future. I had the same thought, but ended up never using the XLR connection.

Consider getting a recorder with an XLR connection only if you plan to be using a pro mic, like a shotgun microphone, a lot. Then the recorder might come in handy. But when I bought my DR-40, I found that the ability to use the XLR connection only made the recorder larger, not as compact as I like for my compact run-n-gun package, and I never used the XLR connection.

The times I did use a shotgun I didn’t need the XLR connection. I do have the NTG 2 but, as was mentioned above, it is a very weak signal directly into a handheld recorder. For this reason I purchased an extremely good low-noise pre-amplifier which itself has an XLR input. So I run my shotgun mic into the pre-amplifier and the pre-amplifier into the non-XLR handheld recorder.

This set up works, but is kind of larger than I would like. Fortunately, for most of my situations, I don’t need to put the whole rig together.

You have to decide if you’re going to use a shotgun microphone a lot, or not. If not then I would still go with the smaller, non-XLR recorder because it will keep you lighter/smaller, which is how I understand you want to be.

If you ever in the future need to use the shotgun mic, or other pro mic that requires an XLR connection, you can always buy a pre-amp that accepts the XLR connection, or you can just purchase a hand-held recorder that has one built in. But, as has been mentioned, that set up (XLR connected mic into handheld recorder) may provide too weak a signal for some mics, and it will most likely drain your battery power quickly. My external pre-amp has its own battery supply.

The small recorders with the XLR connections are pretty cheap, so you can buy one in the future. That will be your “future proof.” Might as well have the non-XLR recorder if that is what you’re going to be using most of the time. But this is just my personal taste.

Hope this helps!

P.S. If you’re going to be capturing a crowd of people. Small omnidirectional mic(s) placed in the middle of the crowd would work well (i.e. PCM-M10). Also, you can shoot the crowd with your camera at one time, then at a different time capture the sound of a crowd. You would then go back to your editor and put the two together. No one would know 😉 That, in my opinion is often the best way: capturing the audio and video separately, so you have more control over the audio.

[Harlan Rumjahn]

I’ve done research on both the Zooms and Tascams. I also own a Tascam DR-40, after having done my research on portable audio recorders. The widely popular Zoom H4N has, unfortunately, noisy pre-amps when compared to the Tascam. The Tascam, on the other hand, is sometimes subject to a digital interference in certain environments. I haven’t figured that out yet, but it will make your audio unusable.

That being said, the small Tascam has suited me well for many years. You can use it as a type of boom mic if you attach it to the end of a boom pole or, in my case, a painter’s pole. The audio is fantastic.

However, my current recommendation is even better (for my purposes) than the Tascam. That recommendation is the Sony PCM-M10. After more research and hands-on experience, the Sony PCM-M10 is, in my humble opinion, the best portable audio recorder in its class. It is as small as a pack of cards (okay, maybe slightly larger).

I cannot stress enough how handy it is to have a recorder that is small, which you can keep with your camera at all times and move it around the environment as needed (to pick up audio at a closer distance) or to attach a lavaliere into it so the talent can carry it around easily. Or, you can use it separately to pick up foley audio for footage you took that either had poor audio capture, or audio that you didn’t like and want to redo.

The preamps on the Sony are silent, and it can be plugged directly into your camera.

What’s the catch? The catch is that it does not have XLR inputs. But, like I mentioned above, for your purposes you probably won’t be needing a XLR-connected mic, such as a shotgun mic. The small, unobtrusive camera package you’re wanting will not go too well with a shotgun mic. I’ve discovered this on my own through experience.

Another possible drawback of the Sony is that the mics are omnidirectional, which so far hasn’t posed a problem for me. In fact, I did a side-by-side comparison to the Olympus LS-14, which has cardioid mics, and the Sony still sounds better at close and long distances away, at least to my non-professional ears.

But really, you can experiment on your own and find the products that suit your needs best. Just keep in mind the shooting situations you’re intending, or else it will be easy to buy all kinds of neato gear, only to find that when you get down to it, you’ve spent a lot of money on stuff you don’t want to be hauling around with you.

One more thing, I’m not sure why you won’t be able to mic up your talent, as you said. You really should think about that. I often mic up myself, and if you have a friend you want to include in your videos, it is very easy to hand over the lav, tell him to put it on, then press record. The lav has provided me some of my best audio for my projects. In fact, if I could use one all the time I would. With the lav mic right up close to the person’s mouth, the dialogue is very clear even in noisy environments and even with inexpensive lav mics (inexpensive meaning around $150).

I hope this helps!

P.S. I haven’t heard of the new Zoom that was mentioned by another member above. I gotta check that out!

[Harlan Rumjahn]

I second the opinions of the above kind experts of the Creative Cow Audio Forum.

I’m sorry you were given such a hopeless assignment. I wouldn’t even try to improve the audio in the footage they gave you. Even the expensive and well-regarded iZotope Rx 4 Advanced won’t help. Believe me, I’ve experimented with audio not even half as bad as what you describe, and iZotope Rx barely made a difference. In altering the noise, it also alters the main sound/dialogue. In my experience, programs like iZotope are for subtle changes that need to be made in audio that was already captured pretty well.

Hand the footage back to them and tell them sorry but you can’t help. If you try to help, chances are they’ll get your work back and think you suck when, in fact, it is they who suck for giving you such garbage to work with 😉

Good luck!

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Hi Lee,

It is a good question to have. I had that same question many moons ago. The answer is pretty simple for the type of shooting you have in mind. I’ve discovered this through years of trial and error (and money spent).

I’ll leave the details up to you, but to answer your question, you should get 1) a high quality, portable digital audio recorder, and 2) a lavalier microphone that works with a small, high quality, portable digital audio recorder (or a wireless lav system, although these may be less reliable due to range and radio interference).

With those two items and the camera you already have, you will be able to make most run-n-gun, travel projects you can imagine. Of course you may need more lavs or more recorders depending on how many people will be speaking and the sounds you want to record in real time, but that’s up to you.

A shotgun mic is good if you’re going to have some planned project in which there is pre-planned positioning of talent, camera, and audio–like in making a Hollywood movie. But if it’s just you and your gear trying to catch vacations, documentaries and such on the fly, the basic tools are those I suggest above.

You can always use the handheld recorders away from the camera to capture better audio, but always have one at least nearby the camera–probably best if it is attached to it somehow, so you’re never with only video without the audio. Audio is so important! Never neglect it please.

Finally, you must have a way to sync the audio and video–every non-linear-editor (NLEs) has this ability.

These basic techniques I’ve described are most likely what everybody else is going to tell you. Where they differ is on the specific gear they use.

I hope this helps!

P.S. I think your question was appropriate to this forum. I’m not sure why someone suggested you were posting in the wrong forum.

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Hi Corrado!

I think you can try using Mocha, which comes bundled with AE. It isn’t a point tracker; it is a planar tracker. So you could outline the tire shape with their pen tool (called the “x-pline”), and it will track the entire oblong shape of the tire. No point-tracking involved. You then bring the tracking data back into the AE interface, and you should be able to attach whatever you want to it. Mocha is way more intuitive than AE.

Good luck!

Iggy

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Thank you Ty!

By the way, I enjoyed your videos on understanding shotgun vs hypercardioid microphones and the one of you playing 😉

Take care!

Until my next noob questions 😉

Harlan

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Thank you Ty,

Just to make sure I understand you, when you say low sensitivity, you’re speaking about those numbers I mentioned (-41 dB and -57 dB), right? Not the self-noise numbers, which have positive values (24 dB, 26 dB, etc.). And when you say low sensitivity you mean -57 is lower sensitivity than -41? Or is it the other way around? Those negative numbers are sometimes confusing!

Thanks again,

Harlan

[Harlan Rumjahn]

Thank you all for the welcome to the forum and your intelligent/helpful responses!

I have no technical background in audio, so forgive my basic terminology and ignorant questions. Ty, when you say sensitivity, I’m not sure how to interpret this from the specs written for each microphone, as different sites seem to have different terms to describe the same things (I think).

I may have found the answer, however, by re-reading those spec sheets. The COS-11D has a “Sensitivity” of -41dB, and the Tram TR50 has an “Output Level” of -57 dB. Am I correct in thinking the “Sensitivity” is the same thing as the “Output Level”? If so, it would appear that the COS-11D is about 16 dB more sensitive than the Tram TR50, which would explain the differences in signals.

The other spec I could find, but was not sure how to interpret, was the “Equivalent Nose Level” for the Sanken (28 dBA, A-weighted) and the “Noise Level” for the Tram TR50 (26dB equivalent SPL). If my assumption is correct, both of these specs are talking bout the same thing, in which case both mics have similar characteristics in this area, with the Sanken coming out a little worse than the Tram TR50.

With all of the above info combined, along with the difference in impedances, I think there is a reasonable explanation for the signal of the OST 802 being much less than that of the Sanken COS-11D.

Please let me know if my thinking is inaccurate.

Bruce, I am happy with the quality of the sound of the OST 802, only the signal is on the low side. I ended up adjusting the levels in post, which demonstrated the OST’s pleasing character, but I didn’t like having to raise the levels so much and possibly introduce more noise (although in my test the noise levels seemed not to be a problem).

Originally I did use the mics with my Sennheiser system, but then switched over to the PCM-M10 because of its convenience, great results, and ability to mic up more than one person without buying multiple body packs and receivers (and then having a mess on my hands attaching everything to my camera ;)). I was hoping the OST 802 worked as well as the Sanken COS-11D because I prefer the warmer sound of the OST. Hence this post–to see if I would have to live with the low levels, or if I were doing something wrong, or if the OST were somehow defective.

Thanks again guys! I get a lot of good information from you Creative Cow experts, not just about audio.

Harlan