[Peter Groom]

HI Jaanus
I dont have “a kit with 2 receivers” but I do have many TX and RX kits (about 10) and therefore just assign the frequencies as i need them.
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

HI Richard.
You are right, and applying a filter for the minimum amount of time is obviously the best way of using an eq for a fix.

I guess Im spoiled / lucky working in a well equipped post facility that the projects we work on warrant the spending on the toolsets, and ive always got the bits n pieces available.

Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

The problem with a filter is it takes everything at that frequency out , even the audio at that freq that needs to stay, making it sound thin etc etc.
Izotope takes the pop out, nothing else.
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

I get great results using Izotope RX as in spectral view you can see the hot frequency and just remove that audio
Wis the audio available anywhere and ill give it a try.
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

Thats correct, although Ive never seen them available as separates. Maybe but Ive not seen it.
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

HI Jaanus
You do realise that a g3 lav will only pick up 1 person on which its fitted? If thats all you need then yes you can have 2 receivers tuned to the same frequency to receive the audio, 1 at the PA and 1 at the camera. Thats perfectly ok and I do it ALL the time.

You CANT have 2 transmitters on the same freq going to 1 receiver tho, just so you know.

Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

HI
I think the high costs of the purchase of kit are the single biggest reason why the advice from me and other people on this forum often tends to suggest that film makers do one of the following.

1) Hire the kit from a kit hire company. That way you get the quality kit you want, but budget stops you from buying .

2) Hire a sound man to look after it for you.

Either of those will mean that the significant cost in buying high end quality kit will be born by others, while you get the right kit and only pay for it for a short time.

Worth considering, unless you have a real and regular need, in which case the high cost will matter less.
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

Ive not come across the Rode before, largely because they dont seem to be very high profile in the UK.
I tend to find myself using the 416 in the studio for ADR a lot as its the most likely match for field recordists (in the UK)
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

HI
Its difficult to say kit wise as I dont know which country youre in. Im in the UK and quite a lot of our kit is very different to US, eg we dont gave countryman or lectrosonics here,often recommended by US contributors.

Re the Rode. I have no experience of Rode mics so someone else will have to comment on that, but please be aware that i put “better” in commas. At that distance no mic will really reach but it will be “better” than the camera built in mics.

2) Radios. I quite like the Sennheiser G3, or the audio ltd range is pretty much the standard here in the uk, but costs a lot.
If youre single shooting, they usually can be mounted on the hot show adapter at the camera top. There should be 2 1 front for a light, 1 rear for a rx receiver.

3) I cant recommend a particular make or model, but recommend you buy
i) something of the correct impeaence. Look in the manuals tech specs for your camera. The headphone output will have an Ohms value. 8ohms or 400ohms etc. Then match your headphone choice to that.

ii) something that sits around the whole ear with soft cushions to keep external noise down.

iii) something rugged. Theyll not last long in the field if theyre not strong. I use beyer dynamic DT100s. Its down to budget, but do match the impedences of theyll not perform correctly.
Stick to a brand name youre familiar with. Sony MDRV150 arent bad for general use, but wont take much stick. I have a few pairs of them too.
Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer

[Peter Groom]

HI
What is or is not good enough or can be called “good results” is entirely down to personal expectation, but my opinion is this.

1) A shotgun mic on the top of the camera rather than using the on board mics will always give “better” results, but it will bot really pick up well at that distance. It will not be clean or crips, but will be better than the camera.

2) Recording ambient sound from the speakers or PA has never even been remotely acceptable to me regardless of what mic or position you are at from the speaker.

3) Id suggest taking a feed from the PA sound desk in addition to whatever you can do yourself, onto 1 track of the camera. I have had excellent results padding down the PA desk output by 40db and putting it into a radio transmitter , and txing that to my camera.

Pros. No cables and you get as good as the pa mics pickup

Cons. Youre relying on the operator of the desk to have the right mics open at the right time, not to just leave them all open all the time, and that he doesnt get feedback and that his mics are well suited / positioned and all work. Also batteries run out on radios, which is why a cable is ultimately better, but might not be possible if there are other people around or if you need to be mobile. But remember this is always as a backup to whatever you can do yourself.
Work on the basis that everyone else is useless and will foul it up. Then you get a nice surprise if they dont.

4) Ideally you need to get your rifle mic into the action area, within a couple or 3 feet to the speakers. A Boom op is the solution for this.

5) And ive said this before. The most important piece of kit is not the camera, or the mics or the desk, but headphones. Do wear them all the time and listen end of chain.

Cheers

Peter

Post Production Dubbing Mixer