[Richard Crowley]

So are you just assuming that the camera mics will not work for your application? Or have you actually tried it? Suggest not trying to select a new microphone until you know how your current setup works, and what exact problems you are trying to fix.

Doesn’t seem likely that motor noise would be a big problem with “a rap battle where the folks are within 5 feet of the camera”. The camera microphone may not be suitable, but you need to know WHY. Because any other microphone mounted ON the camera will suffer from some of the same problems and you could spend a lot of money and solve nothing.

Will these rappers be using sound equipment? Your first choice would be getting a feed from the sound system for one channel, and using an ambient mic (perhaps the one on the camera) for audience reaction, “room tone”, etc.

[Richard Crowley]

I think what you are saying is that the background noise is reduced when you lower the clip level?

Yes, using “room tone” (ambient/background sound) from a nearby clip is a good way to make the sound track more even and “natural” sounding.

[Richard Crowley]

What camera? Does your camera not already have a microphone in/on it?

If you have used the on-board microphone, what did not not like about it?

[Richard Crowley]

The most significant risk is probably that the phone (headphone) output is probably not as “clean” as the main output since it was designed only for monitoring and not for the main signal path.

OTOH, if the main output level is so low that it is causing a poor signal-to-noise ratio, then using the phone output may be the better alternative. Certainly you should try it both ways in a controlled experiment to confirm which option is better.

It doesn’t seem “normal” that the output of the receiver should be so low. It may very well be an indication that something is broken and in need of repair.

(Note that the word “phono” refers to phonograph and a different kind of connector. It is confusing when used in the wrong context.)

[Richard Crowley]

Yes, that information is from my website. Note that because the Sony intercom levels are much higher than Clearcom, we had to modify the cameraas to accomodate the higher Clearcom audio levels. This is not very feasable unless you own the cameras and are willing to do the (modest) modifications.

The more conventional approach is to use the product(s) that Clearcom makes specifically for interfacing to Sony CCUs.

The direct URL for this information is:
https://www.rcrowley.com/ComClone/SonyCCU.htm
I provided the circuit schematic diagrams we used for both the interface and the camera mods.

We use the standard Clearcom 4-pin XLR headsets (vs the tiny 4-pin 3.5mm mini-phone that Sony used.) My head-shot photo here shows me wearing a pair of relatively inexpensive Koss headphones (with boom mic) that we retro-fitted with the Clearcom 4-pin XLR connectors. They worked just fine, but they are not nearly as rugged as the ones made for professional production.

[Richard Crowley]

Mr. Ford has addressed the issue with using shotgun mics indoors (not recommended because of close reflections). And he has given you the list of preferred microphones widely used in pro video and audio production.

For people on a tighter budget, the Oktava MK012 with the hypercardioid capsule is a popular alternative. Many “indy filmmakers” like it.

Some vendors offer kits custom designed for film/video production. Here are three that I know about, but here may be others:

The Sound Room https://www.oktava.com/inc/sdetail/474

Oktava Shop https://www.oktava-shop.com/view_prod.php?id=110

Oktava USA https://www.oktavausa.com/ProductsPages/MK-012-01FilmEditon.html

The kits from the Oktava Shop and Oktava USA include a low-frequency rolloff filter. And the kit from Oktava Shop includes a foam windscreen (suitable for indoors, but not outdoors use if there is much wind. 🙂

Note that all the mics that Mr. Ford suggested, and the Oktava here require phantom power from a mixer or camcorder with XLR mic input.

[Richard Crowley]

You might want to set some budgetary limits to help people understand what (or where) you are looking.

In November and December the new Rode NTG-3 shotgun was extremely popular because vendors were selling it with a very nice blimp/fur windscreen at an extra $1. But even though the special offer has expired, the NTG-3 still appears to be a very good value for the money.

Many people shooting double-system sound on low budgets are using small digital recorders like the Zoom H4N and similar devices. If I were in the market for a small digital recorder today, I would seriously look at the Fostex FR2LE. Oade Brothers sells several good Edirol, Fostex, Marantz, Sony, Tascam models with improved mic preamps for better recording performance.

I just got a Sign Video ENG-44 mixer which appears to be a decent performing low-budget (~$500) field mixer of the more traditional form-factor. Juiced-Link also offers smaller mixers. If you are looking up-market, then Sound Devices makes some very nice mixers and digital recorders which are well regarded in the industry.

[Richard Crowley]

Setting recording levels means staying in the “Goldilocks Zone”. In other words, “not too hot and not too cold”. If your levels are too high (aka. “too hot”) then you run the very real and significant risk of clipping the signal at Full Scale. This an especially bad thing in digital recording.

At the other end, setting levels TOO LOW results in a poor signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). All equipment has noise floor levels somewhere. The noise floor is much lower in good (read: expensive) equipment, and higher in lesser equipment.

So setting recording levels from any source is a matter of keeping the signal in the comfortable zone between the noise floor and the full-scale ceiling which will chop the tops off your waveform.

Many lower-end consumer camcorders use “auto-level” which cannot be turned off, so you are stuck with it. But more sophisticated equipment allows the user to manually set the levels.

Manual level control is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing in that you CAN adjust the record level in a way suitable to what/how you are recording. OTOH, it is a curse because it REQUIRES you to make an informed judgement on where to set the recording level.

When recording music, it is NEVER appropriate to use auto-level control (ALC). ALC will suck the dynamic range out of almost ANY kind of music. OTOH, for many non-critical talking head or other speech recording, I have been known to use ALC which is switchable as an option on most higher-end cameras.

This is generic advice which applies to your specific situation, but also to most all kinds of audio recording. Of course you know that there are other factors involved with getting good sound beyond simply setting the record levels. Selecting a microphone suitable for the situation, and getting/keeping the microphone at the optimal place are also critical components.

And of course, you ALWAYS monitor your audio while shooting. Either with enclosed headphones (blocking ambient noise, etc.), or with ear-buds. Recording sound without listening to it is exactly like framing and focusing video without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

Several questions/issues not disclosed in your original question…

Is the music live? If so:
* Are all the instruments miced for recording?
(Or just for PA, or Not miced because they are acoustic?)
* Will the sound system operator give you a recording mix
(not simply a PA mix) from the board?

Is the music from recorded tracks? If so:
* Can you just get a copy (CD) of the tracks?
If so you can simply drop the tracks into the editor.
* Will the sound system operator give you a feed?
Do you have the proper cables, adapters attenuator(if needed?)

Does the dancing need to be miced?
* Is it flamenco, tap, or some sort that produces sound?
* Do the dancers make any other incidental sounds?

Do you need to produce a “live” recording with audience reaction?
* Do you have microphone(s) to mic the house/audience?

[Richard Crowley]

Power for buildings is typically budgeted in “watts per square foot”.
For example,
Basic Electrical Mechanical (1,500 to 2,000 Watts/Ton)
BldgType Watts/SF SF/Ton
Data Center 50, As Needed
Detention Facility 6, 300
Educational 6, 350
Hospital 20, 200
Hotel 6, 350
Medical Building 7, 300
Office Building 7, 300
Public Building 6, 300
High Rise Residential 4, 400
Retail 4, 300
Warehouse 2, 500

I have no first-hand experience specifying studio power. But if I had to, I would guess that a TV/film studio would be at least equivalent to the 50W/ft2 specification for a “data center” (comptuer room). That is probably on the low side for a big broadcast facility, but maybe more in line with the kind of productions you anticipate?

Your studio is 1200 ft2 * 50W = 60,000 watts = 500 Amps (@120V)
That would translate (roughly) into 25 circuits of 20A each.

Power for studios is typically rigged with long power ducts running
across the ceiling every 3-4 feet with “pigtails” hanging down to the height of the grid pipes. One pigtail per breaker. Big numbers on the power strip with the breaker number so you know what is what.

Remember that you will need an equal amount of air-conditioning to remove all that heat unless you are planning a studio in the arctic.

It would be good to have a regular (warehouse-style) lighting system at least as “work lights”, independent from the production lighting system.

You didn’t mention dimmers? Plan enough extra wall/floor space by the breaker panel and studio circuit distribution point to be able to install dimmers. If you anticipate using rented dimmers, then the drops into the studio need to plug in at the breaker panel so that you can re-plug them into the dimmer packs, etc.

277V is a typical scheme used for lighting warehouses and office buildings where they have big banks of fluorescent fixtures built in as part of the building. They are more efficient at 277V. But of course no production lighting runs on 277V, so be sure your electrical people understand that you need 120V!