audio equipment

the shotgun chippy suggested (rode), is not good enough? also if i ever decide to get a shotgun, how would i be able to record audio not mounted on camera?

I'm a fan of the rode, I would consider it good enough. Outside, you can pick up some background audio, but depending on where outside, it may not be an issue. Surroundings are important.

And for the second part... you'd use a boom.

Autonomous wrote in post #12328471
the shotgun chippy suggested (rode), is not good enough? also if i ever decide to get a shotgun, how would i be able to record audio not mounted on camera?

The Rode is barely a true shotgun it is more of a semi-narrow cardioid, as such it will pickup not only the person speaking it will also pick up all the background noise around it producing an echo-ish sounding audio unless you are working in a acoustically dead room or outdoors without wind.

And while it can be remoted from the camera it is an un-balanced device making it susceptible to hum and interference from cell phones when extended for any distance.

Wayne

ugh. you just changed my mind completely.
what would you recommend then?

Autonomous wrote in post #12328557
ugh. you just changed my mind completely.
what would you recommend then?

To answer that question do you want a handheld microphone, would that interfere with what you want to video or is concealment a priority?

Wayne

which is cheaper, since money is an issue.

systems can be as expensive or as inexpensive as you want, handheld mics usually start around $100 for good ones, lavs about $150.

Chippy569 wrote in post #12329325
systems can be as expensive or as inexpensive as you want, handheld mics usually start around $100 for good ones, lavs about $150.

i'll get that 150 lavs please.

linked it earlier, sony ecm-55c or something like that. Lowest price with quality I'd consider good.

would i still also need to get the juicedlink thingy as well to go with the lavs?

Autonomous wrote in post #12331972
would i still also need to get the juicedlink thingy as well to go with the lavs?

Yes.

Wayne

You'll want one lav per person talking on camera. If that's more than two, you need to use a mixer to combine all those microphone signals into one cohesive stereo pair (or go into multitrack recording but that's complicated!) The juicedlink box above can handle 2 inputs but you'll need something like this Hosa CYX-405F cable to adapt the connectors.

Channel One wrote in post #12328519
The Rode is barely a true shotgun it is more of a semi-narrow cardioid, as such it will pickup not only the person speaking it will also pick up all the background noise around it producing an echo-ish sounding audio unless you are working in a acoustically dead room or outdoors without wind.

And while it can be remoted from the camera it is an un-balanced device making it susceptible to hum and interference from cell phones when extended for any distance.

Wayne

If you were working in an acoustically dead room, you'd get dizzy in an instant and fall. Anyway, every omni thats been mentioned here is going to be far worse than the rode in terms of picking up incidental reflections. There comes a point where you say - "Good Enough". Used to use the rode for hdv production, everything from commercials to industrial films. For whats needed, it works well. Much like anything else, the tools only take you so far, how you use them is what makes all the difference in the world.

Also, balanced/unbalanced doesn't matter in terms of cell phone noise. The problem is in shielding, and the type of rf (Verizon isn't going to give you that nasty noise that an AT&T phone will).

jmg181 wrote in post #12333779
If you were working in an acoustically dead room, you'd get dizzy in an instant and fall.

By acoustically dead I am referring to an area like a production studio with 28 foot high ceilings that are flocked with a sound absorbing/fire retardant material not as in an anechoic test chamber.

However the Rode is not going to work as well in a handheld application in comparison to a standard interview microphone, the Rode is a square peg round hole application.

Completely and totally incorrect, we utilize only balanced cabling in the studio and even if the talent uses the XLR connection for the desk mounted microphone to prop their phone against (and they do) it produces no interference and that will not happen with unbalanced cabling due to the fact unbalanced cabling relies only upon on the shielding to prevent inductive interference, operates at a higher impedance which causes it to be more sensitive to external interference and the signal is carried in part by the shield, whereas a balanced cable utilizes a “balanced” twisted pair for the signal which by being twisted provides a good level of protection against inductive interference and has shielding around the twisted pair to further prevent inductive interference and also has a lower nominal impedance which provides further protection, this is one of the prime reasons only balanced cabling is used in professional studio be it a recording studio or a broadcast studio versus the consumer level unbalanced cabling commonly found in home installations.

Wayne

Channel One wrote in post #12334113
By acoustically dead I am referring to an area like a production studio with 28 foot high ceilings that are flocked with a sound absorbing/fire retardant material not as in an anechoic test chamber.

Thats fine, just wanted to point out that a studio isn't a dead environment - you need some sound bouncing off the walls to have a decent space, even in a recording environment, to sound good.

However the Rode is not going to work as well in a handheld application in comparison to a standard interview microphone, the Rode is a square peg round hole application.

I've used it quite successfully in many applications. Best scenario? Nope, but it does the trick quite nicely.

Channel One wrote in post #12334113
Completely and totally incorrect, we utilize only balanced cabling in the studio and even if the talent uses the XLR connection for the desk mounted microphone to prop their phone against (and they do) it produces no interference and that will not happen with unbalanced cabling due to the fact unbalanced cabling relies only upon on the shielding to prevent inductive interference

And.... no, that is not what balanced is.

Balanced cabling operates on the principle of differential signals, the the signal is carried over two wires with equal and opposite polarity. The reason why its superior has nothing to do with shielding vs' unbalanced audio, but by the nature of its design, inductive interference applies to both signals equal and opposite, thereby being eliminated when processed at the other end.

Cell phone noise, on the other hand, causes an entirely different type of issue, effecting the mic itself, and potentially the connectors as well. For this, actual shielding is required - much like a faraday cage. Unfortunately, shielding the mic in such a way effects its frequency response, so the use of these shielded mics is limited to primarily conference room use.

Please understand I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to correct a point. Using a balanced audio system will not eliminate cell phone noise - shielded mics or, for far less money and headache, keeping cell phones away from microphones will.