Micing Conversation

[1 1 Meta 2 2 2]

Hello all .. I hope you will help if possible.

Problem:

Speakers having to talk too near the mics for solid recordings.

Goal:

Maximize flexibility of distance between speaker and mics and
amount of room/space present in recording. It's assumed
multiple mics and tracks simultaneously.

Current Middle Of The Road Solution:

Using a Shure SM57 one or so meters from speaker and another
near furtherst wall from speaker. This is 2 mics recorded
simultaneously to 2 mono tracks.

MIC -> MACKIE 1604 CHANNEL is too weak thus that channels
direct out is routed to the input of another channel's line input.
This is done for both mics.

The result of this method have been .. particularly hideous
hehehe.


haha haha ha .. ah, deranged laughter. Anyway ..

I'm currently thinking an ECM 8000 to mic the room overall and some .. snap on mics(?) similar to those used on television shows.


Thanks for your time,
Jeff

 

[lavoz]

Meta,

What you need are some lav mics. They go from the relative inexpensive kind (Radio Shack), to the more expensive Sony's. You can get wireless or hard-wired. Apart from using a really good boom, or shotgun mic, lavs are the best way to record a one-on-one interview. Good Luck!

 

[TexRoadkill]

You want tighter patterns, not an omni. An omni will give you that nice porn dialogue sound.

Get a supercardoid (shotgun) or lavs. That is how all (good) TV and Film audio is done.

PZM's are made for doing conference recording if you dont need 'in your face' sound quality. They are good for capturing the room and keeping everyone at a consistant level without any phase problems. PZM's will still give you that porno audio quality but would probably be better than an Omni.

Dont use 2 mics for speech unless you have multiple sources.

 

[Mark H.]

I'm missing the context of the conversation to be recorded, whether the speakers are moving about or not (turning to a blackboard, walking around, facing in different directions at different times, preaching in a large church), the purpose of the recording (a record, a video soundtrack, broadcast), initial and final output media (what medium are you recording to and how will you distribute copies), whether the speaker likes to hold a mic, and whether sound quality or "lack of visual intrusiveness" is more important to you and to the speaker. My response would probably be more useful to you if I knew these things.

If the objective is a clearly recorded, intelligible record of conversation that is pleasant for someone to listen to on a portable stereo or home playback unit (through speakers or headphones), then a Crown PZM mic (a 30 or 6D), driven by the phantom power available from your Mackie board and placed near the speaker, will give you outstanding results AND allow you to hear clearly (though more quietly) questions from the audience.

For highly consistent sound levels and excellent one-person intelligibility, a lapel mic (lav) is useful, but there is nothing natural about its sound, since it is placed on the speaker's chest. We're used to the sound of lavs, because they are used extensively in television news production. A high-quality alternative to the more-expensive Sony 44, 55, & 77b lavs are the Audio Technica 831b and its successors. Check your Full Compass catalog or their website for more information about the plusses and minuses of lav mics.

As the speaker becomes more interested in the sound quality of the recording, the next step up is a headworn mic, which places a tiny microphone directly in front of the speaker's mouth. Some are visually substantial; others are barely more than a stiff wire with a small enlargement at the end.

If your speaker generally speaks in one direction (as at a press conference, where the speaker is addressing a room full of reporters from a table or podium), then a high-quality gooseneck mic may be your best choice, especially if it is to be used by different speakers with differing levels of experience in using a microphone.

Finally, for those speakers who are willing to allow significant visual intrusion, and who are more concerned with the quality of the recording than with their freedom to move about, a high-quality dynamic designed for broadcast (the Electro-Voice RE20 or the Shure SM7b, for instance) becomes a natural choice. Likewise, if the speaker is a pro and willing to use a pop filter for precise mouth placement, then the sky is the limit. Even the humbly priced Marshall MXL V67M from Mars Music makes an outstanding recording mic for spoken voice in a controlled situation (and used with a good pop filter).

It's important (when you can) to educate speakers about acoustics and recording. Too many people expect studio-level sound from something invisible that allows complete freedom of movement. There's no such thing. That it appears to be possible in the movies belies the fact that just out of the frame there is a whole team of people with expensive shotgun mics on carbon fiber booms feeding $35K Nagra recorders and following the actors around like a swarm of attendants. Even if you had the resources, you couldn't do that during most public events.

I hope this general information helps.

With kind regards,

Mark H.

 

[1 1 Meta 2 2 2]

Extreme thanks for this information.

Jeff