Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
(Trying to record a music band outdoors)
Please give me some advice-
I'm thinking of digitally recording an outdoor musical performance in
late June 2008, and I am worried that some microphones are subject to
failure, or at least an unusual performance of some kind, if the
microphones - or the wire hookups - sit around baking in the sun. If
the weather is in the mid 90s F, in the shade, and even worse in direct
sunlight, should I take precautions like shading the microphones in the
shade of an umbrella or parasol? Or am I worrying about something
that's not worrying about?
I won't have access to AC current, as I'll be running off batteries;
that also means there isn't going to be an amplifying system, and the
performers will just sit around strumming their strings, or banging
their drums, or whatever. I figured that decibel alterations will be
available to me during post production editing. (Yes, there will also
be some cameras around, but I don't want to use their microphones as
they may be around 30 or 40 feet away from the performers.)
Which microphones are best for this sort of situation? I haven't
bought them yet, and noticed that some microphones are very expensive.
My budget is $800 for microphones alone (at about $150 apiece) but I
would like to divvy that up between two separate recording systems,
where each music performer has two microphones on stands, and if the
first system fails, the second system is bound to pick something up.
So that made me wonder about something I've read about - 'balanced'
audio lines. I understand that there are 3 wires inside a typical
balanced line, two of them are for audio, and a third wire between them
is a ground. Does anybody actually strip the insulation off those
things so the grounding wire can be grounded better, say, with 8 feet
of a copper rod pounded into the ground? Or is that something nobody
does?
(Trying to record a music band outdoors)
Please give me some advice-
I'm thinking of digitally recording an outdoor musical performance in
late June 2008, and I am worried that some microphones are subject to
failure, or at least an unusual performance of some kind, if the
microphones - or the wire hookups - sit around baking in the sun. If
the weather is in the mid 90s F, in the shade, and even worse in direct
sunlight, should I take precautions like shading the microphones in the
shade of an umbrella or parasol? Or am I worrying about something
that's not worrying about?
I won't have access to AC current, as I'll be running off batteries;
that also means there isn't going to be an amplifying system, and the
performers will just sit around strumming their strings, or banging
their drums, or whatever. I figured that decibel alterations will be
available to me during post production editing. (Yes, there will also
be some cameras around, but I don't want to use their microphones as
they may be around 30 or 40 feet away from the performers.)
Which microphones are best for this sort of situation? I haven't
bought them yet, and noticed that some microphones are very expensive.
My budget is $800 for microphones alone (at about $150 apiece) but I
would like to divvy that up between two separate recording systems,
where each music performer has two microphones on stands, and if the
first system fails, the second system is bound to pick something up.
So that made me wonder about something I've read about - 'balanced'
audio lines. I understand that there are 3 wires inside a typical
balanced line, two of them are for audio, and a third wire between them
is a ground. Does anybody actually strip the insulation off those
things so the grounding wire can be grounded better, say, with 8 feet
of a copper rod pounded into the ground? Or is that something nobody
does?
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
"Beta Zero" wrote in ...
> (Trying to record a music band outdoors)
>
> Please give me some advice-
>
> I'm thinking of digitally recording an outdoor musical performance in
> late June 2008, and I am worried that some microphones are subject to
> failure, or at least an unusual performance of some kind, if the
> microphones - or the wire hookups - sit around baking in the sun. If
> the weather is in the mid 90s F, in the shade, and even worse in direct
> sunlight, should I take precautions like shading the microphones in the
> shade of an umbrella or parasol? Or am I worrying about something
> that's not worrying about?
Lots of microphones are used in direct sunlight in hot places.
If you are operating in harsh conditions, then use microphones
that are made for field use. For example, dynamic mics are
likely less susceptable to either temporary or permanent
damage from ambient heat.
> I won't have access to AC current, as I'll be running off batteries;
> that also means there isn't going to be an amplifying system, and the
> performers will just sit around strumming their strings, or banging
> their drums, or whatever. I figured that decibel alterations will be
> available to me during post production editing. (Yes, there will also
> be some cameras around, but I don't want to use their microphones as
> they may be around 30 or 40 feet away from the performers.)
You didn't mention what you are recording on/with?
> Which microphones are best for this sort of situation? I haven't
> bought them yet, and noticed that some microphones are very expensive.
> My budget is $800 for microphones alone (at about $150 apiece) but I
> would like to divvy that up between two separate recording systems,
> where each music performer has two microphones on stands, and if the
> first system fails, the second system is bound to pick something up.
The old standby Shure SM57 & 58 will likely take the heat and
they are cheap enough to have 100% backup on your budget.
> So that made me wonder about something I've read about - 'balanced'
> audio lines. I understand that there are 3 wires inside a typical
> balanced line, two of them are for audio, and a third wire between them
> is a ground.
Actually, there are two wires inside (usually twisted together)
with a shield (braided wire and/or aluminum foil) around the
outside as the shield/screen.
> Does anybody actually strip the insulation off those
> things so the grounding wire can be grounded better,
No. If you need access to the ground/shield, it is available
anywhere there is a connector on either end. Stripping the
insulation permanently ruins the cable.
> say, with 8 feet of a copper rod pounded into the ground?
> Or is that something nobody does?
If you really need to ground the system, it is typically done by
going to the equipment that the cable plugs into, and connecting
its chassis to ground. But if you are shooting with battery-
operated equipment in a place without grid power, you likely
won't need to ground anything. Unless you are in the shadow of
some broadcast transmitter or something. (In which case there
would be power! :-)
Note that there is annother newsgroup where field recording
on battery power and with cameras is the "normal" setup.
news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound I'd bet that there are
some people there who have worked in extreme temperatures.
If you ask you question there, suggest a little more technical
details (like what you are recording on, etc.)
Remember that there are outdoor summer music performances
all over the planet, many without shade and melting mics is not
something one hears much about.
"Beta Zero" wrote in ...
> (Trying to record a music band outdoors)
>
> Please give me some advice-
>
> I'm thinking of digitally recording an outdoor musical performance in
> late June 2008, and I am worried that some microphones are subject to
> failure, or at least an unusual performance of some kind, if the
> microphones - or the wire hookups - sit around baking in the sun. If
> the weather is in the mid 90s F, in the shade, and even worse in direct
> sunlight, should I take precautions like shading the microphones in the
> shade of an umbrella or parasol? Or am I worrying about something
> that's not worrying about?
Lots of microphones are used in direct sunlight in hot places.
If you are operating in harsh conditions, then use microphones
that are made for field use. For example, dynamic mics are
likely less susceptable to either temporary or permanent
damage from ambient heat.
> I won't have access to AC current, as I'll be running off batteries;
> that also means there isn't going to be an amplifying system, and the
> performers will just sit around strumming their strings, or banging
> their drums, or whatever. I figured that decibel alterations will be
> available to me during post production editing. (Yes, there will also
> be some cameras around, but I don't want to use their microphones as
> they may be around 30 or 40 feet away from the performers.)
You didn't mention what you are recording on/with?
> Which microphones are best for this sort of situation? I haven't
> bought them yet, and noticed that some microphones are very expensive.
> My budget is $800 for microphones alone (at about $150 apiece) but I
> would like to divvy that up between two separate recording systems,
> where each music performer has two microphones on stands, and if the
> first system fails, the second system is bound to pick something up.
The old standby Shure SM57 & 58 will likely take the heat and
they are cheap enough to have 100% backup on your budget.
> So that made me wonder about something I've read about - 'balanced'
> audio lines. I understand that there are 3 wires inside a typical
> balanced line, two of them are for audio, and a third wire between them
> is a ground.
Actually, there are two wires inside (usually twisted together)
with a shield (braided wire and/or aluminum foil) around the
outside as the shield/screen.
> Does anybody actually strip the insulation off those
> things so the grounding wire can be grounded better,
No. If you need access to the ground/shield, it is available
anywhere there is a connector on either end. Stripping the
insulation permanently ruins the cable.
> say, with 8 feet of a copper rod pounded into the ground?
> Or is that something nobody does?
If you really need to ground the system, it is typically done by
going to the equipment that the cable plugs into, and connecting
its chassis to ground. But if you are shooting with battery-
operated equipment in a place without grid power, you likely
won't need to ground anything. Unless you are in the shadow of
some broadcast transmitter or something. (In which case there
would be power! :-)
Note that there is annother newsgroup where field recording
on battery power and with cameras is the "normal" setup.
news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound I'd bet that there are
some people there who have worked in extreme temperatures.
If you ask you question there, suggest a little more technical
details (like what you are recording on, etc.)
Remember that there are outdoor summer music performances
all over the planet, many without shade and melting mics is not
something one hears much about.
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
> "Beta Zero" wrote in ...
>> (Trying to record a music band outdoors)
>>
>> Please give me some advice-
>>
>> I'm thinking of digitally recording an outdoor musical performance
>> in late June 2008, and I am worried that some microphones are
>> subject to failure, or at least an unusual performance of some kind,
>> if the microphones - or the wire hookups - sit around baking in the
>> sun. If the weather is in the mid 90s F, in the shade, and even
>> worse in direct sunlight, should I take precautions like shading the
>> microphones in the shade of an umbrella or parasol? Or am I
>> worrying about something that's not worrying about?
>
>Lots of microphones are used in direct sunlight in hot places.
In the olden days, microphones had membranous diaphragms of some kind,
and the way these things responded to vibrations, had a lot to do with
the frequencies transmitted. I figured that a 'hot' microphone would
produce a different range of sounds than a 'cold' one.
>If you are operating in harsh conditions, then use microphones
>that are made for field use. For example, dynamic mics are
>likely less susceptable to either temporary or permanent
>damage from ambient heat.
>
>> I won't have access to AC current, as I'll be running off batteries;
>> that also means there isn't going to be an amplifying system, and
>> the performers will just sit around strumming their strings, or
>> banging their drums, or whatever. I figured that decibel
>> alterations will be available to me during post production editing.
>> (Yes, there will also be some cameras around, but I don't want to
>> use their microphones as they may be around 30 or 40 feet away from
>> the performers.)
>
>You didn't mention what you are recording on/with?
An Olympus LS-10,. Will that work? It's on order. I understood that
you can plug 4 microphones into it. The software package is iListen
for an unexpanded Mac 'mini.' I am gritting my teeth for the nerve and
reserve to buy a Marantz, it's just that it is kind of spendy, so I
have to put that off for a couple weeks. Ditto with regards to the
microphones. But all the hardware has to be in my hands by mid-June.
>> Which microphones are best for this sort of situation? I haven't
>> bought them yet, and noticed that some microphones are very
>> expensive. My budget is $800 for microphones alone (at about $150
>> apiece) but I would like to divvy that up between two separate
>> recording systems,
I.e., two microphones per performer.
>> where each music performer has two microphones on stands, and
>> if the first system fails, the second system is bound to pick
>> something up.
>
>The old standby Shure SM57 & 58 will likely take the heat and
>they are cheap enough to have 100% backup on your budget.
At a hundred bucks apiece, 8 microphones would eat up the entire
$800 budget. I was hoping the secondary microphones - attached to
the backup recording system - could be in the $50 to $60 range.
Would that be a bad idea?
<snip>
>Note that there is annother newsgroup where field recording
>on battery power and with cameras is the "normal" setup.
>news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound I'd bet that there are
>some people there who have worked in extreme temperatures.
>If you ask you question there, suggest a little more technical
>details (like what you are recording on, etc.)
>
>Remember that there are outdoor summer music performances
>all over the planet, many without shade and melting mics is not
>something one hears much about.
Speaking of recording performers outdoors, I'm worried about the
whoosh effect from wind and light breezes rustling by the microphones.
Which brand of windscreen do you think works best, or fits the best,
when it comes to the Shure 57 or 58 microphones?
> "Beta Zero" wrote in ...
>> (Trying to record a music band outdoors)
>>
>> Please give me some advice-
>>
>> I'm thinking of digitally recording an outdoor musical performance
>> in late June 2008, and I am worried that some microphones are
>> subject to failure, or at least an unusual performance of some kind,
>> if the microphones - or the wire hookups - sit around baking in the
>> sun. If the weather is in the mid 90s F, in the shade, and even
>> worse in direct sunlight, should I take precautions like shading the
>> microphones in the shade of an umbrella or parasol? Or am I
>> worrying about something that's not worrying about?
>
>Lots of microphones are used in direct sunlight in hot places.
In the olden days, microphones had membranous diaphragms of some kind,
and the way these things responded to vibrations, had a lot to do with
the frequencies transmitted. I figured that a 'hot' microphone would
produce a different range of sounds than a 'cold' one.
>If you are operating in harsh conditions, then use microphones
>that are made for field use. For example, dynamic mics are
>likely less susceptable to either temporary or permanent
>damage from ambient heat.
>
>> I won't have access to AC current, as I'll be running off batteries;
>> that also means there isn't going to be an amplifying system, and
>> the performers will just sit around strumming their strings, or
>> banging their drums, or whatever. I figured that decibel
>> alterations will be available to me during post production editing.
>> (Yes, there will also be some cameras around, but I don't want to
>> use their microphones as they may be around 30 or 40 feet away from
>> the performers.)
>
>You didn't mention what you are recording on/with?
An Olympus LS-10,. Will that work? It's on order. I understood that
you can plug 4 microphones into it. The software package is iListen
for an unexpanded Mac 'mini.' I am gritting my teeth for the nerve and
reserve to buy a Marantz, it's just that it is kind of spendy, so I
have to put that off for a couple weeks. Ditto with regards to the
microphones. But all the hardware has to be in my hands by mid-June.
>> Which microphones are best for this sort of situation? I haven't
>> bought them yet, and noticed that some microphones are very
>> expensive. My budget is $800 for microphones alone (at about $150
>> apiece) but I would like to divvy that up between two separate
>> recording systems,
I.e., two microphones per performer.
>> where each music performer has two microphones on stands, and
>> if the first system fails, the second system is bound to pick
>> something up.
>
>The old standby Shure SM57 & 58 will likely take the heat and
>they are cheap enough to have 100% backup on your budget.
At a hundred bucks apiece, 8 microphones would eat up the entire
$800 budget. I was hoping the secondary microphones - attached to
the backup recording system - could be in the $50 to $60 range.
Would that be a bad idea?
<snip>
>Note that there is annother newsgroup where field recording
>on battery power and with cameras is the "normal" setup.
>news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound I'd bet that there are
>some people there who have worked in extreme temperatures.
>If you ask you question there, suggest a little more technical
>details (like what you are recording on, etc.)
>
>Remember that there are outdoor summer music performances
>all over the planet, many without shade and melting mics is not
>something one hears much about.
Speaking of recording performers outdoors, I'm worried about the
whoosh effect from wind and light breezes rustling by the microphones.
Which brand of windscreen do you think works best, or fits the best,
when it comes to the Shure 57 or 58 microphones?
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
On May 1, 2:59 pm, Beta Zero <beta z...@spiritone . com > wrote:
> In the olden days, microphones had membranous
> diaphragms of some kind, and the way these things
> responded to vibrations, had a lot to do with
> the frequencies transmitted. I figured that a 'hot'
> microphone would produce a different range of
> sounds than a 'cold' one.
Uh, no.
The vibrations impinging on the diaphragm produce
corresponding eletrical signals. 1 kHz in, 1 kHz out,
simple as that.
If "a hot microphone produce a different range of
sounds than a cold one," you have a seriously broken
microphone: throw it out.
Microphone sensitivity, noise level and even relibility
can change with temperatire, but there's no physical
mechanism, which can cause an operating microphone
listening to one range of frequencies to change them
into some other range.
On May 1, 2:59 pm, Beta Zero <beta z...@spiritone . com > wrote:
> In the olden days, microphones had membranous
> diaphragms of some kind, and the way these things
> responded to vibrations, had a lot to do with
> the frequencies transmitted. I figured that a 'hot'
> microphone would produce a different range of
> sounds than a 'cold' one.
Uh, no.
The vibrations impinging on the diaphragm produce
corresponding eletrical signals. 1 kHz in, 1 kHz out,
simple as that.
If "a hot microphone produce a different range of
sounds than a cold one," you have a seriously broken
microphone: throw it out.
Microphone sensitivity, noise level and even relibility
can change with temperatire, but there's no physical
mechanism, which can cause an operating microphone
listening to one range of frequencies to change them
into some other range.
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail . com wrote:
> On May 1, 2:59 pm, Beta Zero <beta z...@spiritone . com > wrote:
>> In the olden days, microphones had membranous
>> diaphragms of some kind, and the way these things
>> responded to vibrations, had a lot to do with
>> the frequencies transmitted. I figured that a 'hot'
>> microphone would produce a different range of
>> sounds than a 'cold' one.
>
> Uh, no.
>
> The vibrations impinging on the diaphragm produce
> corresponding eletrical signals. 1 kHz in, 1 kHz out,
> simple as that.
>
> If "a hot microphone produce a different range of
> sounds than a cold one," you have a seriously broken
> microphone: throw it out.
>
> Microphone sensitivity, noise level and even relibility
> can change with temperatire, but there's no physical
> mechanism, which can cause an operating microphone
> listening to one range of frequencies to change them
> into some other range.
>
I don't think he's trying to say that the actual frequency in vs.
frequency out changes--just that frequency *response* could change.
I was waiting for someone more versed than I to answer this question.
Given that a lot of diaphragms are made of very thin plastic, I can
imagine that temperature might have an effect on the response. As temp
goes up, many plastics become more compliant, which would affect how
they respond to sound vibration.
I don't have any direct empirical evidence, however. I was hoping
someone else would....
jak
dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail . com wrote:
> On May 1, 2:59 pm, Beta Zero <beta z...@spiritone . com > wrote:
>> In the olden days, microphones had membranous
>> diaphragms of some kind, and the way these things
>> responded to vibrations, had a lot to do with
>> the frequencies transmitted. I figured that a 'hot'
>> microphone would produce a different range of
>> sounds than a 'cold' one.
>
> Uh, no.
>
> The vibrations impinging on the diaphragm produce
> corresponding eletrical signals. 1 kHz in, 1 kHz out,
> simple as that.
>
> If "a hot microphone produce a different range of
> sounds than a cold one," you have a seriously broken
> microphone: throw it out.
>
> Microphone sensitivity, noise level and even relibility
> can change with temperatire, but there's no physical
> mechanism, which can cause an operating microphone
> listening to one range of frequencies to change them
> into some other range.
>
I don't think he's trying to say that the actual frequency in vs.
frequency out changes--just that frequency *response* could change.
I was waiting for someone more versed than I to answer this question.
Given that a lot of diaphragms are made of very thin plastic, I can
imagine that temperature might have an effect on the response. As temp
goes up, many plastics become more compliant, which would affect how
they respond to sound vibration.
I don't have any direct empirical evidence, however. I was hoping
someone else would....
jak
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
On Thu, 1 May 2008 12:42:39 -0700, dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail . com wrote
(in article
<0c11a533-2d26-424b-a2b0-a25ab645473a@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups . com >):
> On May 1, 2:59 pm, Beta Zero <beta_z...@spiritone . com > wrote:
>> In the olden days, microphones had membranous
>> diaphragms of some kind, and the way these things
>> responded to vibrations, had a lot to do with
>> the frequencies transmitted. I figured that a 'hot'
>> microphone would produce a different range of
>> sounds than a 'cold' one.
>
> Uh, no.
>
> The vibrations impinging on the diaphragm produce
> corresponding eletrical signals. 1 kHz in, 1 kHz out,
> simple as that.
>
> If "a hot microphone produce a different range of
> sounds than a cold one," you have a seriously broken
> microphone: throw it out.
>
> Microphone sensitivity, noise level and even relibility
> can change with temperatire, but there's no physical
> mechanism, which can cause an operating microphone
> listening to one range of frequencies to change them
> into some other range.
>
I think he means that a heated diaphragm might have different frequency
response characteristics than would one at normal room temperature. For
instance, the diaphragm material might expand when warm making it more
flexible. This could alter the fundamental resonance of the diaphragm making
either more or less sensitive to frequency extremes. Bottom end might improve
at the expense of the top, or, it might bring the resonant peak down in
frequency from perhaps 16 - 17 KHz to around 12 Khz causing a hump there.
After all, most modern condenser microphone diaphragms are made of Mylar with
a metallic (usually gold) film sputtered on to it. Mylar definitely gets soft
and expands when warmed.
On Thu, 1 May 2008 12:42:39 -0700, dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail . com wrote
(in article
<0c11a533-2d26-424b-a2b0-a25ab645473a@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups . com >):
> On May 1, 2:59 pm, Beta Zero <beta_z...@spiritone . com > wrote:
>> In the olden days, microphones had membranous
>> diaphragms of some kind, and the way these things
>> responded to vibrations, had a lot to do with
>> the frequencies transmitted. I figured that a 'hot'
>> microphone would produce a different range of
>> sounds than a 'cold' one.
>
> Uh, no.
>
> The vibrations impinging on the diaphragm produce
> corresponding eletrical signals. 1 kHz in, 1 kHz out,
> simple as that.
>
> If "a hot microphone produce a different range of
> sounds than a cold one," you have a seriously broken
> microphone: throw it out.
>
> Microphone sensitivity, noise level and even relibility
> can change with temperatire, but there's no physical
> mechanism, which can cause an operating microphone
> listening to one range of frequencies to change them
> into some other range.
>
I think he means that a heated diaphragm might have different frequency
response characteristics than would one at normal room temperature. For
instance, the diaphragm material might expand when warm making it more
flexible. This could alter the fundamental resonance of the diaphragm making
either more or less sensitive to frequency extremes. Bottom end might improve
at the expense of the top, or, it might bring the resonant peak down in
frequency from perhaps 16 - 17 KHz to around 12 Khz causing a hump there.
After all, most modern condenser microphone diaphragms are made of Mylar with
a metallic (usually gold) film sputtered on to it. Mylar definitely gets soft
and expands when warmed.
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
"Beta Zero" <beta zero@spiritone . com > wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0805011145140.28045-100000@onyx.spiritone . com ...
>> "Beta Zero" wrote in ...
>>> (Trying to record a music band outdoors)
>>>
>>> Please give me some advice-
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of digitally recording an outdoor musical performance
>>> in late June 2008, and I am worried that some microphones are
>>> subject to failure, or at least an unusual performance of some kind,
>>> if the microphones - or the wire hookups - sit around baking in the
>>> sun. If the weather is in the mid 90s F, in the shade, and even
>>> worse in direct sunlight, should I take precautions like shading the
>>> microphones in the shade of an umbrella or parasol? Or am I
>>> worrying about something that's not worrying about?
>>
>>Lots of microphones are used in direct sunlight in hot places.
>
> In the olden days, microphones had membranous diaphragms of some kind,
> and the way these things responded to vibrations, had a lot to do with
> the frequencies transmitted. I figured that a 'hot' microphone would
> produce a different range of sounds than a 'cold' one.
>
>>If you are operating in harsh conditions, then use microphones
>>that are made for field use. For example, dynamic mics are
>>likely less susceptable to either temporary or permanent
>>damage from ambient heat.
>>
>>> I won't have access to AC current, as I'll be running off batteries;
>>> that also means there isn't going to be an amplifying system, and
>>> the performers will just sit around strumming their strings, or
>>> banging their drums, or whatever. I figured that decibel
>>> alterations will be available to me during post production editing.
>>> (Yes, there will also be some cameras around, but I don't want to
>>> use their microphones as they may be around 30 or 40 feet away from
>>> the performers.)
>>
>>You didn't mention what you are recording on/with?
>
> An Olympus LS-10,. Will that work? It's on order. I understood that
> you can plug 4 microphones into it. The software package is iListen
> for an unexpanded Mac 'mini.' I am gritting my teeth for the nerve and
> reserve to buy a Marantz, it's just that it is kind of spendy, so I
> have to put that off for a couple weeks. Ditto with regards to the
> microphones. But all the hardware has to be in my hands by mid-June.
>
>>> Which microphones are best for this sort of situation? I haven't
>>> bought them yet, and noticed that some microphones are very
>>> expensive. My budget is $800 for microphones alone (at about $150
>>> apiece) but I would like to divvy that up between two separate
>>> recording systems,
>
> I.e., two microphones per performer.
>
>>> where each music performer has two microphones on stands, and
>>> if the first system fails, the second system is bound to pick
>>> something up.
>>
>>The old standby Shure SM57 & 58 will likely take the heat and
>>they are cheap enough to have 100% backup on your budget.
>
> At a hundred bucks apiece, 8 microphones would eat up the entire
> $800 budget. I was hoping the secondary microphones - attached to
> the backup recording system - could be in the $50 to $60 range.
> Would that be a bad idea?
>
> <snip>
>
>>Note that there is annother newsgroup where field recording
>>on battery power and with cameras is the "normal" setup.
>>news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound I'd bet that there are
>>some people there who have worked in extreme temperatures.
>>If you ask you question there, suggest a little more technical
>>details (like what you are recording on, etc.)
>>
>>Remember that there are outdoor summer music performances
>>all over the planet, many without shade and melting mics is not
>>something one hears much about.
>
> Speaking of recording performers outdoors, I'm worried about the
> whoosh effect from wind and light breezes rustling by the microphones.
>
> Which brand of windscreen do you think works best, or fits the best,
> when it comes to the Shure 57 or 58 microphones?
>
Sounds to me like you are on the verge of spending $800 on a bunch of nearly
pro-sumer audio equipment that you most likely won't use very often, will
disappoint with quality, and is a recipe for audio disaster. Your
equipment's resale value will also be disappointing once you realize it
didn't perform as well as you had hoped.
While on the surface what you are doing may seem simple enough, you will
find that it's really more complex than you imagine to achieve quality
results.
My suggestion both for getting a quality recording and for learning more
about quality live recording would be to either hire someone with experience
and equipment or rent professional equipment along with a thorough tutorial
on how to get the best results out of it. The reason that professional
recording engineers charge what they do for their labor and equipment is
because they have already made the mistakes you are about to make!
On the other hand, if this is just a non-important hobby type of
event....give it a shot, but don't expect to achieve top notch results with
a setup and experience level you have described above.
"Beta Zero" <beta zero@spiritone . com > wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0805011145140.28045-100000@onyx.spiritone . com ...
>> "Beta Zero" wrote in ...
>>> (Trying to record a music band outdoors)
>>>
>>> Please give me some advice-
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of digitally recording an outdoor musical performance
>>> in late June 2008, and I am worried that some microphones are
>>> subject to failure, or at least an unusual performance of some kind,
>>> if the microphones - or the wire hookups - sit around baking in the
>>> sun. If the weather is in the mid 90s F, in the shade, and even
>>> worse in direct sunlight, should I take precautions like shading the
>>> microphones in the shade of an umbrella or parasol? Or am I
>>> worrying about something that's not worrying about?
>>
>>Lots of microphones are used in direct sunlight in hot places.
>
> In the olden days, microphones had membranous diaphragms of some kind,
> and the way these things responded to vibrations, had a lot to do with
> the frequencies transmitted. I figured that a 'hot' microphone would
> produce a different range of sounds than a 'cold' one.
>
>>If you are operating in harsh conditions, then use microphones
>>that are made for field use. For example, dynamic mics are
>>likely less susceptable to either temporary or permanent
>>damage from ambient heat.
>>
>>> I won't have access to AC current, as I'll be running off batteries;
>>> that also means there isn't going to be an amplifying system, and
>>> the performers will just sit around strumming their strings, or
>>> banging their drums, or whatever. I figured that decibel
>>> alterations will be available to me during post production editing.
>>> (Yes, there will also be some cameras around, but I don't want to
>>> use their microphones as they may be around 30 or 40 feet away from
>>> the performers.)
>>
>>You didn't mention what you are recording on/with?
>
> An Olympus LS-10,. Will that work? It's on order. I understood that
> you can plug 4 microphones into it. The software package is iListen
> for an unexpanded Mac 'mini.' I am gritting my teeth for the nerve and
> reserve to buy a Marantz, it's just that it is kind of spendy, so I
> have to put that off for a couple weeks. Ditto with regards to the
> microphones. But all the hardware has to be in my hands by mid-June.
>
>>> Which microphones are best for this sort of situation? I haven't
>>> bought them yet, and noticed that some microphones are very
>>> expensive. My budget is $800 for microphones alone (at about $150
>>> apiece) but I would like to divvy that up between two separate
>>> recording systems,
>
> I.e., two microphones per performer.
>
>>> where each music performer has two microphones on stands, and
>>> if the first system fails, the second system is bound to pick
>>> something up.
>>
>>The old standby Shure SM57 & 58 will likely take the heat and
>>they are cheap enough to have 100% backup on your budget.
>
> At a hundred bucks apiece, 8 microphones would eat up the entire
> $800 budget. I was hoping the secondary microphones - attached to
> the backup recording system - could be in the $50 to $60 range.
> Would that be a bad idea?
>
> <snip>
>
>>Note that there is annother newsgroup where field recording
>>on battery power and with cameras is the "normal" setup.
>>news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound I'd bet that there are
>>some people there who have worked in extreme temperatures.
>>If you ask you question there, suggest a little more technical
>>details (like what you are recording on, etc.)
>>
>>Remember that there are outdoor summer music performances
>>all over the planet, many without shade and melting mics is not
>>something one hears much about.
>
> Speaking of recording performers outdoors, I'm worried about the
> whoosh effect from wind and light breezes rustling by the microphones.
>
> Which brand of windscreen do you think works best, or fits the best,
> when it comes to the Shure 57 or 58 microphones?
>
Sounds to me like you are on the verge of spending $800 on a bunch of nearly
pro-sumer audio equipment that you most likely won't use very often, will
disappoint with quality, and is a recipe for audio disaster. Your
equipment's resale value will also be disappointing once you realize it
didn't perform as well as you had hoped.
While on the surface what you are doing may seem simple enough, you will
find that it's really more complex than you imagine to achieve quality
results.
My suggestion both for getting a quality recording and for learning more
about quality live recording would be to either hire someone with experience
and equipment or rent professional equipment along with a thorough tutorial
on how to get the best results out of it. The reason that professional
recording engineers charge what they do for their labor and equipment is
because they have already made the mistakes you are about to make!
On the other hand, if this is just a non-important hobby type of
event....give it a shot, but don't expect to achieve top notch results with
a setup and experience level you have described above.
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
Charles Tomaras wrote:
>Sounds to me like you are on the verge of spending $800 on a bunch of
>nearly pro-sumer audio equipment that you most likely won't use very
>often, will disappoint with quality, and is a recipe for audio
>disaster.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
>Your equipment's resale value will also be disappointing once you
>realize it didn't perform as well as you had hoped.
Nope, I don't plan on reselling. The next major project is an indie
movie in late August. I need some music for when the actors are
driving along in their car, and they turn on the radio. So I thought
I'd foley in some music.
>While on the surface what you are doing may seem simple enough, you
>will find that it's really more complex than you imagine to achieve
>quality results.
I want to keep the June budget down to $3,000 before I go to the
August budget, something like five to ten times that. (Sort of makes
me sound like a cheapskate, huh?)
>My suggestion both for getting a quality recording and for learning
>more about quality live recording
Well, quality live recording is in a recording room, but I don't mind a
little bit of background noise by shooting it out in a park, or some
distant location in the National Forest.
>would be to either hire someone with experience and equipment or rent
>professional equipment along with a thorough tutorial on how to get
>the best results out of it. The reason that professional recording
>engineers charge what they do for their labor and equipment is because
>they have already made the mistakes you are about to make!
Well, I have to make the mistakes sometime, and I thought, "Well, what
the heck, why not this summer?" That's why $800 on microphones,
something like $500 on a digital recorder or two (the H4 looked very
tempting), and then another $500 on hiring a band to play in some
remote location, and then a little bit more money as a slush fund,
depending on what happens.
>On the other hand, if this is just a non-important hobby type of
>event....give it a shot, but don't expect to achieve top notch
>results with a setup and experience level you have described above.
Okay.
Charles Tomaras wrote:
>Sounds to me like you are on the verge of spending $800 on a bunch of
>nearly pro-sumer audio equipment that you most likely won't use very
>often, will disappoint with quality, and is a recipe for audio
>disaster.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
>Your equipment's resale value will also be disappointing once you
>realize it didn't perform as well as you had hoped.
Nope, I don't plan on reselling. The next major project is an indie
movie in late August. I need some music for when the actors are
driving along in their car, and they turn on the radio. So I thought
I'd foley in some music.
>While on the surface what you are doing may seem simple enough, you
>will find that it's really more complex than you imagine to achieve
>quality results.
I want to keep the June budget down to $3,000 before I go to the
August budget, something like five to ten times that. (Sort of makes
me sound like a cheapskate, huh?)
>My suggestion both for getting a quality recording and for learning
>more about quality live recording
Well, quality live recording is in a recording room, but I don't mind a
little bit of background noise by shooting it out in a park, or some
distant location in the National Forest.
>would be to either hire someone with experience and equipment or rent
>professional equipment along with a thorough tutorial on how to get
>the best results out of it. The reason that professional recording
>engineers charge what they do for their labor and equipment is because
>they have already made the mistakes you are about to make!
Well, I have to make the mistakes sometime, and I thought, "Well, what
the heck, why not this summer?" That's why $800 on microphones,
something like $500 on a digital recorder or two (the H4 looked very
tempting), and then another $500 on hiring a band to play in some
remote location, and then a little bit more money as a slush fund,
depending on what happens.
>On the other hand, if this is just a non-important hobby type of
>event....give it a shot, but don't expect to achieve top notch
>results with a setup and experience level you have described above.
Okay.
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
"Beta Zero" <beta_zero@spiritone . com > wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0805012321570.16608-100000@onyx.spiritone . com ...
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>Sounds to me like you are on the verge of spending $800 on a bunch of
>>nearly pro-sumer audio equipment that you most likely won't use very
>>often, will disappoint with quality, and is a recipe for audio
>>disaster.
>
> Thanks for the vote of confidence.
>
>>Your equipment's resale value will also be disappointing once you
>>realize it didn't perform as well as you had hoped.
>
> Nope, I don't plan on reselling. The next major project is an indie
> movie in late August. I need some music for when the actors are
> driving along in their car, and they turn on the radio. So I thought
> I'd foley in some music.
>
>>While on the surface what you are doing may seem simple enough, you
>>will find that it's really more complex than you imagine to achieve
>>quality results.
>
> I want to keep the June budget down to $3,000 before I go to the
> August budget, something like five to ten times that. (Sort of makes
> me sound like a cheapskate, huh?)
>
>>My suggestion both for getting a quality recording and for learning
>>more about quality live recording
>
> Well, quality live recording is in a recording room, but I don't mind a
> little bit of background noise by shooting it out in a park, or some
> distant location in the National Forest.
>
>>would be to either hire someone with experience and equipment or rent
>>professional equipment along with a thorough tutorial on how to get
>>the best results out of it. The reason that professional recording
>>engineers charge what they do for their labor and equipment is because
>>they have already made the mistakes you are about to make!
>
> Well, I have to make the mistakes sometime, and I thought, "Well, what
> the heck, why not this summer?" That's why $800 on microphones,
> something like $500 on a digital recorder or two (the H4 looked very
> tempting), and then another $500 on hiring a band to play in some
> remote location, and then a little bit more money as a slush fund,
> depending on what happens.
>
>>On the other hand, if this is just a non-important hobby type of
>>event....give it a shot, but don't expect to achieve top notch
>>results with a setup and experience level you have described above.
>
> Okay.
Best of luck to you. You posted on a professional sound newsgroup asking for
professional opinions but apparently you are just looking for someone to
reinforce and support you in your completely inexperienced totally green
ideas about recording sound with the cheapest equipment money can buy. Print
this out and save it because if you do continue in this field and figure
things out you will look back in a number of years on this message and have
a good laugh at your naivety.
"Beta Zero" <beta_zero@spiritone . com > wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0805012321570.16608-100000@onyx.spiritone . com ...
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>Sounds to me like you are on the verge of spending $800 on a bunch of
>>nearly pro-sumer audio equipment that you most likely won't use very
>>often, will disappoint with quality, and is a recipe for audio
>>disaster.
>
> Thanks for the vote of confidence.
>
>>Your equipment's resale value will also be disappointing once you
>>realize it didn't perform as well as you had hoped.
>
> Nope, I don't plan on reselling. The next major project is an indie
> movie in late August. I need some music for when the actors are
> driving along in their car, and they turn on the radio. So I thought
> I'd foley in some music.
>
>>While on the surface what you are doing may seem simple enough, you
>>will find that it's really more complex than you imagine to achieve
>>quality results.
>
> I want to keep the June budget down to $3,000 before I go to the
> August budget, something like five to ten times that. (Sort of makes
> me sound like a cheapskate, huh?)
>
>>My suggestion both for getting a quality recording and for learning
>>more about quality live recording
>
> Well, quality live recording is in a recording room, but I don't mind a
> little bit of background noise by shooting it out in a park, or some
> distant location in the National Forest.
>
>>would be to either hire someone with experience and equipment or rent
>>professional equipment along with a thorough tutorial on how to get
>>the best results out of it. The reason that professional recording
>>engineers charge what they do for their labor and equipment is because
>>they have already made the mistakes you are about to make!
>
> Well, I have to make the mistakes sometime, and I thought, "Well, what
> the heck, why not this summer?" That's why $800 on microphones,
> something like $500 on a digital recorder or two (the H4 looked very
> tempting), and then another $500 on hiring a band to play in some
> remote location, and then a little bit more money as a slush fund,
> depending on what happens.
>
>>On the other hand, if this is just a non-important hobby type of
>>event....give it a shot, but don't expect to achieve top notch
>>results with a setup and experience level you have described above.
>
> Okay.
Best of luck to you. You posted on a professional sound newsgroup asking for
professional opinions but apparently you are just looking for someone to
reinforce and support you in your completely inexperienced totally green
ideas about recording sound with the cheapest equipment money can buy. Print
this out and save it because if you do continue in this field and figure
things out you will look back in a number of years on this message and have
a good laugh at your naivety.
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
>>>On the other hand, if this is just a non-important hobby type of
>>>event....give it a shot, but don't expect to achieve top notch
>>>results with a setup and experience level you have described above.
>>
>> Okay.
>
>
>Best of luck to you.
Thanks.
>>>On the other hand, if this is just a non-important hobby type of
>>>event....give it a shot, but don't expect to achieve top notch
>>>results with a setup and experience level you have described above.
>>
>> Okay.
>
>
>Best of luck to you.
Thanks.
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
It sounds like you've gotten the advice to get a professional for
this. I can't argue with that (especially since I'm not one).
However, being one who does this stuff for fun, I understand why you
want to do it yourself.
In that case, I don't think $800 is really enough. My advice to you
would be to rent some gear. I don't know what kind of music is being
performed, but for the conditions you describe, I'd go for a pair of
Sennheiser MKH mics. In the nature recording world, they are the goto
mics due to their robustness and extremely low noise floor. In RAMPS,
you will hear people argue the merits of Schoeps mics (well, not so
much argue as sing) and their susceptibility to humidity (that's an
actual argument). You never hear them question MKHs ability to
withstand the environment. They have a unique construction and
operation principle which helps in this area.
Which mics? I'd go with a 50 + 30, or a 40 + 30 OR 2 20's OR 2 40's.
Depends on what you're recording and how you like to record. The MS
setup of a 50/40 plus a 30, which is a hyper or cardio + a fig 8,
makes for easy location sound - tuck it in a Rycote and you're good to
go. The pair of 40s (cardios) provides many options for stereo
recording (XY, NOS, ORTF, etc) but is more difficult to for wind
protection. Which you will want. Lastly, you could do spaced omnis
with a pair of 20's.
If the next project is a movie, I'd say the 50 + 30 is the best bet,
because then you have a top of class hyper to work with for dialogue.
Oh yeah, thats assuming you can buy.
The only problem with the above plan is that we're taking $2k in mics
(at least), $600 for the wind protection, and we haven't even started
talking about recording devices. Which is why I say rent. If its for
fun, and you don't have the money, as much as a backup is nice, you're
going to have to run naked. And if you lose it, you lose it. If you
can scrape together something, go with some cheap dynamics as stated
(SM57 over a 58) and someones laptop + USB/firewire interface.
By the way, this is the exact route I took (minus the renting). I
started off with a pair of Schoeps, a couple caps, and a computer
based recording device as my first quality setup, but eventually sold
the Schoeps, obtained a small assortment of MKHs (30, 50, 60) and a
Sound Devices recorder, and now have quite a lot of fun doing film
sound, live music recording, and nature recording.
It sounds like you've gotten the advice to get a professional for
this. I can't argue with that (especially since I'm not one).
However, being one who does this stuff for fun, I understand why you
want to do it yourself.
In that case, I don't think $800 is really enough. My advice to you
would be to rent some gear. I don't know what kind of music is being
performed, but for the conditions you describe, I'd go for a pair of
Sennheiser MKH mics. In the nature recording world, they are the goto
mics due to their robustness and extremely low noise floor. In RAMPS,
you will hear people argue the merits of Schoeps mics (well, not so
much argue as sing) and their susceptibility to humidity (that's an
actual argument). You never hear them question MKHs ability to
withstand the environment. They have a unique construction and
operation principle which helps in this area.
Which mics? I'd go with a 50 + 30, or a 40 + 30 OR 2 20's OR 2 40's.
Depends on what you're recording and how you like to record. The MS
setup of a 50/40 plus a 30, which is a hyper or cardio + a fig 8,
makes for easy location sound - tuck it in a Rycote and you're good to
go. The pair of 40s (cardios) provides many options for stereo
recording (XY, NOS, ORTF, etc) but is more difficult to for wind
protection. Which you will want. Lastly, you could do spaced omnis
with a pair of 20's.
If the next project is a movie, I'd say the 50 + 30 is the best bet,
because then you have a top of class hyper to work with for dialogue.
Oh yeah, thats assuming you can buy.
The only problem with the above plan is that we're taking $2k in mics
(at least), $600 for the wind protection, and we haven't even started
talking about recording devices. Which is why I say rent. If its for
fun, and you don't have the money, as much as a backup is nice, you're
going to have to run naked. And if you lose it, you lose it. If you
can scrape together something, go with some cheap dynamics as stated
(SM57 over a 58) and someones laptop + USB/firewire interface.
By the way, this is the exact route I took (minus the renting). I
started off with a pair of Schoeps, a couple caps, and a computer
based recording device as my first quality setup, but eventually sold
the Schoeps, obtained a small assortment of MKHs (30, 50, 60) and a
Sound Devices recorder, and now have quite a lot of fun doing film
sound, live music recording, and nature recording.
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
>You posted on a professional sound newsgroup asking for professional
>opinions
You sure about that?
Can you post the charters for the relevant newsgroups offended?
>but apparently you are just looking for someone to reinforce
>and support you in your completely inexperienced totally green
>ideas about recording sound with the cheapest equipment money
>can buy.
No, I'm just trying to save money without going hogwild overboard
buying stuff. (People who skimp on buying things, tend to impress
me. They really do.)
>You posted on a professional sound newsgroup asking for professional
>opinions
You sure about that?
Can you post the charters for the relevant newsgroups offended?
>but apparently you are just looking for someone to reinforce
>and support you in your completely inexperienced totally green
>ideas about recording sound with the cheapest equipment money
>can buy.
No, I'm just trying to save money without going hogwild overboard
buying stuff. (People who skimp on buying things, tend to impress
me. They really do.)
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
"Beta Zero" <beta zero@spiritone . com > wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0805021552100.23432-100000@onyx.spiritone . com ...
> >You posted on a professional sound newsgroup asking for professional
>>opinions
>
> You sure about that?
>
> Can you post the charters for the relevant newsgroups offended?
Maybe you should preface your next round of cross posting with "I'm a novice
looking to do amatuer recording of some music in the woods."
>
>>but apparently you are just looking for someone to reinforce
>>and support you in your completely inexperienced totally green
>>ideas about recording sound with the cheapest equipment money
>>can buy.
>
> No, I'm just trying to save money without going hogwild overboard
> buying stuff. (People who skimp on buying things, tend to impress
> me. They really do.)
Ok, go for it. Buy the least amount of cheap prosumer gear you can afford,
do not heed any professional opinions and expect professional results with
sub $100 microphones, lavs hanging over stands, cheap preamps, foam
windscreens, light weight stands etc. No need to monitor in the field you'll
have two cheap mics and two cheap preamps per musician and will have someone
else mix it all later in some unnamed open source application on a Linux
box.
Please come back and cross post again to the same newsgroups and let us know
how it worked out for you.
"Beta Zero" <beta zero@spiritone . com > wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0805021552100.23432-100000@onyx.spiritone . com ...
> >You posted on a professional sound newsgroup asking for professional
>>opinions
>
> You sure about that?
>
> Can you post the charters for the relevant newsgroups offended?
Maybe you should preface your next round of cross posting with "I'm a novice
looking to do amatuer recording of some music in the woods."
>
>>but apparently you are just looking for someone to reinforce
>>and support you in your completely inexperienced totally green
>>ideas about recording sound with the cheapest equipment money
>>can buy.
>
> No, I'm just trying to save money without going hogwild overboard
> buying stuff. (People who skimp on buying things, tend to impress
> me. They really do.)
Ok, go for it. Buy the least amount of cheap prosumer gear you can afford,
do not heed any professional opinions and expect professional results with
sub $100 microphones, lavs hanging over stands, cheap preamps, foam
windscreens, light weight stands etc. No need to monitor in the field you'll
have two cheap mics and two cheap preamps per musician and will have someone
else mix it all later in some unnamed open source application on a Linux
box.
Please come back and cross post again to the same newsgroups and let us know
how it worked out for you.
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
"Charles Tomaras" wrote ...
> "Beta Zero" wrote ...
>> >You posted on a professional sound newsgroup asking for professional
>>>opinions
>>
>> You sure about that?
You appear to be the only one unsure.
>> Can you post the charters for the relevant newsgroups offended?
They are in the usual places to be viewed by anyone interested.
It appears unlikely that if we did your research for you, it would
change your attitude or behavior.
"Charles Tomaras" wrote ...
> "Beta Zero" wrote ...
>> >You posted on a professional sound newsgroup asking for professional
>>>opinions
>>
>> You sure about that?
You appear to be the only one unsure.
>> Can you post the charters for the relevant newsgroups offended?
They are in the usual places to be viewed by anyone interested.
It appears unlikely that if we did your research for you, it would
change your attitude or behavior.
Re: 90 degrees in the shade - mic failure?
"Beta Zero" wrote ...
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>Your equipment's resale value will also be disappointing once you
>>realize it didn't perform as well as you had hoped.
>
> Nope, I don't plan on reselling. The next major project is an indie
> movie in late August. I need some music for when the actors are
> driving along in their car, and they turn on the radio. So I thought
> I'd foley in some music.
Note that the kind of equipment (particularly microphones) you
need for film/video production is very different than what is best
for recording music ensembles. If I had to compromose, I think
I would buy equipment suitable for film/video production and use
it for the music/SFX collection.
"Beta Zero" wrote ...
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>>Your equipment's resale value will also be disappointing once you
>>realize it didn't perform as well as you had hoped.
>
> Nope, I don't plan on reselling. The next major project is an indie
> movie in late August. I need some music for when the actors are
> driving along in their car, and they turn on the radio. So I thought
> I'd foley in some music.
Note that the kind of equipment (particularly microphones) you
need for film/video production is very different than what is best
for recording music ensembles. If I had to compromose, I think
I would buy equipment suitable for film/video production and use
it for the music/SFX collection.
