good lavalier for gh5 interview

[IronFilm]

4 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Why use a wireless system for a (presumably) sit down interview? That seems unnecessary. 

Gets done all the time. Is very normal. 

 

3 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

You haven't yet got the budget for a decent wireless system.  It's not worth getting a cheapo one.

This.

4 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

 I use the Rodelink, which has worked very well for me.

I'd put the RodeLink though into the category of a "cheapo" one. But if I was generous, only borderline so. It is "ok ish" for some people, but it can be easy to outgrow it. 

Thus it feels like false economy to buy a RodeLink when a Sony UWP-D11 is only a couple of hundred bucks more. 

 

[newfoundmass]

46 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Gets done all the time. Is very normal. 

But why? Granted they're probably using high end systems but it seems unnecessary when you can simply use a wired connection to a recorder or the camera. 

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

If you are using a camera mounted recorder for interviews, just about any kind of alternative is going to make a noticeable improvement.  Getting the mic closer to the subject (as detailed above) is the winning strategy. 

Number 1 Rule of Thumb for Audio: get the mic closer! *
(Note: with some minor exceptions, like if a mic has a strong proximity effect, or if the actor moves a lot and the boom is locked off. But honestly most audio newbies would do less harm if they ignored these exceptions and just followed Rule #1 to the max)

Rule #2 is: kill any competing noise sources! (fridges/traffic/talking crew/background music/etc)

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

But why? Granted they're probably using high end systems but it seems unnecessary when you can simply use a wired connection to a recorder or the camera. 

Faster and less fuss. 

The number of times the interviewee will get up and walk off while still wired is many (creating at worst risk of damage to your audio gear and even camera it is wired to, and at best creating embarrassment/nuisance)

Plus with wireless you can wire up the next person before they even sit down. 

On any commercial shoot it is foolish to compromise like this to save a few pennies by going with the cheaper wired option, not unless you're some ultra ultra ultra low budget OPC social media shoot.

6 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

I now use a boom buddy and an NTG2 (which I kind of want to upgrade, but is certainly reasonable - and close to your price range, btw), with the Rodelink relegated to backup most of the time.

Yup. For long interviews of single subjects then have a locked off boom overhead with a lav as a back up.

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, Kisaha said:

For an amateur in sound, the Rodelink will deliver better than an NTG2 9 out of 10.

Maybe. Depends. 

If you're not hiding the lav? 
Then yes I'd agree with you. 

But with the most mild amount of training ever (i.e. get the boom closer!! Have it only just barely barely above the frame line, and pointed at the subject), then a NTG2 on a C stand / boom pole / boombuddy will in most typical scenarios give better sound than a hidden RodeLink lav for an average skilled OPC camera person.

Of course ideally you'll use both, and choose in post, that then reduces the risk as well of the camera person having screwed up all the audio.

7 hours ago, Kisaha said:

With the Rodelink, you just put the lavalier on a reasonable position and you are done.

 

That is waaaaaaaay waaaaaaaaay waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay underrating the craft of lav placement. 

Unless you're just using an alligator clip on the shirt and don't give a sh*t about hiding it at all. 

 

6 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

What are the reasons people are dismissive of wolfcrow?

 He seems to me to know what he is talking about and has had (apparently) enough time with several different camera models to present opinions backed up by experience.

Maybe I am missing something that is obvious to everyone else? (Wouldn't be the firs time...)

To say he puts "time" and "effort" into it would be very generous. 
Probably just hits up the Amazon search, selects a few at random to slap into a web page to then get those sweet sweet affiliate marketing dollars from suckers who share his "work".

[Mako Sports]

I have the Sony UWP D11 and it's been working wonders for me. Upgraded from the rodelinks after a few weeks lol. @IronFilm

But I'm also a big believer in audio gear. I believe I spent more on audio gear than anything else this year.

A video with bad audio is a bad video, no way around it.

[ade towell]

Every single audio person I've ever worked with has used a wired lav over wireless if possible. Higher quality recording, less chance of interference  and also a lot cheaper

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, Mako Sports said:

A video with bad audio is a bad video, no way around it.

It is a music video :-P 

 

 

15 minutes ago, ade towell said:

Every single audio person I've ever worked with has used a wired lav over wireless if possible. Higher quality recording, less chance of interference  and also a lot cheaper

There are times when wired lavs make sense (for instance I run an Aputure A.Lav straight into my G6 for my vlogs, because a) it is just for with me b) I'm lazy c) it is compact/cheap), but for most people/situations wireless makes more sense unless utterly broke. 

[IronFilm]

The Aputure A.Lav sounds the best, and is the one I use myself for lots of my YT vlogs (running straight into my Panasonic G6)

 

 

[ade towell]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

There are times when wired lavs make sense (for instance I run an Aputure A.Lav straight into my G6 for my vlogs, because a) it is just for with me b) I'm lazy c) it is compact/cheap), but for most people/situations wireless makes more sense unless utterly broke. 

Doesn't make any sense to me for the reasons I listed, have been burnt more than once from drop outs and interference with 'quality' wireless systems.If it's a sit down talking heads then wired is better quality and less risk and cheaper. What's not to like

[Mmmbeats]

Wired is ultimately better, but the convenience of wireless trumps it if you are shooting and recording yourself.  Mic up the talent, stick the transmitter in his/her pocket, and get on with the million and one other things you have to take care of.  Just do everybody a favour and take off the headphones if they pop to the loo!!!

Can see the merits of wired too though.  It's a close call.

[ade towell]

the OP was after cheap solutions 100-150 euros, you can get a decent lav for that but not a wireless system that's worth using 

[ade towell]

decent budget lavs in that price range include the standard Rode Lav (not the smartlav+), Oscar SoundTech or maybe even Countryman B3 or EMW at that price if you shop around

[Mmmbeats]

11 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

I have the Sony UWP D11 and it's been working wonders for me. Upgraded from the rodelinks after a few weeks lol. @IronFilm

 

What have you specifically enjoyed as a result of the change?  Better audio? reliability? features? 

[newfoundmass]

11 hours ago, ade towell said:

Every single audio person I've ever worked with has used a wired lav over wireless if possible. Higher quality recording, less chance of interference  and also a lot cheaper

Yeah, I've had the same experience with audio people. Granted I know that wireless will get used for these, but I can't think of a single audio person I've worked with that opted for wireless unless they needed it. 

[Mmmbeats]

The key phrase is 'worked with' ?. I'm often a one man band, so wireless takes a welcome bit of hassle off my hands if I'm rigging lights, operating camera, and talent wrangling at the same time.

Of course it can potentially introduce hassles of its own, but I've been very lucky with that so far. No drop outs or interference, save for one instance where me and another crew discovered we were running the same frequencies.

[Mako Sports]

2 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

What have you specifically enjoyed as a result of the change?  Better audio? reliability? features? 

better build quality (metal vs plastic), headphone jack built into the receiver for when i'm using a camera without a headphone jack, and significantly smaller body back. Only thing I liked about the Rode link was that there was no protruding aerial/antennae. 

[IronFilm]

13 hours ago, ade towell said:

Doesn't make any sense to me for the reasons I listed, have been burnt more than once from drop outs and interference with 'quality' wireless systems.If it's a sit down talking heads then wired is better quality and less risk and cheaper. What's not to like

If you have time to fluff around with wired cables and it won't be a nuisance for your clients, then sure, do it!

However, I'd want to ask:
Did you re-scan when you arrived?
What location was this?
Which "quality" wireless was this? (if it was G3 or lower, then it wasn't quality)
 

13 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

Wired is ultimately better, but the convenience of wireless trumps it if you are shooting and recording yourself.  Mic up the talent, stick the transmitter in his/her pocket, and get on with the million and one other things you have to take care of. 

Exactly. 

People too often forget about the practical benefits of real life shooting on actual productions. 

Heck, 95% of the TV and films you watch on the big screen probably even had their *boom mic* be wireless! Let alone the lavs as well. Because that is the real world we live in now. 

12 hours ago, ade towell said:

the OP was after cheap solutions 100-150 euros, you can get a decent lav for that but not a wireless system that's worth using 

And that was why I recommended at the start something dirt cheap like the Aputure A.Lav, and save the rest of the money for later on buying a Sony UWP-D11 in the future. (and anybody else reading this thread should go straight to that or better if they can afford it)

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

better build quality (metal vs plastic), headphone jack built into the receiver for when i'm using a camera without a headphone jack, and significantly smaller body back.

Plus a number of other benefits like option for USB powering, and true dual diversity with the receiver (unlike the G3)

4 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

Only thing I liked about the Rode link was that there was no protruding aerial/antennae. 

But with one of the tradeoffs being a VERY BULKY bodypack :-/ 

[Mako Sports]

3 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Plus a number of other benefits like option for USB powering, and true dual diversity with the receiver (unlike the G3)

 

Also true, when I travel I don't even bring a Double AA battery charger anymore. I just plug my USB Powerbank into each one the night before a shoot. 

[ade towell]

15 hours ago, IronFilm said:

If you have time to fluff around with wired cables and it won't be a nuisance for your clients, then sure, do it!

However, I'd want to ask:
Did you re-scan when you arrived?
What location was this?
Which "quality" wireless was this? (if it was G3 or lower, then it wasn't quality)
 

Exactly. 

People too often forget about the practical benefits of real life shooting on actual productions. 

Heck, 95% of the TV and films you watch on the big screen probably even had their *boom mic* be wireless! Let alone the lavs as well. Because that is the real world we live in now. 

And that was why I recommended at the start something dirt cheap like the Aputure A.Lav, and save the rest of the money for later on buying a Sony UWP-D11 in the future. (and anybody else reading this thread should go straight to that or better if they can afford it)

Sorry to harp on about this but the OP has 100-150 Euro budget and asks if he can improve the quality of the audio in his interviews. He already has a decent audio recorder and was asking if a good lav would help. My answer is yes buy a quality lav with that money and they will then have all the tools they need for recording great audio for their scenario - static interviews where a wired lav makes a lot of sense (to me).

You tell them instead that wired lavs really suck (which is ridiculous misinformation), that they haven't got enough money for a decent  wired lav so buy something cheap to tide them over (buy cheap buy twice...) and then save up for a couple of Sony wireless systems which will cost way over £1000. You've just upped the budget 1000%

Wireless definitely has its uses but that's on a different budgetry level to what we're talking about here with the OP. A wired lav that they can afford will actually provide better quality audio than your suggestion which they haven't got the budget for anyway.

I've worked with audio guys where there have been issues with Lectrosonics (gasp) as well as Sennheiser wireless. Haven't seen any using the Sony to be honest. Mainly the issues have been in large office spaces or events rooms and once in a class room - though I have no idea what the exact technical issues were (I was on camera). The sound person has always said that's the chance you take with wireless and all have extolled the virtues of using wired if they can. I am often a OMB and having had issues with Sennheiser G2 many years ago, lost trust in it and sold it on, and have used wired lavs ever since with no issues. For stationary interviews it is pretty simple to deal with a cable going from the lav to camera or audio recorder. No fluffing around, no making sure I've got wireless transmitters and receivers fully charged and turned on and at the right frequency with no drop outs or interference