Microphone for Mini-Dv camcorder.

[jackieonasses]

It has been a day or two since i have posted - due to the hype that Macworld brought.


I have a 6-month old Sony dv camera - And have been shooting more and more high-quality videos. And before i buy a $4000 dollar camera ( i am in the summer) I just want to make due for now. Do you guys have any suggestions for a pretty high-quality Microphone that will take that ridiculous tape hissing out of the mix. I don't mind what price, I would prefer cheaper but quality is more important.

kyle

 

[absolut_mac]

I have a 6-month old Sony dv camera - And have been shooting more and more high-quality videos. And before i buy a $4000 dollar camera ( i am in the summer) I just want to make due for now. Do you guys have any suggestions for a pretty high-quality Microphone that will take that ridiculous tape hissing out of the mix. I don't mind what price, I would prefer cheaper but quality is more important.

kyle

When I sold high-end stereo equipement, both Shure and Audio-Technica had a good reputation for quality mics. Check out their sites. Both of them offer good value for money, so I'm sure that one of them will have what you're looking for.

http://www.audio-technica.com/

http://www.shure.com/

 

[gwangung]

Get a shotgun mike and place it on a boom for best results (an AT-897 is an absolute minimum, but you can easily spend a lot more...the more usable ones are in the $900-$1200 range). If you're talking about a $4K camcorder, then you should be thinking about spending $1K to $1.5K on a microphone and boom set up.

 

[MacFan25863]

I've done alot of video recording of concerts and the like, and I have to say, I far prefer Shure over AT. It always seemed to be that AT tended to give you a more flat, monotone sound, while Shure gave you a much richer, fuller sound.

 

[absolut_mac]

I've done alot of video recording of concerts and the like, and I have to say, I far prefer Shure over AT. It always seemed to be that AT tended to give you a more flat, monotone sound, while Shure gave you a much richer, fuller sound.

Hmmm, I specifically didn't mention anything about the actual sound quality, because I haven't heard these products lately. So I find your comments interesting, because that's pretty much how they sounded to me 15 years ago.

Only I would have described the Shure as having a fuller more extended bass, and the AT, while offering excellent sound quality for the money, as sounding a little more *tinny* in comparison to the Shure.

The dynamic range of the Shures back then was also pretty impressive.

 

[jackieonasses]

Do you have any websites for comparison, reviews etc.? I searched for over 2 hours, and found not much of anything. I will probably just have to go down to my local shop anyways.


kyle