BBC Lapel MicsI do

[Bluelemmy]

I make YouTube videos which require a narration. I'm currently using a Sony ECM-MS957mic and get satisfactory results in the small room I use to record in. However, I would like a totally dry result.

 

This is difficult because I need to read the script from my computer monitor. I notice that the BBC use lapel mics in all kinds of ad hoc conditions, school classrooms, someone's home, often brick or hard walls, no sound damening. yet the sound is very dry.

 

How is this achieved?

[p.k.roberts]

Hi David,

 

There is nothing special about the personal mics the bbc uses; they are almost all standard omni mics, however the proximity to the speaker (because they are clipped on) means that the voice will be the most dominant sound source therefore minimising, but not excluding, background sound and acoustic effects of the space the contibutors are in. I don't have any experience of the mic you are using, but I note from the specs that it is a stereo mic, therfore it's pickup pattern will pick up more of the 'room'. So I think your plan of attack to achive the result you are after is two-fold; consider using a mono, cardiod (directional) mic if you have one available, and try to deaden the acousic of the room you are recording in - artfully draped duvets are probably your quickest and easiest option to try this out, you could then consider a more permanent and elegant solution if the amount of recording you are doing merits this.

[GaryNattrass]

Std BBC mic here in Glasgow is the sony ecm-77b although the sanken cos-11 and others are also in use.

 

I personally have the ECM-MS957 mic and it is a triple capsule M/S design.

 

As said it is a stereo mic but uses the M/S technique to give a stereo A/B encoded signal, you can also adjust the width of the stereo image. I tend to use it for general purpose sound effect recording or ambience but a lav mic will allow you to get a lot closer to the speaker and also use the chest cavity to add resonance to the voice.

 

Other lower cost lav mics are available and the rode ones are good value whilst still sounding good, it may also be best to get a low cost mic such as the ultradisk 4016 so you can see if it improves things. They need plug in power but I now see they also do a version for the I-fone etc: http://www.ebay.co.u...=item4d21da2a06

 

I have several of these as spares for my sennheiser radio mics and they sound quite good for the price and even though they are advertised as cardioid are actually quite omni in their pick-up.

 

You can hear them in action here:

[Oldradiohand]

For V/O work in Beta edit suites the BBC (and others) used to use Coles lip mics to overcome the noise! Listen out for that dry, slightly harsh sound on old news inserts..... A decent cardioid worked fairly close with a bit of LF roll off would be your best bet here.

[GaryNattrass]

We tend to only use coles lip mic's on sports location commentary now and the V/O mics in the edit suites are a lot better these days and tend to be cardioid condenser mic's.

[ImagineerTom]

To the OP - it's also worth remembering that even the most basic looking interview/presenter/voiceover you see on the BBC will actually involve half a dozen people all of whom are trained/experienced in getting the best out of their equipment, using equipment specifically designed for the purpose in exactly the way it performs at its optimum. A quick interview on the street will still have involved scouting the area to find the quietest location that still looks visually interesting, a sound man (or sound cameraman) with experience deciding which mic (or combination of mic's) would be best to use for this specific shoot and then all through the interview itself someone will be listening (live) through good quality headphones to make sure that the audio they're actually capturing is of good quality and where necessary stopping and adjusting things. The complete bundle (audio and video) will then be uploaded and transmitted across a high quality network that has been tuned optimally to minimise degradation of the signal and in all likelihood there will be a couple of people (or gadgets pre-programed by people) further tweaking and processing the audio before it ever reaches your TV screen. I'd argue that the specific brand of microphone used is one of the least important elements (other than making sure it's capable of capturing the quality, frequency and dynamic range of audio it needs to in this instance) and that actually the best way of getting audio "as good as the BBC" is just to do what they do - spend a lot of man-hours on setting things up properly and ensuring every link in the signal chain / capture-edit-broadcast chain is configured optimally.

 

As PK suggests above, simply switching to a more appropriate type of mic and putting some thought in to the acoustic properties of the room you're recording in will produce significantly better audio quality than just plugging in a "bbc mic" and not reassessing your capture process.

[IanSm]

To the OP - it's also worth remembering that even the most basic looking interview/presenter/voiceover you see on the BBC will actually involve half a dozen people all of whom are trained/experienced in getting the best out of their equipment, using equipment specifically designed for the purpose in exactly the way it performs at its optimum. A quick interview on the street will still have involved scouting the area to find the quietest location that still looks visually interesting, a sound man (or sound cameraman) with experience deciding which mic (or combination of mic's) would be best to use for this specific shoot and then all through the interview itself someone will be listening (live) through good quality headphones to make sure that the audio they're actually capturing is of good quality and where necessary stopping and adjusting things.

That's an exaggeration. Most ENG crews will be just a presenter and cameraman, who will do the sound as an afterthought. If it's a live feed there will probably be one other person in the satellite truck. Budgets are so tight these days that only the biggest stories will get sound recordists.

 

The complete bundle (audio and video) will then be uploaded and transmitted across a high quality network that has been tuned optimally to minimise degradation of the signal and in all likelihood there will be a couple of people (or gadgets pre-programed by people) further tweaking and processing the audio before it ever reaches your TV screen. I'd argue that the specific brand of microphone used is one of the least important elements (other than making sure it's capable of capturing the quality, frequency and dynamic range of audio it needs to in this instance) and that actually the best way of getting audio "as good as the BBC" is just to do what they do - spend a lot of man-hours on setting things up properly and ensuring every link in the signal chain / capture-edit-broadcast chain is configured optimally.

Again, that's not totally true. The choice of mic (along with the environment etc) has more effect on sound quality than anything else in the chain. This has been so for decades. For example, did you know that the majority of small satellite trucks have a cheap and cheerful Mackie mixer for sound? Purists will laugh, but the industry is more than happy with their quality.

 

Yes, obviously the exact make/model of mic is only part of the equation (there are loads of good mics available), but if the mic is of low quality, no amount of skill or gadgetry can fix that.

 

As PK suggests above, simply switching to a more appropriate type of mic and putting some thought in to the acoustic properties of the room you're recording in will produce significantly better audio quality than just plugging in a "bbc mic" and not reassessing your capture process.

 

50/50 once more. Switching to the right tool - eg an ECM77 - would give a big improvement. But yes, the acoustics do also make a difference. I don't like the idea of recording with a monitor in front of you. Your speech will reflect off the glass and be picked up by the mic causing comb-filtering effects.

 

In the end, it's the laws of physics. You want to maximise the direct sound and minimise the indirect sound (room reverb). You either (1) get the mic close to the source, (2) use a more directional mic, or (3) reduce the reverb with acoustic treatment. Option 1 is probably the easiest and cheapest.

[gyro_gearloose]

Would one of these help?

[sandall]

Getting back to the original post - the main reason broadcasters use lapel mics is so the presenter can have both hands free (by contrast, Sport tends to use heavy-duty headset mics for commentators & short shotguns for touch-line or paddock interviews). A good cardioid (with a bit of LF roll-off) will always sound better than a lapel mic (& has the advantage that it will reject most of the reflections from the monitor screen). Voice-over studios almost invariably use expensive condenser cardioids, but you probably don't have their budget.

 

You can pick up Anglepoise-type arms from about £5, or just use a simple desk-stand on a soft rubber base. If reflections are still a problem, try either gyro's suggestion, or the much cheaper alternatives from Studiospares. Make sure the mic isn't pointing straight at a wall (try to angle yourself so it is pointing nearer to a corner), & draw any curtains if you have them. p.k.r's suggestion of duvets may be worth a try, but I have recorded narrations, voice-overs & complete radio plays in people's living rooms without needing to add any additional deadening.

 

To the OP - it's also worth remembering that even the most basic looking interview/presenter/voiceover you see on the BBC will actually involve half a dozen people all of whom are trained/experienced in getting the best out of their equipment, using equipment specifically designed for the purpose in exactly the way it performs at its optimum. A quick interview on the street will still have involved scouting the area to find the quietest location that still looks visually interesting, a sound man (or sound cameraman) with experience deciding which mic (or combination of mic's) would be best to use for this specific shoot and then all through the interview itself someone will be listening (live) through good quality headphones to make sure that the audio they're actually capturing is of good quality and where necessary stopping and adjusting things. The complete bundle (audio and video) will then be uploaded and transmitted across a high quality network that has been tuned optimally to minimise degradation of the signal and in all likelihood there will be a couple of people (or gadgets pre-programed by people) further tweaking and processing the audio before it ever reaches your TV screen. I'd argue that the specific brand of microphone used is one of the least important elements (other than making sure it's capable of capturing the quality, frequency and dynamic range of audio it needs to in this instance) and that actually the best way of getting audio "as good as the BBC" is just to do what they do - spend a lot of man-hours on setting things up properly and ensuring every link in the signal chain / capture-edit-broadcast chain is configured optimally.

 

This sounds like the BBC I joined in the 1960's. These days, apart from BBC News, ITN & (maybe) Sky News, it's far more likely to be a journalist with a video-camera (no crew, certainly no headphones, & everything set to "Auto"), who will then edit their piece on a laptop. The first person with any serious sound experience to hear it will probably be a retired engineer or recordist sitting at home, & grumbling about the crap sound.

[Dave m]

The op says that it is a small room?

I am imagining the typical small home office with hard surfaces and a horrible boxy sound.

It's amazing what some drapes or a duvet chucked over a clothes airer will do.I use an ancient akg451 ck1 for vo stuff.

 

[Pete McCrea]

Walking back to the van from a meeting today, there randomly had popped up a SIS Live Satellite van with a chap doing a PTC. Sony PMW-EX1 camera, Sennheiser HD25 headphones and a Sennheiser shotgun mic were the order of the day for that job. No idea where it went after it was in the can (or should that be on the stick now?), but if you see a chap in his late 40's doing a PTC outside an Asda store, that might have been the shoot.

[the kid]

Getting back to the original post - the main reason broadcasters use lapel mics is so the presenter can have both hands free (by contrast, Sport tends to use heavy-duty headset mics for commentators & short shotguns for touch-line or paddock interviews). A good cardioid (with a bit of LF roll-off) will always sound better than a lapel mic (& has the advantage that it will reject most of the reflections from the monitor screen). Voice-over studios almost invariably use expensive condenser cardioids, but you probably don't have their budget.

 

 

 

You say that, over here everyone (no exaggeration, news, game shows, kids shows) has a headset NOT a lapel, we sent out conferences with headsets I dont think we even have lavs in stock(admittedly these are flesh tone) you will often find them with MASSIVE wind shields on, however when there is a lapel mic on, there is also a massive wind shield, I swear watching swedish bakeoff its like everyone has some questionable creature on them.

 

I did ask and they said it's simply because its closer and they get less trouble with them for live work, and easier to pack on to the person. I have never had issues with either, I way prefer lavs cause at least they look less obvious.

[sandall]

You say that, over here everyone (no exaggeration, news, game shows, kids shows) has a headset NOT a lapel, we sent out conferences with headsets I dont think we even have lavs in stock(admittedly these are flesh tone) you will often find them with MASSIVE wind shields on, however when there is a lapel mic on, there is also a massive wind shield, I swear watching swedish bakeoff its like everyone has some questionable creature on them.

 

To be fair, headsets are getting much more common over here for entertainment shows (not news), though usually with tiny wind-shields (maybe you get more wind in Sweden?)

[the kid]

I would hope that a studio is wind free!

[sandall]

I would hope that a studio is wind free!

 

Depends a bit on the air-con!