DVeStore’s Shotgun Shootout at DVcreators.net

Share This

This is the most amazing mic comparison on the internet! Listen to a variety of shotguns and compare the sound quality right on this page!
A good quality shotgun mic will zero in and "reach" a few feet directly in front of the mic while at the same time rejecting sound from the sides. This is great for picking out just the sounds you want and is the most desirable and common microphone for DV filmmakers.
A question most new camcorder owners have is, "Which shotgun mic should I buy?" This usually happens after they shot some awesome footage, but later found that they can’t quite make out the intriguing dialogue from what was a light breeze but somehow now whips, rumbles and howls like a tornado.

The most important thing to remember in achieving high quality audio is microphone placement.
Get the mic as close as you can to the subject without getting the mic in the frame. It’s also important to "cue" or point the mic at the subject if you can and always monitor your audio through a pair of closed-eared headphones.
So if you’ve been getting bad audio, the solution is a high-quality shotgun mic, good wind protection if outdoors, and concentrate on getting that mic in as close as you can. With these few tips, your audio should improve remarkably. Remember, as George Lucas says, "Audio is 50% of your project."
Check out the Shotgun Shootout QuickTime Movies:

AUDIO TECHNICA AT897

RODE NTG-2

SENNHEISER MKH-416

SENNHEISER ME-66/K6

AUDIO TECHNICA AT4073A

RODE NT3-HYPER CARDIOID

RODE VIDEOMIC

Article found in DV Revolution Report #22, location sound gear, production and location sound.

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Elvar G
May 19th, 2006 at 2:09 pm

I’d like to see the MKH-60 in this shootout, since I’m trying to decide between that one and the the MKH-416 for indie filmmaking. Any suggestions? Thanks.
2 guy
May 19th, 2006 at 5:38 pm

The MKH-60 is a very high-end mic, yet you’ll find that the MKH-416 sounds better and costs less! Sure the 416 doesn’t have the switchable pad, low cut, and frequency boost, but will you really be tweaking those once the mic is in a blimp overhead? If you’re at the level to get the MKH-60, you might want to consider spending the extra dough on a Sound Devices field mixer instead.
3 Mark S
Jun 4th, 2006 at 4:16 pm

I wish I would have heard this before buying the ME66/K6. The Rode NT3 sounds almost as good if not better for half the cost. After using a variety of Rode products the cost/performance value is really starting to show.
4 Jake Unger
Jul 11th, 2006 at 6:39 pm

A nice test if you do all your video work in a sound studio.
How about doing that test in the field? I’m suggesting you do a test that allows everyone to hear how well the mic rejects unwanted sounds. And place the mic over head & pointing down at the speaker.
5 DC Patterson
Jul 14th, 2006 at 6:09 pm

An outdoor test would be very usefull, however, many poorly designed shotgun mics reveal their worst problems inside when walls in close proximity disable the interference tube design that makes a shotgun “directional”.

I always use a hypercardiod inside as it sounds more natural.

This current test takes place in an acoustically designed and corrected room (wich never happens on a shoot) and the mic placement does not reflect 99% of setups you are forced to encounter.

A big giveaway is the boom in shot on every clip.

Some mics have an enhanced bottom end (bass freq) to help overcome the distance you often have to mic at. We have no way of getting a handle on this in these demos because the “talent” is virtualy on top of the mic.

I appreciate that someone got the ball rolling with these tests. I think a further usefull test would be: in your parking lot on a breezy afternoon (with a proper wind/shockmount). Record a radio lavelier mic to track 2 and let us hear the benefits of using a good shotgun. Repeat test in a warehouse or bathroom with lots of hard surfaces.
6 Mike Peter Reed
Jul 26th, 2006 at 1:46 pm

What might be a nice addition apart from what has been mentioned above about field testing, is posting each mic’s specs - eg, whether they are hot or cold and what the frequency response is. Ok, I know I can (and have) googled for that info, but here you could keep it all in one place
7 Max
May 30th, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Can u add to this collection the audio technica 835b
8 B Gilbert
Oct 24th, 2007 at 5:57 pm

This is an extremely useful resource… thanks for putting it together. I’ve ALWAYS liked to listen to mics in a side-by-side comparison before using them, but don’t have those resources since our studio closed down. Of course, like everyone else, I’d love to see it expanded to include other mics or locations. I for one would like to hear this same comparison using some of the more commonly available lav mics… especially less expensive ones. (After all, you can usually expect to get great sound out of a Neumann, but can I get CLOSE to that quality without a second mortgage? And without the worrying about damage or loss in ENG situations.) Still, what you’ve done is terrific and much appreciated!
9 John Willett
Apr 18th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

I know I am posting late, but I felt I had to comment on the post that said that the MKH 416 is cheaper and sounds better than the MKH 60. The MKH 60 is vastly superior to the 416 - it is less coloured, has lower noise and lower distortion figures especially intermodulation distortion. Most people who have used the MKH 60 will never go back to a 416 as it sounds noisy and low output in comparison. In comparison it’s like going back to a blended whisky after drinking a single malt.

I have been using the MKH 20/30/40 (same series as the 60) for over 20 years and would now never use anything less.