Best, Cheapest Mic for a No-Budget Filmmaker?

Hey guys,
As an aspiring filmmaker with virtually no budget, I was trying to find a good shotgun microphone that would cost around $200 or less. What are your guys' thoughts?
 
Get the Yeti from Blue and do all your dialogue as ADR. With a little mixing, it will sound better than 99% of the indie films out there that try to capture sound on set.

The sound may be better (that's debatable) but 99.99% of the time ADR performances - especially with inexperienced indie actors - lack the on-set emotional content.
 
Get the Yeti from Blue and do all your dialogue as ADR. With a little mixing, it will sound better than 99% of the indie films out there that try to capture sound on set.

Sorry but this makes no sense!? Unless you try to capture sound on set you cannot do ADR. ADR (Automatic Dialogue Replacement), as the term suggests, obviously relies on the fact there is something to replace! If there is nothing to replace then what you're talking about is dubbing and even with huge amounts of time, getting continuously accurate and believable sync is a tall order for even the most experienced pros. Additionally is the point Alcove already made, sound quality would improve but at the expense of emotion/performance.

G
 
I've only used the Sennheiser ME66 which is the workhorse of the Indie world on my shoots
with a H4N Zoom. While I'm always amazed how it captures mostly the voices of the actors,
there is still some background noise. I realize even the greatest microphone won't filter out
an overhead plane or jack hammers or barking dogs,
(1) But do higher end microphones isolate the voices even better and what would be
examples of microphones that are a step or two above the ME 66 in that aspect?

(2) How much ADR does a studio film or television series do when they shoot on-location? In
other words barring a particularly bad situation, do they get such clean audio that most of the
time that they don't need to do any ADR?
 
1. The Sennheiser MKH416 has been the main stay of professional PSMs for many years. It is more directional than an ME66 and therefore can isolate the voices better, if it's aimed more accurately. Often a mic with a slightly wider pickup pattern is preferable when shooting indoors, otherwise even more positional care is needed. It also wouldn't be common to use a 416 with a H4N, you're not going to get the full low noise performance of a pro mic from the consumer grade pre-amps in a H4N. Moving up a noticeable step is therefore going to get rather expensive.

2. There's no one answer to this question. Reality series and TV documentaries rarely have any ADR, which generally results in poorer quality, although it's generally more acceptable to audiences. The reality shows I know about though do tend to budget well for top class production sound teams. With narrative films, somewhere around 30%-40% ADR seems to be most common, although there are examples with virtually no ADR and some with nearly 100% (The Matrix for example). This is total dialogue BTW, not specifically just on-location.

G
 
Sorry but this makes no sense!? Unless you try to capture sound on set you cannot do ADR. ADR (Automatic Dialogue Replacement), as the term suggests, obviously relies on the fact there is something to replace! If there is nothing to replace then what you're talking about is dubbing and even with huge amounts of time, getting continuously accurate and believable sync is a tall order for even the most experienced pros. Additionally is the point Alcove already made, sound quality would improve but at the expense of emotion/performance.

G

Use the camera's audio as the scratch track. Syncing is not that difficult. Play back the original a few times for the actor. Record the new one onto a different track in the timeline. Keep doing it until you like the performance. Line it up by eye, then play back the line with both tracks. Shift the new one left and right until the echo goes away. Sure the performance *can* suffer, but that's where as a director I have to find creative ways to get the actor where I need them. People talk about ADR like it's rocket science, but I've done it for three features and countless shorts because I didn't have access to an experienced sound guy on set. I also knew that the majority of hollywood films are something like 80% ADR, so I figured why not go all the way. The OP asked for a cheap mic, and the Yeti with this workflow is my suggestion. I realize it's not the "right" way, but it can produce desirable results.
 
Use the camera's audio as the scratch track. Syncing is not that difficult. Play back the original a few times for the actor. Record the new one onto a different track in the timeline. Keep doing it until you like the performance. Line it up by eye, then play back the line with both tracks. Shift the new one left and right until the echo goes away.

You're right, achieving a very rough sync like this is not difficult. Unfortunately, it's also not acceptable to today's audiences. It was more acceptable to audiences for amateur films a decade or two ago and was even acceptable to a section of the paying public 40 or 50 years ago.

Sure the performance *can* suffer, but that's where as a director I have to find creative ways to get the actor where I need them.

The performance virtually always suffers and that's with very experienced top professional actors, Hollywood directors and best commercial ADR teams! What chance is there with very inexperienced amateur actors, amateur directors, no commercial ADR team and amateur/consumer equipment and facilities?

People talk about ADR like it's rocket science, but I've done it for three features and countless shorts because I didn't have access to an experienced sound guy on set.

It's not rocket science at all. It's just very detailed and tricky work which requires the right tools, experience and a great deal of time if one is to do it without degrading the quality of the film too much.

I also knew that the majority of hollywood films are something like 80% ADR, so I figured why not go all the way.

There are three problems with this statement: 1. 80% ADR would be rare, the majority are more like 40%. There are probably as many or more films with 20% ADR or lower than there are with 80% and 2. No Hollywood directors or actors like ADR or would ever chose to do ADR, it's almost always a case of the lesser of two evils and/or a last resort. A few Hollywood directors go to extreme lengths to avoid ADR. 3. What you are suggesting is not really ADR at all! It's essentially just dubbing with a guide track rather than actual ADR as employed by Hollywood. Hollywood uses specialised ADR teams with specialised pattern matching software which employ complex algorithms to subtly time-strech or compress individual phonemes or syllables in the ADR to precisely match the timing of the original production sound. This is where the "Automatic" comes from in "Automatic Dialogue Replacement"! In practice this software is not entirely accurate or without artefacts and can only handle a few words at at time, so it needs to go hand in hand with clever editing and various other manual tricks to achieve near perfect sync and requires a lot of time, knowledge and experience. Then of course is the issue of mixing this edited ADR to match with any existing production sound or to create the aural perspective to match the visuals, which again takes a lot of time, experience and resources if it is to be done convincingly. In other words, even if we were to accept your 80% figure, that would be 80% ADR, not 80% dubbed with a guide track!

The OP asked for a cheap mic, and the Yeti with this workflow is my suggestion. I realize it's not the "right" way, but it can produce desirable results.

The reason it's not the "right" way to do it is because it does NOT generally produce desirable results! Why do you think a "right" way exists? Of course this brings up the question of how we define "desirable", which is directly related to what audiences find acceptable. In North America, Britain and many other countries, what you are suggesting would not generally be acceptable and therefore would not be desirable, either by commercial standards or even by most amateur/aspiring pro standards. The cheapest, easiest and quickest way, particularly at the amateur level/aspiring pro level, of achieving what most would consider to be "desirable" results, is to do one's utmost to capture decent production sound in the first place, avoid ADR as far as possible and avoid dubbing at almost any cost!

G
 
Last edited:
My thoughts on ADR:

(1) If you ADR the entire film, it may be better than sporadic use because it will seem normal. We've
all seen bad ADR, and it can stick out like a sore thumb.
(2) You have to bring back all of the actors sometimes several months after the shoot which can
be problematic.
(3) Don't be afraid to do it. I haven't used it yet but wish I had.
(4) It can't be easy. Syncing recorded sound without a proper slate can be maddening. So
getting an actor to repeat the words exactly has to be time consuming at best.
(5) In a world of handheld viewing devices, ADR probably isn't bad. On the big screen or
even large television, that's where you'll notice it most. Your target audience may affect your
filmmaking choices.
 
Here's what it comes down to. If someone is just starting out, doesn't have a lot of money, and wants their movie to sound good, ADR for the entire film should be a consideration. If a new filmmaker drops $200 on a Rode mic or similar, they're either going to mount it to the camera, or do some sort of makeshift boom pole that sounds terrible because their friend they get to hold the pole is going to be making all sorts of noise through the pole that the mic will pick up.
The approach I've suggested is not for a pro shoot. It's for a one man band that wants his or her movie to sound good. Given the OP is asking about the best cheap mics, I'm assuming they're in the later category.

I've use this process on countless shorts, and three features. Not a single person ever complained about the dialogue. Actually, I've been told it sounds better than most indie films. Yes, it takes time later. An ADR session with my lead actor takes about 8 hours. Secondaries take 4 hours. There are time when I can't get the actor back, usually in small roles with just a few lines. In this case I'll cast someone else as the voice. My point is that it is possible for a no budget filmmaker to have their movie sound good and consistent, even when they can't afford a sound person, or the gear to do it themselves.

I am not an audio guy. I can't afford an audio guy. I'm simply a filmmaker that gets his movies made and wants them to sound the best they can with my resources.
 
Last edited:
Here's what it comes down to. If someone is just starting out, doesn't have a lot of money, and wants their movie to sound good, ADR for the entire film should be a consideration. ...
The approach I've suggested is not for a pro shoot. It's for a one man band that wants his or her movie to sound good. ... My point is that it is possible for a no budget filmmaker to have their movie sound good ...

We're effectively just going round in circles because you've just changed the word "desirable" to "sound good". Dubbing, even to a guide track, does not "sound good" or even vaguely in the ball park of "good", it sounds "poor"! The technical audio fidelity maybe better but the inevitable lip-sync errors and poor performances dramatically degrade a film. Admittedly, poor ADR performances, lip-synch anomalies and incorrect audio perspective, all of which detach an audience from the storytelling, are likely to be only a few of the miriad weaknesses in a film made by a first-time amateur filmmaker. So in the context of an otherwise very poor film anyway, the inevitable audience detachment due to dubbing is maybe not so critical if all/most of the other film crafts have been executed to a level which also detach the audience from whatever story one is trying to tell.

I am not an audio guy. I can't afford an audio guy. I'm simply a filmmaker that gets his movies made and wants them to sound the best they can with my resources.

Maybe with your resources, your approach is the best for you personally. Other people may have other resources or potential resources and other aims though. For example, by definition no budget amateur filmmakers generally can't afford an audio guy, much less pro ADR, audio post and production sound teams! Commonly they find a local amateur or aspiring pro "audio guy" who costs nothing. This approach also very rarely provides "good" or "desirable" results. However, it does provide a valuable learning experience and a path for progression to higher quality amateur filmmaking and ultimately maybe even commercial/professional filmmaking, whereas your approach does not.

(4) It can't be easy. Syncing recorded sound without a proper slate can be maddening. So
getting an actor to repeat the words exactly has to be time consuming at best.
(5) In a world of handheld viewing devices, ADR probably isn't bad. On the big screen or
even large television, that's where you'll notice it most. Your target audience may affect your filmmaking choices.

4. To be honest, it's near impossible to precisely match. Even the most experienced pro actors can't record the majority of ADR lines accurately enough to not need any timing adjustments and of course there's the problem of the more they concentrate on achieving precise timing, the less they concentrate on the performance. In my experience, it's very unusual for a director to just accept all the ADR during mixing, they'll almost always want to spend considerable time trying to salvage/revert to the production dialogue.

5. That's maybe true to an extent on say a smartphone and of course the target audience should always affect one's filmmaking choices. However, while the picture maybe small and indistinct enough on a handheld device to lessen the impact of lip-sync anomalies, many use headphones/earphones and therefore tend to be much more sensitive to audio perspective and performance nuances.

Getting "good" sound is arguably the most difficult aspect of no/tiny budget filmmaking. There is no solution or workaround without a substantial amount of equipment/facilities and experience, all of which require a substantial budget to gain or hire, so the best one can realistically aim for is sound which is not too terrible. This aim can be achieved by the filmmaker putting a similar amount of effort and budget into capturing and creating sound as they do into capturing and creating the visuals.

G
 
First off, locutus, nice username.
I'd just throw out there the Em-320e. It's cheap, and nowhere near as good quality as a professional mic, but it cleans up reasonably well, and is good to have on hand in a pinch. It's basically so cheap as far as film gear goes, that if it breaks, you're not out a fortune, but it's decent to have around. Give it a look.
 
Back
Top