Lav Audio Test Game - EX503 vs ATR3350 vs 88Pro Lav

[Aaron Shirley]

Can you guess which lav in this audio test is the 88 Pro lav, the ATR3350 and which is the EX503?

I tested the Azden EX503, Audio Technica ATR3350 and Audio Technica directional lav that came with my 88 Pro wireless system. Now I didn't do the testing with dead scientific accuracy, but I did my best to make everything the same to give a fair comparison with all three lavs. I was rushed to do the testing, but at least it gives a good idea how each lav performs in each situation. I would have loved to add an H1 to this mix as well as an Azden wireless system to really see the differences in each. To note, all three lavs sounded much differently plugged directly into the HV30 as apposed to the 88 Pro transmitter. I was surprised more than once in this test.

In all tests, I set the HV30 in manual mode and adjusted the audio level set at -12db with the green indicator under the meter. The ATT was on for all tests, and each lav was placed in the exact same spot on my shirt.

I did 4 separate tests.

1). with all 3 lavs plugged into the 88 Pro wireless system indoors in a small room in my home;
2). with all three lavs plugged directly into the HV30 indoors in the same room, same spot;
3). with all 3 lavs plugged into the 88 Pro wireless system outdoors in a parking lot at work;
4). with all three lavs plugged directly into the HV30 outdoors in the same spot in the parking lot;

In post I did the exact same process to all clips to be fair. I normalized each clip, set my hard limit to -4db, and added one preset rack "remove hiss". I did the remove hiss on all clips indoors and out as well, even though the hiss wasn't that noticeable outdoors. I wanted all clips to be processed exactly the same for the best comparison.

I forgot only once to yell to peak the audio in one clip. I titled each lav with a number only so you guys can guess which lav is which

Here is the audio lav test - woohoo:



So, which lav is which???

[Erik Bien]

I don't know any of those mics well enough to tell which is which, but #2 is definitely my favorite.

[drapeama]

I don't know any of those mics well enough to tell which is which, but #2 is definitely my favorite.

I'm with you here, but as I own the Azden 503, and I think it's a great lav which sounds great too, I'll say that the #2 is the Azden EX-503 Lavalier.

[HueyNRolf]

I think #2 is the 3350. It has a crisper top, but seems to pick up more noise on one of the outdoor tests.

All three sound a bit woolen to me. I wonder if that hiss remover caused this?

[Janke]

Sorry to say, the recording levels were a bit too different - you really should have adjusted them to be as similar as possible. That's what you'd do in "real life", i.e. set the proper volume, not compare them...

Furthermore, your wireless introduced a lot of hiss, so I will disregard those tests, assuming they don't truly represent the microphones alone.

Is that a typo at 1:35? Indoor instead of outdoor?

Lav 2 sounds best indoors on the HV30. The volume difference outside was too large (different distance to mic, or different setting?) for me to decide which is best. Also, was the ambient noise always the same, or did the traffic change? (Sounded a bit like that...)

[Aaron Shirley]

Huey, the hiss remover rack wouldn't cause any drastic change to the audio, as it was very light. It could have a slight effect on the audio though.

Janke, yes that is a typo, thanks. Good eye. It should read "outdoor".

The test was definitely not ideal. The indoor and outdoor test cannot be compared as I pointed out in the other thread. I did the indoor test in the middle of the night in dead silence with a very quiet voice, as my kids were sleeping in the next room. I spoke much louder in the outdoor test naturally with the noise from outdoors in a parking lot. Not much vehicular traffic close to me, but a busy road not too far away. To top it all off, I had 5 minutes to run out to my truck to do all the testing, and not much more time indoors. I wish I had more time with the 3350 before I gave it to my client. I learned a bit from this test in post. The lavs were all in the same exact spot and the settings identical for all lavs. Each lav had drastic differences in levels, and that changed again when plugged into the wireless system.

I think the introduction of the wireless system is confusing, as each lav sounded much different and levels were also very different for the same lav through the transmitter.

Janke, you bring up a good point about levels in real life. I would adjust the levels for each lav in real life to compensate for the difference. But I thought in a study or test that everything should be set the same for comparison, as changing the levels to suit each lav would skew the test results, no?

The good thing is, I ordered a second 3350 for my client and a stereo to mono Y cable, so I may get another opportunity to do one quick test again this weekend if I get the lav by Saturday. I hope the 503 will work plugged into the splitter direct into the HV30.

If I get a chance to do the test again, I will not use the wireless system, as that changed everything too drastically and causes confusion. I will not have to use the hiss remover as well. It was interesting to see the difference in how some lavs sounded completely differently through the transmitter though. I didn't expect that. At least I learned which lav works best with my 88 Pro wireless system, the Azden EX503.

So if I get a chance to do the test again soon, should I adjust the levels for each lav so they are all close on the meter or leave the settings the same? What is the general consensus on this?

[HueyNRolf]

So if I get a chance to do the test again soon, should I adjust the levels for each lav so they are all close on the meter or leave the settings the same? What is the general consensus on this?

You should set the gain for each of them at -12db (peak). Do a soundcheck and adjust the gain accordingly. This should compensate for variations in signal.

Oh and which one is which in the test?

[Aaron Shirley]

Lav 1 = ATR3350
Lav 2 = AT 88Pro
Lav 3 = EX503

FYI the very last outdoor test direct into the HV30 is the closest to what you guys are looking for in a lav test (I wouldn't have had to adjust levels much). Only the last outdoor test plugged directly into the HV30.

If I get the 3350 this Sat, I will do another test, but only plugged directly into the HV30 and set the levels for -12db peak for my speaking voice. I will not do anything in post other than normalize and set the hard limit for -4db, and only test the 3350 and 503.

I did notice a few things with the test I did. The 3350 sounded bad with the wireless transmitter and omitted a bad hiss. The levels also changed dramatically lower for some reason with the same settings. The 3350 sounded good and clean plugged directly into the HV30. Levels were much higher as well. I would never use this lav with my 88Pro, but it works great direct into the camcorder.

The 88Pro directional lav sounded good in this test for some reason, although some parts on the test (that wasn't in the video) sounded like it normally does. I have no idea why it changes like this without changing any settings, and I'm still scratching my head on this one. One thing I noticed is that is sounds better plugged direct into the HV30 than it does the wireless kit it came with. It is much less sensitive and the levels were a bit lower direct into the HV30 as well as more consistent.

The EX503 was the most consistent sounding lav, and also the most consistent with levels. Overall the EX503 sounded better and more consistent plugged into the wireless 88Pro than the original 88Pro lav.

After some thought, isn't a test between the EX503 and ATR3350 plugged directly into the HV30 irrelevant? Isn't the 3350 designed to work directly into a camcorder, while the 503 with a wireless kit or recorder? Apples to oranges, no? If you wouldn't use the 3350 with a wireless kit or recorder, or the 503 direct into the camcorder, what would be the point of this test? Do people use the 3350 with a recorder? If so, now that would be the only test worthwhile for a real life situation, no?

[cgbier]

Do people use the 3350 with a recorder?

I use mine with an H1.

[Janke]

Do people use the 3350 with a recorder?

I haven't tried it yet, but I will. I will also try cutting its lead, remove the battery box and use the internal power from the H1 or Tascam DR-07!

In fact, I'll do it pretty soon - just hold on...

[cgbier]

remove the battery box

Before you do that, remove the battery and bridge the contacts to test if it works without a battery.

[Janke]

Too late... but bridging won't work, anyway - tested it.

Here's my test, using both the unmodified 3350, as well as cut off from its battery pack and powered straight from the recorder, and also both the Zoom H1 and Tascam DR-07 with their internal mics. (Note that the modified mic without battery won't work on a HVXX camera, but will work on a T2i !)

Levels were set to provide a peak of approximately -12 db in all tests.



Note how the internal mics capture a lot of room echo, and how they are sensitive to handling noise - the Tascam especially.

The internal mics of both the Zoom and the Tascam sound a lot brighter - but note that I used the low-cut filters on the recorders. They appear to affect the internal mics only, and not external input.

(I've recorded jazz concerts with both the Tascam and the Zoom, and somehow, the music recorded with the Tascam sounded better than the Zoom, even though in this speech test, it doesn't.)

[Aaron Shirley]

Hey Janke, that is a nice test.Well done. The 3350 sounds pretty good with the zoom. I wondered if the 3350 could work with the battery bypassed, and now I know. That was a great idea to try it that way.

It sounds as though the 3350 shares the same issue as the EX503 without it's battery capsule plugged directly into the HVXX. Did you try partially unplugged to get a signal? More importantly, did you try the male stereo to dual mono Y cable with the 3350 plugged direct into the HVXX after you cut off the battery capsule? If it works well that way, you can cut the battery packs off but leave the length of cord from the pack to the lav and never have to buy batteries again.

[Aaron Shirley]

Sorry my test wasn't very good guys.

Huey, how is your test coming along? Do you have a recorder to test the 3350 and 503? I'm sure your comparison test between the 503 and 3350 will be very well done. I'm looking forward to your results.

[HueyNRolf]

Huey, how is your test coming along? Do you have a recorder to test the 3350 and 503? I'm sure your comparison test between the 503 and 3350 will be very well done. I'm looking forward to your results.

I'm waiting for my friend to confirm, but hopefully today I can do it. I'll be going back to camera (HV20). I can't get the 503 working with the sound recorder (H4). Also likely I'll have to ditch the quiet room and railway crossing, he's a bit busy today. So just the busy road and food court. There seems to be plenty of quiet room tests around, so I doubt another one would add anything, and the railway crossing was just for laughs.

[HueyNRolf]

Looking good. He says he can come over this afternoon. I'm on a shoot tomorrow, so it'll be two or three days before I can get around to editing and uploading the result.

[Janke]

Did you try partially unplugged to get a signal? More importantly, did you try the male stereo to dual mono Y cable with the 3350 plugged direct into the HVXX after you cut off the battery capsule? If it works well that way, you can cut the battery packs off but leave the length of cord from the pack to the lav and never have to buy batteries again.

I used an Y-adapter in all tests, both with HV and recorder. This means the signal goes where it is supposed to, and I'm not shorting out the other channel.

I have not tried it "partly unplugged" in the HV - I see no reason for that. If I do plug it in with its battery pack, I get the sound into L channel, R is silent. Look at the construction of tip-sleeve-ring plugs - if you use a mono plug in a stereo socket, the R channel will be shorted to ground.

Oh, one more thing: The "modified" AT-3350 won't work with a HV - the mic needs "phantom power" which is provided by the recorders (both Zoom and Tascam), but not the camera. So, to use a 3350 with a HV camera, you must have the little battery box.

[HueyNRolf]

Update.

I did the test, but unfortunately, I made a huge blunder!

I used an old tape, that's just me being cheap. I should've known better. I started doing the roadside test with the ATR3350 and got a 'head clean' warning on the HV20. I did have a head-cleaning tape in the camera bag, but it's been through once, and was worried that it might make things worse. The warning went away, so I made an executive decision to carry on.

Anyways, the 3350 test didn't even record at the roadside (blue screen), but I do have an EX-503 test. At the food court, I have an EX-503 test with a dropout and two good 3350 tests.

Anyways, if anyones interested, I'll edit and upload what I do have, though hardly ideal?

I was relieved that the the HV20 worked fine the next day, on a long shoot, with a head clean (fresh head cleaner) and running new tapes.

[drapeama]

I did the test, but unfortunately, I made a huge blunder! [..] Anyways, if anyones interested, I'll edit and upload what I do have, though hardly ideal?

Yes I'd be interested to hear it for sure. Just do it if you have the time.

[HueyNRolf]

Yes I'd be interested to hear it for sure. Just do it if you have the time.

Well Ok, since it's you asking, I will. Give me a few days please.

[Janke]

head-cleaning tape in the camera bag, but it's been through once

Sony allows two uses of their cleaning tape.

[HueyNRolf]

Sony allows two uses of their cleaning tape.

Indeed, I found out the next day that you can run them twice. I didn't know what to do at the time. Ah well.

[STUDIO32MID]

So of the three lav mics which seems to perform the best to average in our in-house tests? I am looking at buying the one that performs best for my h2 zoom.

[Aaron Shirley]

I used an Y-adapter in all tests, both with HV and recorder. This means the signal goes where it is supposed to, and I'm not shorting out the other channel.

So obviously the 3350 modified without battery box would not work with the Y adapter direct into the HVXX. Only with a wireless kit or recorder.

I got the Y adapter this weekend and the 503 would not work directly into the HV30 with the Y adapter. I wondered if that would work, and now I know that it does not. The 503 only works with my wireless kit, no other way for me (except partially plugged in which is not useful). I kept the 503 for my wireless kit because it works well and sounds nice with it. If I ever needed a lav that works with my camcorder direct, the only lav that fits the bill is the 3350. My client will have 2 of them and the Y adapter. Thanks again for the info on that Janke.

I didn't get the second 3350 yet. Should have it by next weekend, and it will go directly to my client and most likely with no testing.

[Aaron Shirley]

I can't get the 503 working with the sound recorder (H4).

Really? I thought the 503 is designed to work with a recorder? I guess not? Is it possible it's just the H4 it doesn't work with? Maybe it will work with the H1? This would be good to know, as I was considering getting an H1 or Tascom recorder in the spring to use with the 503. Can anyone confirm this?

So are you testing the 503 direct with the HV20 partially plugged in? And the 3350 plugged direct into the HV20 as well?