3 Broadcast Quality Lavs You Can Buy Used for Under $100

High quality mics are one of the best investments.  Handled with care, a professional mic will last 15 years—far longer than your camera, audio recorder, and some of your lenses.  But that, of course, means that they often don’t depreciate in value, making it hard for small companies and beginners to get in the pro audio game.  Over the past five years, however, the explosion of low-cost cameras has been matched with a whole lot of new microphone makers entering the market.  Rode and Aperture are probably the biggest newcomers to sound, but then there’s a bevy of cheap Chinese equipment.  This has meant some industry standard microphones have slipped off the radar… and thus down the price list.  Here are three lav mics that produce broadcast quality sound, and professional level durability.  And you can find them for under $100 bucks used.

The great thing about used mics is that most often you can immediately tell if it’s functioning at 100%:  wiggle the wires and listen for low volume distortion.  If there’s nothing, it’s good to go.  The downside of our current video production zeitgeist is that nowadays people often expect the equipment to do all the lifting.  We expect our cameras to have so wide a dynamic range that we never have to think about exposure issues; we want our mics to sound perfect without us doing a thing.  Professionals who work with thousand dollar mics know this isn’t true.  All mics require post processing to bring out the best qualities of the individual voices and environment.  If you want to dig deeper into that skill set, check out our video on making a $20 mic sound like a $100 mic here… and you’ll figure out how to get these $200-$300 mics to sound like $600 mics.



One thing I should note is that lavaliere mics in particular encompass a wide range of audio quality—not just good and bad, but bassy, bright, warm, clinical, etc.  You’ll have personal preferences of what sounds good, and certain mics will sound better with certain voices… and finally some tonal qualities will fit better with a film’s audio palette.  It’s impossible to have one lav that does everything, and most pros carry a variety on set.

Sony ECM-55b

You don’t see the ECM-55b a lot of places anymore, but it was a standard TV mic for a long time.  It’s a solid performer in almost every test, it performs well with all sorts of voices.  It has a bright sound, which bucks the trend of current lavs and boom mics, but I think is much more natural.  It also uses a AA battery capsule, giving you more options for what you wire it to. The ECM-44 is also a good choice, but for roughly $20 more, the 55b outshines it.  It comes with a variety of mounting options, too.  I own this one and it's a solid performer.

Audio-Technica AT899

My second mic isn’t typically used in broadcast TV or film.  The Audio Technica AT899 isn’t well known, but it’s a solid value and to be well constructed.  It’s one of those mics that professional tend to discover after they’ve already graduated to Sankens and DPAs, and while impressive it just can’t compete in that sort of kit.  The 899 has a built-in bass roll off on the power supply which is, well, something. The sound is smooth and mellow without being dull and it cuts very well with many shotgun/cardioid mics.  In fact, it sounds a bit like a boom mic. The AT899 also uses an AA battery capsule, the AT8537.

Tram TR-50

My final option pushes the $100 used limit, but you can find them from time to time.  The Tram TR-50B is a modern classic that’s been around for decades. You’ll find TR50s in use in many different venues and types of production.  The sound is quite bright with a lot of clarity. That said, it’s fallen a bit out of favor, which has brought the used price down, and you can occasionally find models for about $100.  It sounds very good, it's reliable, and it’s a workhorse and will last you a long time. A superb value.

The Tram TR50 is what is known as a "workhorse". I think that the Tram is thought of in this way because so many have been sold and used by so many video/film crews for so long, that its just known as a commodity. The TR50 is a part of my collection, too.

Sennheiser ME2 and MKE-2.… 

It’s hard to ignore these two from Sennheiser, but I’m going to do it anyway.  If you’re considering the ME2, I’d recommend the slight bump up to the MKE-2.  It’s the better microphone in the line-up (and the one that's actually considered to be broadcast quality), and I believe it’s worth the money. But it also raises the Sennheiser above my $100 Used Mic criteria (most MKE-2s run between $150 and $200), and I frankly have some reservations about the cable durability, and I’ve never been thrilled with the audio samples that I’ve heard.  But that’s a personal preference.

Z Cam E2 Audio - Half Review

A few weeks ago I produced my “in depth” review on the Z Cam E2 (you can check it out in the link below), and a viewer rightly dinged me for saying absolutely nothing about the audio capabilities. I’m a professional sound designer for theater and a musician, so definitely my bad.

And props to flymovies for calling me out.  In the process, he left a rather cryptic comment about the audio capabilities of the camera:  "Unfortunately another review that completely ignores the... audio of the camera-- once you have heard it, you know why, though."

Not so encouraging, and it really made me wonder.  See, up until now I'd just being shooting test footage, so I hadn't tried connecting a mic to the Z Cam.  The built in one provided scratch sound for us.



So what’s up with the audio on the Z Cam?  Can you use it the audio inputs for professional work, and how does it compare to other cameras and external recorders.  Today we’re going to take a look.

So first the caveats. Audio gear reviews aren’t something I normally do, so I’m not well set up for it.  This will be a semi technical review.

Second, the Z Cam comes with both a 3.5 millimeter audio input and a mini XLR input.
XLR is typically a less noisy, better sounding connection.  The XLR also has phantom power for your mics. But I only tested the 3.5 millimeter input.  Why?

First, the mini XLR requires a 50 dollar adapter.  Now, I thought about buying the adapter for this review but I didn’t because of Reason Number Two.

If I'm going directly into camera, I know I’ll sometimes want to use my wireless system (a 3.5mm connection), and sometimes I'll use wired XLR. That means another 50 dollar cable, or carrying a adapter that might degrade the sound further.  Which brings me to Reason Number Three.

I don’t want to buy pricey adapters unless the 3.5 connection is totally crap.  If you’re looking for top-notch quality audio—you’ve got your thousand dollar mic and you’re ready for the creamy vocals of George Clooney at a romantic dinner table—you’re going to use an external recorder.  This is true for a number of reasons, including better control of audio levels on the fly, dual recording, and better preamps.

Outside of my own YouTube creations, I never connect directly from mic to camera.  Sometimes I connect from mic to an external recorder to camera…    and if I’m lazy I’ll use the camera’s audio instead of the external recording.  But it’s just not professional to connect directly to your camera, so why ask your camera to provide professional level preamps and encoders?

That said, the camera DOES need to provide solid audio performance that can be used for small projects and emergencies.  So how did the Z Cam do with its 3.5 millimeter input?

For this test I used the Rode Wireless Go; it’s a consumer mid-grade transmitter with mid-level audio.  I paired it with a Electro-Voice RE98 lav.  The RE98 is a lovely sounding, professional level lav that I never use because it’s butt-ugly and cumbersome.  But I wanted to up the quality of the Rode system slightly so that it was in the middle of the playing field when it comes to audio.

By itself, the Rode system is a little too bassy, and a little unnatural, and the RE98 smooths that out and brings in more mid range clarity.  I recorded directly from the Wireless Go Reciver to the Z Cam input, and for comparison directly into the Sony A7sii.  In my opinion, the Sony a7sii has better than average preamps for a mirrorless camera, so I chose it over the a7iii and my Nikon D600.  For the final test, I connected my hybrid Rode Go system into a little Tascam DR-2d external recorder.  The Tascam has very good sound but is still below the level of a professional system.

You can hear the results in the YouTube video.

You can judge the differences for yourself, but here’s my take.  The Tascam audio is the bench mark for good sound here.  It’s well-rounded from bass to the upper vocal registers, but you’re still missing some depth and clarity and that’s the product of a wireless signal from a mid-tier system.  To my ears, the Z Cam handles the bass response in a well rounded way that’s similar to the Tascam, but a slightly more compressed tone in the mids.

The Sony is clearly bassier than both the Tascam and Z Cam, But it has more clarity in the mid and upper tones.  I actually like the Sony’s mid range better than the Tascam in this setup.

Which brings me to my conclusion.  As with all audio, excellence depends on the total set up, the way that the different components work together. The Sony preamps aren’t better than the Tascam’s for mid range, they just compensate the shortcomings of the Rode-Go setup better. I think the Sony sounds slightly better, but both systems have problems that need to be cleaned up in post.  And the Z Cam cleans up nicely.

In short, the Z Cam’s 3.5 millimeter input provides solid audio in comparison with other mirrorless and DSLR systems. And, I really don't know what flymovies was referring to in his cryptic comment.  I'm going to assume he's either using a poor combination of equipment that doesn't go well together, or he's expecting pro-level audio from a mid-level audio process.  Don't.

The Z Cam audio is perfectly fine for vlogs and YouTube reviews, acceptable for interviews in the field when you can’t setup an external recorder, and I’d also say it’s passable for a sit-down interview in a pinch.

But if you really need pro-grade audio, I wouldn’t use either of these inputs, nor would I use any camera input on any camera.  A $200 external recorder will give you better sound than any camera.

Now, what I’d love to see from Z Cam, and perhaps it’s doable via a firmware upgrade, is dual recording.  In my opinion, dual recording is essential for any project, whether it's big or small.  It's even more important on small ones.  Yet camera makers have consistently ignored this really easy upgrade.  Even as a dedicated sound operator, I like having dual recordings.  As a one-man band it’s crucial.

A Focus Pull-Whip for High Speed Video

How do you pull focus perfectly from A to B in less than 1/20th of a second?  Faster than the wrist can rotate?  The technique is eye-opening, and surprising part is that any filmmaker can do it... it's a zero-budget tool.

I love filmmakers who are constantly innovating and pushing limits.  It's rare to find one, though, working at the top of his field where mistakes can cost tens of thousands of dollars.  Director/Cinematographer Matthew Rosen is one of those people, and he's generous enough to share many of his techniques for doing the seemingly impossible.

Rosen accomplishes the feat with a simple strip of gaffer tape.  The trick is that the camera needs to be positioned at the exact end of the lens's focal range.  (Though, I imagine if you were using a focus pull wheel with an hard stop, you could work anywhere within the range.)  Check out his video to see it in action, and by all means subscribe to him on YouTube.  The content comes slowly, but each tutorial is a real gem from a working professional.

The Best Light Stand Bag isn't from Manfrotto or Neewer

You’ve got gear. How do you lug it around? As a one-man operation who often brings five folding light stands, two backdrops, a heavy-duty C-Stand, a crossbar, boom, large reflectors, extension rods, and a tripod… along with two camera bodies, four lenses, and four lights, this question has plagued me. The real solution would be to stop bringing so much stuff and learn to work my surroundings better. But sometimes you have to bring a full studio with you to get the look you want, and the tall stuff—light stands, booms, and sticks—are the most difficult.

I’ve already shared a review of the fantastic F.64 large format bag. This is great for all of my camera and sound equipment. That left my light stands, tripod, and umbrella in a mismatch of bags.

So I started thinking outside the box. Vidography equipment is expensive, and that goes for good quality cases as well. I wanted something big enough to house my 50" C-stand bar, have wheels for rolling, handles for carrying, sturdy enough to hold 70 pounds of odd shaped equipment without ripping, and yet be somewhat compact for storage. The answer came, strangely enough, in the form of a golf bag cover. I chose the CaddyDaddy Constrictor 2 Golf Bag Travel Cover.

Despite its name, it's not so much a cover as a full bag. I can fit my smaller light stand bag (with 4 light stands), plus two additional light stands, my big tripod, two collapsible light boxes, two 6-9 backdrops with cross bar, three umbrellas, a travel bag of equipment doodads is the side pockets, and still have room for a extension cords. Filled, it's huge and heavy, but it has rollers. I only wish it had a shoulder strap... but then again maybe not. It's really heavy. For $85 it does more and costs less than traditional photography bags from Manfrotto, Neewer, and others. I call it George, my dead body.