What's the next step up from H4n/Ntg-2 combo?

I'm a little underwhelmed with my Ntg-2/H4n combo. I need to be at 100 recording level, and still I'll get -18 to -12 db, and the sound is a little artificial and muddy. I was wondering if there is a good upgrade i could get for $500 or under that could improve my sound quality/sensitivity?

Thanks!
 
I'm a little underwhelmed with my Ntg-2/H4n combo. I need to be at 100 recording level, and still I'll get -18 to -12 db, and the sound is a little artificial and muddy.

I'm not really sure this makes sense without knowing what you're recording, and how far the mic is from the sound source. That said, I suspect you have an issue with either the battery in the mic (if you're using it) or the phantom power on the H4n. Try fresh batteries in the mic, and if that doesn't work take them out and turn on phantom power - if neither of those help I'd suspect something wrong with the mic or cable.
 
I'm a little underwhelmed with my Ntg-2/H4n combo.

Well, you buy low budget gear, you get low budget results.

I need to be at 100 recording level, and still I'll get -18 to -12 db,

The NTG-2/H4n combo is notorious for low levels. Production sound levels should be -12dB, with peaks at around -6dB.

the sound is a little artificial and muddy.

Artificial? Well, anything that is recorded is going to be artificial. The "secret" is in the skill set. It takes skill, knowledge, experience and some talent to capture solid production sound. A few questions for you:

Are you the one swinging the boom?

How close is the mic to the actor(s)?

Is the mic accurately aimed?

What settings are you using on the H4n?

What are you using for wind protection?

What headphones are you using to monitor on-set?

How does the dialog sound on-set?

What is the sonic environment on-set?

What are you using when you listen to the playback in audio post?


I was wondering if there is a good upgrade i could get for $500 or under that could improve my sound quality/sensitivity?

The ProMix 3 and MM-1 are good, solid additions to a low-budget sound kit; the improvement of preamp quality in your signal chain is definitely worth it.
 
Last edited:
Low battery has definitely been an issue before, and replacing the batteries helped immensely when it happened.

I'm not the one operating; I have another person for that. They're, fortunately, pretty aggressive with getting good sound. They always make sure try to hug the frame line and are pretty vocal about when the sound is coming in distant and hollow, which is awesome, as bad sound is a production killer (as I'm sure you all know too well).

For the settings, we're recording in 96khz/24-bit sound. For wind protection, we have a Rode WS-6 windscreen. For headphones, Shure SRH-440's.

We've been recording outside lately, so we'll get birds chirping and whatnot, but nothing overly in the way, sound wise.

For playback, we use the same Shure headphones, or just play through the standard speakers of the iMac we're recording on.
 
Low battery has definitely been an issue before, and replacing the batteries helped immensely when it happened.

Yup - keep putting in those fresh batteries. BTW, is the phantom power on in the H4n when the NTG-2 is supplying it's own phantom power? Use one or the other to supply the phantom power, not both! (NTG-2 phantom = on, H4n phantom = off OR NTG-2 phantom = off, H4n phantom = on)

I'm not familiar with the SRH-440's, but they are generally geared towards music, not film sound.

Laptop speakers of any kind are going to seriously misrepresent your sound. You should really be auditioning, editing and mixing sound on decent speakers in a balanced room; I know, problematic for most indie types, but.... I edit and mix on some nice speakers (Mackie HR824), but still check mixes on my trusty old Tannoy PBM 8's and Harmon Kardon computer speakers. The differences in just the different speakers are quite obvious. You are listening on very substandard speakers; add in the fact that you are not listening in an optimum sonic environment and I'm not surprised that your dialog sounds "artificial" and "muddy."
 
I always assumed that higher sample rates would be overkill but higher bit depth is more useful - am I correct in that? My thought on this is that more bits should give you a greater range of accuracy between your noise floor and 0db, so that you can leave more headroom during recording to avoid clipping without reducing the accuracy in the range that's left.
 
I did just because it was the highest quality. I won't pretend like I had another reason. Is 96 overkill?

96kHz is not "better quality" than say 48kHz. Higher sample rates does not mean higher quality, in fact it can result in lower quality! There are specialised uses for higher sample rates like 96kHz but in almost all cases, the only difference is that 96kHz requires double the amount of storage and double the amount of computer processing power when editing compared to 48kHz.

I always assumed that higher sample rates would be overkill but higher bit depth is more useful - am I correct in that? My thought on this is that more bits should give you a greater range of accuracy between your noise floor and 0db, so that you can leave more headroom during recording to avoid clipping without reducing the accuracy in the range that's left.

Digital audio is a bit of a strange beast when you start looking at it in detail as much of how it works is counter intuitive at first. 24bit is not better quality than 16bit, they are both the same, what 24bit provides is a larger dynamic range or as you say, more head room. In theory to "zero" point of 24bit is -20dBFS therefore giving you 20dB of headroom.

G
 
Back
Top