Customer Reviews

Audio Technica ATR-55 Condenser Shotgun Microphone

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(29)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Been using my ATR-55 for over a year. Really like the amplified TELE feature that seems to reach out and grab sounds, without picking up hardly any surrounding noise. But hey, its uni-directional, so that's one of the things it's supposed to do. Nevertheless, the NORMAL zone is about a 120degree V in front of the mic, and the TELE is about a 90degree V-zone. Was videotaping our school's football game, and filmed one half in TELE mode, and the second half in NORMAL mode. The TELE mode was almost eerie, because you could pick up the voices out on the field, but all the surrounding noise (fans) could hardly be heard. The NORMAL mode picked up a little more audience noise, so it sounded more natural, but nevertheless still filtered out the other people talking in the press tower with me. The TELE mode is very nice for lectures, so that it doesn't pick up distracting noises, including that of the camcorder's mechanism - that's why I go this in the first place, because the OMNI-directional microphone in the digital camcorder was picking up too much noise (including its own motor) during really quiet lectures. Just be aware that this unit is _not_ stereo - you should either get a mono-to-stereo adapter to use with it, or set the sound input on the camcorder to mono. Otherwise, you'll just get sound coming out of one speaker on stereo play-back. If you need stereo, get the ATR-25, which is very nice and also uni-directional, but lacks the ATR-55's TELE feature. Basically, TELE was more important to me than stereo, but it might be different for you. I wear headphones plugged into the camcorder while filming, this way I can better monitor the sound pickup, and make a determination between whether TELE or NORMAL is best for any given situation - the difference is noticeable. I gave it four stars because it is very good, but I'm sure units like a nice Sennheiser are better, but for much more money. This is a nice looking, solidly built unit, and a decent value to boot.

UPDATE (03.07.2010): Be aware that the ATR-55 requires the use of one AA battery that is installed inside its aluminum shell.

Length:: 4:10 Mins

I recently purchased this microphone, hoping to improve the audio picked up by my Canon GL1's built-in microphone. The price was good, the reviews seemed to lean a little more on the positive side, so I decided to bite. I assumed quality of the audio would be better, that it would filter out surrounding noise more efficiently, and that it would make my videos sound more professional. It also may be of note, that I planned on using this mic with a lot of handheld camera work, which you may or may not do. Well, it seemed to offer little to no performance upgrade from the camera's mic. To be fair though, the GL1 doesn't offer a lot of control over audio levels, so your milage may vary.

CONS:
-This microphone will pick up camera noise if mounted on the camera. The included shoe accessory to mount on your camera is absolutely useless if you want clean audio. I recommend using a shock mount if you have one (or better yet, a seperate mic stand).
-Despite the fact it can be mounted to the camera, it is in no way made for handheld work. The slightest bump of the camera or mic, will register as a loud thud in recorded audio. Using the zoom on certain cameras will be out of the question because it picks zoom motor noise and the sound of you pressing the buttons.
-Normal mode makes the audio sound compressed and unnatural compared to my camera's microphone.
-Tele mode does amplify the incoming audio significantly, but unfortunately doesn't filter out much of the noise that a directional microphone should.
-Not a professional level mic, by any means. If you have a $1000+ camera, this will be the weak link in your production. The Mic built into your prosumer (not consumer) camera probably works better.

PROS:
-Slightly more directional than my camera's microphone.
-Tele mode works well if your trying to capture the sounds of something further away than your camera mic would normally pick up. But be prepared to clean up audio in post to get rid of possibly unwanted ambient noise.
-The mic makes voices sound a bit clearer, but only in close range (no more than 10 feet away).
-An improvement if you have a very poor quality mic, or no mic at all.
-The simple fact that the mic is not attached to your camera means that you can place the mic close to your subject, even if you can't get the camera close. You'll need an extra long cable, of course. Make sure to place the cable in an area where it will not be bumped, because the cord can pic up reverberations if it's disturbed.

If I could do it again, I would have saved a bit more money to get a nicer mic in the $100-$200 range. This mic is really designed for amateur use only, as it sounds nowhere near broadcast quality. If your looking for a good mic to mount on the camera for handheld work, a nicer XLR mic would be a better bet. If I would have thought about it, I would have checked Youtube before I bought the mic, as there are many tests using this mic vs. other video mics. I would recommend trying that site to hear actual audio tests of this mic, and various other mics that Amazon sells- before you make a purchase. Also note, that this is a mono mic, so you'll need a mono to stereo adaptor if you'd like to hear this mic in both L&R channels.

I've rented the high end gear before (Seinheiser shotgun with full zeppelin setup) and I've got to say that this little mic is an odd little option that I like having in my bag of tricks for shooting movies.

It is VERY easy to use. I love the tonality in the 'standard' mode, though the range is quite low when compared to other high end mics. So, as a 'shotgun', the standard mode is pretty useless. However, it delivers a very rich and engaging tone and I find myself using this mic in 'standard' mode very often for regular vocal performances.

The 'tele' mode definitely extends the range...Quite a bit further than the high end mics in fact. The problem is that the overall sound can become a little thin. It definitely doesn't have the same warm quality as the standard mode. However, if you can't get a boom in close enough (and you don't have LAV's), the telescopic mode can really get you out of a jam.

Standard mode = great sound with good directionality, but poor range.
Tele mode = thin sound, good directionality, very good range.

this is a good mic
i just got back from our first shoot using this thing insted of onboard camera mics
what a difference
the range in incridble
we had someone just walk out and keep talking, i switched the mic to tele and i could hear him allmost 100 meters away from the camera on headphones
has both tele (for long distance, often picks up to much back ground noise, and is not best for close up situations) and normal(which has decent distance as well and works fine indoors)
the only problem was that we kept getting it in the picture, but thats not a mic malfunction, just me being stupid
the windscreen is very useful, i have allways had trouble with wind using onbard camera mics, and this works much better
yes, it is mono, only putting out sound to the left ear, but using premeire you can just duplicate the left audio track and it comes out fine.

well worth it
only downside is the tele pickup gets a bit fuzzy with background noise

This is a great microphone. I bought it and tested all functions the same day. I am shooting some non-budget short movies and it comes in very handy. Very clean sound. Deep base and crisp high tone. The price is outstanding, I feel like I'm ripping off Audio-Technica. What a steal! I don't see any reason not giving it 5 stars. It does what it promises for so little money. My only wish is that the cable would be a little longer, but then it would loose on quality, because it's not an XLR connector. Who cares though, most camcorders don't come with XLR anyway (not mine). I say buy it, you won't regret it. It's gold for peanuts.

While this microphone does give you decent sound quality and performance for a good price, they aren't built very well and don't last long. In September '06 I purchased ten of these microphones for teachers to use in their classroom with students. It's now May, and all but two have failed.

The problem is that the wire used for these is so thin and delicate that it breaks after only a few months of normal use/handling (rough use cuts that down to a few weeks). What's more, most electronics repair shops refuse to repair these because of the poor quality of the materials used. Azden makes a similar microphone for a few more dollars. I've had better luck with it, even though it appears to be made of only slightly better materials. As these break, I'm replacing them with the Azden SGM-X (about $110 new). So far, so good.

I tried to be as frugal as reasonably possible in my video spending (Canon ZR 800 cameras are doing OK so far...) but it appears that a decent shotgun microphone that you can expect to last for more than a year starts at around $110. Best of luck; not an expert in this area, so would appreciate any advice from those "in the know" for good mics to use with younger students. THX

If you can afford the Sennheiser MKE300 for about $170, buy it! (If money's tight and you're smart you'll get a cheaper camcorder and then get the better mic instead). The ATR-55, however, is a decent mic - not great, but good, and a good value for the money. It's a bit long for smaller camcorders so be careful. Still, I've not found anything better in this price range.

Length:: 2:53 Mins

For the short time I have had this mic it seemed great for close up audio recording. This is a short review for the Audio-Technica ATR55 Condenser Shotgun Microphone.
This microphone seems to be great... only having it for a few min.
But we will see how long it stands up to be so great.

Non technical review of the Audio Technica ATR55 Shotgun Microphone
by Jules Oille

Test conducted with Canon HG10 Camera

Conditions:
From my porch where traffic can be heard, you can hear the evening rush hour. At arms length, I held the HG10 Canon Camera from my face and spoke:

a) Without a microphone (only the HG10's onboard microphone);

b) With the ATR55 microphone in normal mode and the wind filter; and

c) With the ATR55 microphone in tele-mode and the wind filter.

This is what I heard:
a) Without a microphone (only the HG10's onboard microphone).
Lots of noise. If this was a movie, you'd hear wind and everything else. In a word, the sound is crap.

b) With the ATR55 microphone in normal mode and the wind filter.
Ambient noise is gone. I hear my voice but it is faint. I suppose indoor it is better. Considering I am only at arms length of the ATR55 I would have liked better sound reception, as such I am slightly disappointed.

c) With the ATR55 microphone in tele-mode and the wind filter.
My voice is clear and the ambient sound is gone. I am impressed by the audio quality. I am confident that I can use this microphone for general use for my hobby movies.

Overview
If you're going to invest in a relatively good consumer camera with a microphone port, such as a Canon, spend a few more bucks and get a shotgun microphone. The ATR55 refurbished is about $40 and it makes a decent entry point. I'm glad I made this purchase.

Well, I did considerable research for comparable low-budget microphones. I have a 3-chip Panasonic consumer video camera and I'm interested in producing documentaries, shorts and travel videos. My goal was to enhance the audio that came standard with my PV GS300 when filming and capturing both near and far-range audio.

I performed a few mic. tests to create a standard for evaluation. I filmed six scenes. 3 scenes at close-range with these 3 mics, and 3 scenes at long-range using these 3 different mics. I used iMovie to import my recordings to evaluate the audio. For this review I tested my on-board stock mic., a Radioshack lavaliere mic. and the Audio Technica mic. My results are as follows:

I. Out-of-the-box standard mic.: Performs with mediocre results, less than desired by Current.tv standards. The recorded audio has a slight echo/ reverberation, it performs like a stock mic. is expected to perform and produces a somewhat muffled sound.

II. Audio Technica Mic.: Disappointing sound quality. For $53 I expected this mic. to improve upon my equipment's stock microphone; it did not. The regular setting was just as loud and clear as the stock mic. The upside is that it had slightly less of an echo than the stock mic. but it also delivered a softer audio recording. The Tele setting essentially acted as a volume increase; the subject was louder, but so were ambient noises. Overall it was difficult to distinguish between this mic. and the on-board mic.; and certainly not worth the extra duckets.

III. Radioshack lavaliere mic: The audio was significantly enhanced. When interviewing a subject sitting 3 feet away the recording of both my questions and the subject's answers were louder and clearer. Down-side : this mic. is less convenient because it requires attaching a corded microphone to the subject's lapel. There are ways around this like a wireless receiver but what is gained in audio might be lost by creating technical intricacies with your subject. Don't forget to switch the mic. on; this one also requires a stereo adapter.

I was hoping this Audio Technica mic. would provide an increase in performance worth the additional cost. The lesson I learned is that it is all or nothing. Shell out $200 for a pro/pro-sumer grade mic. or get by with what you have. You can improve your situation with a lav. mic. but so far I have not discovered a budget shotgun mic.