Microphones, Oral History, and that “Radio Sound” in the Field: ENG Microphones

I have always tried to record oral history interviews in the field that were broadcast quality and sounded like studio recordings. I want to achieve a sound that has minimal ambient noise and gives the listener that close-mic’d sound that you hear when you listen to radio personalities such as the hosts of All Things Considered on National Public Radio in the United States. The best way to achieve this sound is to use studio microphones in an actual studio. However, the best way to achieve this sound outside of the studio is to use a microphone that rejects off-axis ambient noise and to place that microphone very close to the speaker’s mouth. Generally speaking, the greater the distance between the speaker’s mouth and the microphone, the further away from the studio sound you drift. There are different ways to achieve this studio or radio sound when you are out in the field. Some oral historians utilize table-top microphones, some use microphones on a boom-stand, many oral historians utilize lavaliere microphones, and some use shotgun microphones. A few oral historians utilize handheld ENG (electronic news gathering) microphones. ENG is a style of recording in the field that is typically characterized by an interviewer (usually wearing headphones) holding a microphone seated closely to the person being interviewed. Although the ENG approach can utilize several different styles of microphones, a niche genre of ENG microphones has emerged. The next few posts are part of a series that explores ways to achieve broadcast quality audio with that radio or studio sound when recording oral history out in the field. First up is a discussion of using a single handheld ENG microphone for oral history interviews.

ENG (Electronic News Gathering) Microphone

Radio professionals achieve the radio sound in interviews outside the studio by ensuring that the interviewee/narrator is, indeed, speaking close to the microphone. Interviewers often use a handheld ENG microphone to achieve this sound quality. The ENG microphone is designed to be held very close the speaker’s mouth, reject ambient noise (such as when television news reporters stand in front of impending hurricanes), and be held by the interviewer. ENG microphones typically have internal shock mounts. Unless a microphone has internal shock mounts, it is quite difficult to hold a high-quality microphone without the clatter of handling noise intruding on your recordings. Interviewers using an ENG microphone for oral history sit very close to the person they are interviewing. They bring the microphone to their mouth to ask the question and then extend the microphone to the speaker’s mouth to record the answer. Examples of ENG microphones include the Sennheiser MD-46, the classic Electro-Voice RE50-L (the RE50-L has a longer handle than the other versions of the RE50), or the Rode Reporter microphone.

I first learned this technique as a young professional in 2000 when I attended a recording workshop at the Oral History Association annual meeting in Durham, NC. The workshop teachers were Davia Nelson & Nikki Silva, otherwise known as the Kitchen Sisters, the legendary radio production duo. Although I found myself in awe listening to the Kitchen Sisters teach me recording and interviewing techniques, I must admit I thought the use of a handheld microphone for long-form interviewing sounded awkward and uncomfortable. I never doubted that this would achieve that radio sound, but the idea of sitting uncomfortably close to the interviewee/narrator and holding a microphone that had to be gracefully positioned and re-positioned while tracking the conversation—for several hours—just seemed ludicrous. It isn’t ludicrous. I have learned that the results of this approach can be effective on several levels.

When I began as the director of the Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History at the University of Kentucky in 2008, the Nunn Center placed a heavy emphasis on the use of lavaliere microphones clipped on both the interviewee/narrator and the interviewer. Since my early days as an oral historian, I have always used and advocated for lavaliere microphones. Lavaliere microphones can move you closer to the radio sound (when placed appropriately) without the need to hold a microphone for extended periods. The lavaliere microphone retains its closeness even when the interviewee shifts in their seat, or leans away from the microphone, and the interview participants do not have to sit “uncomfortably” close. The lavaliere microphone has many disadvantages (more on that in the next post), but until recently they seemed to me to be a more practical solution for oral history to achieve a sound that comes closer to broadcast quality.

In my 10 years at the Nunn Center (and my eight years at the Kentucky Oral History Commission), I have only had one collaborator utilize a single handheld ENG style microphone for her interviews. Arwen Donahue is a long-time collaborator and one of the best interviewers that I know. Arwen’s technical training came from award-winning NPR producer Neenah Ellis. After recording several interviews for the Nunn Center utilizing our standard recording kit, Arwen asked if we had an ENG microphone that she could use for a new project she was planning. Specifically, she wanted the Electro-Voice RE50 (which is a classic). We did not stock ENG microphones for Nunn Center recording kits, so I purchased one for Arwen. The results are part of Arwen’s Kentucky Writers on the Land oral history project. Specifically, listen to the first interview with Crystal Wilkinson.

The clear advantage of the ENG microphone is the high-quality recording of the person speaking into the microphone. This technique is especially effective when recording someone who shifts in their seat or leans back in their chair, the interviewer makes minor adjustments and retains the closeness of the microphone. The distinct disadvantage of an ENG microphone is discomfort for the interviewer. Holding and carefully tracking the conversation with a microphone for over an hour can be uncomfortable on the hand, wrist, arm, and shoulder, and it requires a tremendous amount of concentration. A more critical disadvantage can be those moments when someone speaks prior the proper positioning of the microphone. Often there are microseconds when the speaker begins to speak before the microphone is moved from interviewee to interviewer, thus creating a sort of fade-in of the speaker’s voice during the movement between question and answer. You can hear this slight effect at the beginning of the first segment of Donahue’s interview with Wilkinson referenced above. Many of the ENG microphones are omnidirectional which can minimize the off-mic effect. There are other moments when Donahue asks Wilkinson a question while she is keeping the microphone pointed at Wilkinson, which makes Donahue sound somewhat off-mic, as evidenced by the somewhat uneven audio levels in this segment. Despite these disadvantages, the overall recording quality of this interview (especially the recording of the interviewee) is excellent and is, indeed, a radio or broadcast quality recording. Typically, this microphone type is best utilized for audio-only interviews as the need for close proximity between interviewer and interviewee make it challenging to create a professional-looking video interview using a single handheld microphone.

Over the years, many interviewers (especially those who have a radio background) continue to remind me that this technique is a guarantee of recordings that sound like they were conducted in-studio. Brooke Bryan at Antioch College also has a radio background. Brooke passionately advocates for (and defends) the use of single handheld microphones for recording oral history each time I question the practicality of the technique, often challenging me, saying that I am sacrificing quality for comfort and convenience. For Brooke, a handheld microphone is not only about generating broadcast quality recordings, it is about connecting with the other person. I agreed with her on that, just as I agreed with the Kitchen Sisters when they taught the workshop. I knew that the approach worked; I just fixated on the perception that it was an impractical approach for oral historians, and I felt I was connecting just fine with my interviewees/narrators using lavaliere microphones. But Brooke and the Kitchen Sisters are right. My advocacy for lavaliere microphones is a compromise of sorts.

To come full circle, in 2017 I was honored to be interviewed by Nikki Silva (the Kitchen Sisters) for their NPR and podcast series, The Keepers — “stories of activist archivists, rogue librarians, curators, collectors and historians.” In a closed hotel conference room we talked about archives and oral history for nearly three hours. Just as she instructed me nearly 20 years before, Nikki sat very, very close to me and gracefully moved her handheld microphone between us for the entirety of the interview. I had been so resistant to this technique over the years, yet here was Nikki Silva unknowingly teaching a master class on the technique. What I once perceived as “uncomfortably close” space for an interviewer and interviewee actually created an intimate connectedness that heightened the interview in that moment. Sitting so close to one another, both participants in the interview must remain engaged for the entire interview. With Silva seated so close, extending the microphone toward me while making eye contact for the entirety of the interview, there was not a moment when I questioned her commitment, or wondered whether she really cared about my story, or even questioned whether she was getting bored as the interview approached that third hour. The close proximity intensified the moment in a way that I had not experienced in an interview before.

The movement of Silva’s handheld microphone created a secondary rhythm to the interview that generated for me an elevated sense of mindfulness. I tend to be someone who speaks first, thinks, and then revises what I just said. In this circumstance, I found myself pausing before speaking and I believe my answers were more thoughtful as a result. Of course, as expected, the resulting recording quality was remarkable. Check out a portion of this interview here: http://www.kitchensisters.org/2018/12/18/doug-boyd-the-louie-b-nunn-center-for-oral-history-keeperoftheday/. Although most of this example is edited and framed by subtle music, you can hear the closeness and prominence of the voice. It sounds like radio.

I still think using a single handheld ENG microphone to record a two-hour oral history interview is uncomfortable, and the technique tends to distract me as an interviewer. Admittedly, I prefer a different approach for getting this sound (spoiler alert, I am sort of breaking up with lavaliere microphones…but not entirely). Although I may not be a regular practitioner of this technique, I am now a believer. Thank you Nikki Silva, Arwen Donahue, and Brooke Bryan for teaching me that if you want to achieve broadcast quality interviews that have that radio sound, do what the radio professionals tell you to do. Except I won’t wear headphones the entire interview, sorry.

Do not hesitate to give one of these microphones a try. As indicated above, my favorites are the Sennheiser MD-46, the classic Electro-Voice RE50-L, or the Rode Reporter microphone. Nikki Silva used the Beyerdynamic M 58 and she mentioned to me (because I ask about these things) that Davia Nelson uses the Beyerdynamic MCE 58. Brooke Bryan uses the Rode M1 (technically not an ENG microphone but designed to be handheld) because she thinks it captures a warmer sound. All of these microphones, when held close to the speaker, will give you a very high quality sound at an affordable price point.