If you friend's way was correct, every sound recordist in the business would be out of work! 'Audiences can tell the difference between a natural sound track and one created in post'. I'm sure he is quite correct on that point, which is why a naturally recorded sound track on a blockbuster movie would have the audience walking out in droves and the film company going out of business!! Audiences don't want a natural sound track, they want something where their focus is drawn to what the director wants them to see and hear, not the sound of someone mowing their lawn off set!

You will be better off recording the sound on your own than using these know all know nothing friends who have recorded a couple of bands- whoopee doo- big deal. You won't find any better advice anywhere from dyed in the wool professionals than you have had on this forum, so ignore it at you peril!

Roger

If you want your friends to “help” you for free let them do it their way. Let us know how it turns out.

Yep you guys are right, I won't go by their advice. I was also wondering, when it comes to surround sound, should the music also have six channels of music in the surround sound mix, or no?

There is someone named "Ryan Elder" over on Creative Cow / Audio Professionals who is asking almost exactly the same questions as you are here. If that is not you with an alias name, then go over there and read the responses already posted to your questions.

tl;dr NO

There is someone named "Ryan Elder" over on Creative Cow / Audio Professionals who is asking almost exactly the same questions as you are here. If that is not you with an alias name, then go over there and read the responses already posted to your questions.

tl;dr NO
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/30/877574#877574

Lol, but his name is Ryan right?

Looks like he got the same answer there too.

I recognize Ty Ford, he used to post here and very knowledgeable about audio.

Ryan, have you considered that you might be taking on too much with you project? Your knowledge of the most basic aspects of audio recording seems to be limited to say the least. You seem to be doubting the advice of some of the best people in the business on two forums because your no knowledge friends are telling you differently.

So there is a parade of soldiers marching in perfect step down the road, all that is except for one soldier who is marching right left whilst every other soldier is marching left right. An officer asks him why he is out of step with the rest of the men. His friend in the crowd hears the officer and says " You are incorrect, my friend is the only one in step and all the others have got it wrong"!!!

Good luck with your project :-)

Roger

I was told by a couple of others in the audio business that instead of using one boom mic to record all of the dialogue that I should have multiple mics around the scene, to create a surround sound mix, live while shooting, cause it's better to spend the extra money on mics to do it while shooting then to create surround sound in post, which won't sound as natural.

Anybody suggesting that for dialogue scenes I bet has no real experience on professional film sets.

And *IF* you do plan to go down this path anyway, then you had better have the budget to afford a three person (or even bigger) sound department

Oh okay, well with lav mics you cannot do a surround sound mix in production during shooting though, like they are suggesting, so why did lavs outphase plant mics, if you cannot get surround with them then?

Because "usually" (depending on factors to do with costume / blocking / etc) the lavs will give much better dialogue than plant mics will, unless you're lucky with the circumstances. As quite simply lavs will be much much closer than plant mics will be (unless... the cards fall just right with blocking etc so you can hide the mics in just the right spots. But you'd need: 1st a very skilled sound team, & 2nd a sound team which is larger than just one person and is probably three people or more).

I work with a lot of students. My advice is to understand and gain skills with the tools and methods that are acknowledged as typical or best practices approaches before jumping in to anything else.

Here is a ranked list of expected faithfulness of a dialog recording when properly used:
1) Hypercardiod or short shotgun on a boom (which one depends on the recording environment)
2) Wired lavs
3) Wireless lavs
4) Plant mics

Agreed.

Except even wired lavs are not really used much. Due to being somewhat impractical (you're severely limiting their movement), and being a rather small cost saving in the overall grand scheme of things.

Okay thanks. Yeah they want to get the surround sound mix during shooting, so they don't have to do it in post. They just say during shooting it will sound more natural, rather than manipulating the surround in post.

They're idiots.
Or lazy.
Or both.

But I do not know where to put all these plant mics without creating severe blocking limitations, as well as having an awkwardly staged set, in order to hide the plant mics.

Exactly. This is why plant mics are a limited use niche tool, and are not your primary way to get audio in usual circumstances.

They also say that having plant mics for surround sound will give me a natural room ambiance sound, that you just can't get in post, but when shooting in real locations, I actually like to cut down on room ambiance, cause most locations we shoot in, are not ideal for the taking full advantage ambiance, if that makes sense?

Are you shooting in a crystal clear perfect sound stage? No.
(and even in that situation, it is unlikely plant mics would be the *optimal* main choice)

Oh well they just have been recording audio for a lot longer than I have, and unlike me, who learned on my own, they actually went to school for it. However, they spend all of their careers recording music bands though, and the bands I guess prefer to play all their instruments simultaneously, rather than record each sound at a time, so maybe that is why the idea of putting every little sound together in post feels incorrect to them maybe?

They're so very different what you're talking about.

Would you assume an Aussie Rules player knows anything about NFL just because both involve running around kicking a ball and stuff? No, that would be totally silly.

Six months of experience on a professional film set in a sound department would soundly thrash six years of experience recording bands.

They're coming from this from the completely wrong perspective, recording a band is not the same as recording a film.

At the point in time I feel you'd be better off in the long run 100% ignoring them, as whatever advice they're giving you they might get right by luck is completely negating by all the horrible B.S. they'd be telling you.

Ah, the temptation to say something nasty about their school(s) and/or the state of their education is strong, but I shall resist. ;-)

ha!


And there, right there, is the problem. Recording bands has an incredibly small overlap with recording dialog. These are nearly completely different tasks. Analogy: just because you know how to play clarinet doesn't mean you know enough to advise someone on how to play a piano.

So say it with us Ryan: record dialog in mono, as close as possible, to avoid recording any room tone or ambiance. Everything else, including reverb on your dialog, is done in post. Once again, everything else is done in post.

You want to know why? Read up. Here's a book (https://www.amazon.com/Producing-Great-Sound-Film-Video/dp/0415722071).

It is a very good book. So is this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Location-Sound-Bible-Record-Professional/dp/1615931201/din02c-20

I prefer to capture the intimacy of the voice, then you can add ambience to it as required, whereas you can't remove ambience if it is recorded with the voice. Close mics give you maximum control.

Just to illustrate it from a different point of view, you could compare it with producing video. You can show a couple of minutes of a beach scene, with people throwing a beach ball, kids building sand castles, folks swimming and sunbathing etc etc. All of that can be captured just like we would with our eyes, a wide angle and a bit of panning. That is exactly what you see in most boring holiday videos. But The brain doesn't see the scene the same way, it focuses our attention on the beautiful blonde in the green bikini, or the little boy licking his ice cream, or the black cloud starting to gather overhead.. The video producer does the same as the brain, by focusing our attention on the little details that he wants us to see, using different framing etc.

Setting a sound scene uses much of the same idea, to focus the viewer and listener on the details, not just the overall scene.


A very good analogy Roger.

And I've found in general that people tend to "get" an analogy better when using something from the camera dept to compare with what we do in the sound department.

You also need an excellent person doing the booming, with headphone so they can do it properly. If you see anyone booming without headphone, you know the sound will be rubbish. So many just cannot aim properly - the crucial feature. If they missed the essential dialogue, then the director needs to know instantly - you can't fix it in post, only re-record it!

I see college and even graduate sound people with boom poles and they're lazy, holding them like a fishing rod, because both arms up is painful! You watch them randomly point the shotgun vaguely in the direction of the talent's mouth - just. With a shotgun, at a distance - you are ALWAYS fighting signal to noise - the most clean capture from the talent and picking up the least of everything else. Sometimes you just cannot do this!

Yes, most of the time the optimal angle for the boom pole is roughly ish horizontal. Not at 45 degrees!!

Okay thanks. Is there any reason to record ambiance live though, as oppose to just adding in room sound in post though? I am guessing most realistic locations, have poor ambiance you don't want, or would want to cut down on, so would it be ideal not to record ambiance at all and just add it in post? Or unless you want a specific sound like a photocopy machine in the background making noise for example, but you would want to add that separately of course, not during live dialogue recording.

If a noise is off camera then 100% do NOT record during the dialogue!!! No way.

Even if it is on camera, I'd much rather not record it during the scene itself.

Okay thanks, this is the way I prefer to do it too, is record background sound separately, cause then you get the best sounds you want, but some audio people seem to be very insistent to get all the sounds, on the shooting days in that scene, and to limit post work, even if it means the sounds will not be as good as a result.

Are you meaning getting separate room tone on the day? (or foley or wilds on the day???)

If not, then you've clearly got the wrong "audio people". Ignore them, and associate yourself with some professionals instead.



When you say hairy sausages, do you mean wind protection?

He'd mean something like a Rode WS6

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/573091-REG/Rode_WS6_WS6_Deluxe_Windshield_for.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801


Also I was thinking of just using a boom and no lavs, since I never liked the sound of lavs compared to the sound of a boom, but is that a bad idea?

In an ideal dream world then I could only use a boom and never lavs.

Coming back to reality though..... that is not happening.

You'd need a director, and DoP, and the entire film crew, be willing to make sound a priority for them.

That just doesn't happen, you'd have to be kidding yourself to believe it.

Thus lavs are necessary.

And I recommend running both a boom and lavs at once at all times.

When you say your audio equipment for shooting on location never finds it's way into your studio, does your studio have different mics? Personally I like using the same mics for post as well, cause then it sounds more the same, as when you recorded on location, cause you are using the same mics, but you don't think this is as good of an idea, are you saying?

For ADR then it could be useful to use the same mics, but otherwise no.

There are seven basic kinds of sound recordings that are used for serious cine/video production editing. They each have specific purposes for sound editing during the production, and it is unrealistic to attempt to record more than one at a time and achieve a proper final sound editorial mix.

(1) DIALOG which is picked up during principal shooting with actors. The goal is to get the actors' speech as ISOLATED and CLEAN as possible so that extraneous noises, music, etc. don't interfere with editing.

(2) ADR or "Dialog Replacement or "Looping" where the actors are called into a sound-isolated studio and re-speak their scripted lines of dialog while watching the recorded picture. This is typically time-consuming and expensive for the obvious reasons, so every attempt is made to pick up good "clean" dialog during primary shooting.

(3) ROOM TONE is BY DEFINITION recorded in exactly the same place, within seconds immediately before or after shooting the take. Its purpose is to fill in gaps between sentences, words, phrases so that you don't have dead silence which sounds very unnatural. It is recorded with the SAME microphone in the SAME position as was used for recording the dialog. You need perhaps no more than 30 seconds of Room Tone for dialog editing purposes. It requires the director to instruct the cast and crew to "freeze" in place for 30 seconds while the Room Tone is recorded.

(4) AMBIENCE is recorded INDEPENDENTLY. Typically well apart (in time and space) from recording the production dialog. This is typically general location sounds like surf breaking on the shore or indistinct chatter in a restaurant or highway traffic, etc. etc. Its purpose is to provide a long-form (several minutes) of stable and consistent "background" to cover edits, shot angles, etc. It is typically recorded by the sound designer or editor perhaps days or weeks apart from principal action shooting.

(5) SFX (sound effects) are isolated recordings of specific things. There are libraries of literally millions of SFX clips available. When shooting many situations where sounds occur between/during phrases of dialog, the microphone is positioned for optimal pickup of the actors voices. So, typically sounds like a door opening, etc are not picked-up optimally by the dialog microphone. So we edit in the SFX into the mix at exactly the right place and at a level and position consistent with the scene in the video.

(6) FOLEY And then sometimes, it takes sounds that are synchronized with what is seen in the picture. A very common example is footsteps. And these are produced by "Foley" where someone reproduces the footsteps while watching the scene to synchronize the sounds.

(7) REVERB In many cases, because the dialog (and other sound elements) were recorded "clean", after everything is edited (for position) and located (by panning) and balanced (by audio level) you need a consistent location feel. An obvious example is a scene in a cave where we expect there to be heavy reverb and echo, etc. If you try to use "natural" reverb, you will end up with a horrible, jumbled mess when you finish editing the dialog. In some cases real "echo chambers" are used where the mix is sent into the (isolated and typically remote) room with a speaker, and then picked up at the other end of the space with a microphone which is brought back into the mix. It is more common in modern times to use digitally-generated echo/reverb.

It only takes the experience of editing sound for a production once to understand the difference (and importance and usefulness) of these kinds of audio recordings. NONE of these sounds can be properly captured by scattering microphones around the set and attempting to record them during principal shooting actors actions. Anyone recommending such methods has clearly never actually done it, and furthermore has not even thought through the consequences of attempting such a method.

Okay thanks, the types sound you describe are the methods I have been using before. However, when it comes to reverb, normally I find that the reverb going into the mic is enough reverb and I don't need to add any more in post. The mic seems to pick up enough to my liking sometimes even a little more in which case, I don't want anymore.

Does this mean I have been doing something wrong when getting reverb in my recordings, even if it all matches up in editing?

It sounds like you are doing simple productions where you don't need to create very realistic or complex sound mixes. But when you start doing more serious jobs, you will find that "wet" source stems will cause you headaches when you have to combine many different kinds of sounds together and make a convincing mix out of them.

If whatever you are doing is working for you, then you can't argue with that. But developing bad habits like that will not be very helpful for your career in the future.

It sounds like you are doing simple productions where you don't need to create very realistic or complex sound mixes. But when you start doing more serious jobs, you will find that "wet" source stems will cause you headaches when you have to combine many different kinds of sounds together and make a convincing mix out of them.

If whatever you are doing is working for you, then you can't argue with that. But developing bad habits like that will not be very helpful for your career in the future.

Oh well in my experience so far, if I want sound effects, I will try to create reverb, that will match that of the reverb that was already recorded with the voices in production. I would just play around with it till I get a match, but is this not a good way of doing it?

It sounds like you are doing simple productions where you don't need to create very realistic or complex sound mixes. But when you start doing more serious jobs, you will find that "wet" source stems will cause you headaches when you have to combine many different kinds of sounds together and make a convincing mix out of them.

If whatever you are doing is working for you, then you can't argue with that. But developing bad habits like that will not be very helpful for your career in the future.

Oh well in my experience so far, if I want sound effects, I will try to create reverb, that will match that of the reverb that was already recorded with the voices in production. I would just play around with it till I get a match, but is this not a good way of doing it?

I would also try to record the sound effects in the same location, or one with similar acoustics, to see if that would work as well, and a lot of times it has and audiences said they could not tell the difference, that the sound FX were recorded somewhere else, other than the voices.

Is that what you mean? Am I not doing it a good way, by recording the voices with reverb already in them? I've tried putting up sound blankets in the past to get rid of reverb while recording actors in locations, but I found that the blankets haven't really made much of a difference. So I just accepted the reverb that was already in the room, even with the blankets. Is that true that the blankets do not make a huge difference in lots of cases?

If you are happy with what you are doing, then just do it.

After five pages in this thread and responses from some of the best in the business, you are still asking basically the same questions that you started with. As Richard said, just do what you are comfortable with.

It sounds to me that you are aiming at a highly professional polished finished product, with virtually zero starting knowledge and experience. At some point you need to just do it, alternatively shelve the project until you have been on a film makers course to get some hands on experience.

Roger

I would say forget a filmmaker’s course; get on a/some real set(s) as a production assistant (on LEGITIMATE/funded projects) with real professional crew folks and see how all these things are done. Watch like a hawk, absorb, ask questions during downtime and lunch.

After five pages in this thread and responses from some of the best in the business, you are still asking basically the same questions that you started with. As Richard said, just do what you are comfortable with.

It sounds to me that you are aiming at a highly professional polished finished product, with virtually zero starting knowledge and experience. At some point you need to just do it, alternatively shelve the project until you have been on a film makers course to get some hands on experience.

Roger
I wanted to say something to the effect but I couldn’t think of a polite way to phrase it.

Oh I sorry I didn't mean to keep repeating myself. I've been on other people's shoots before and so far everyone is doing the boom mic as close as possible and no one is even bothering with planting mics around the room. So I can do it like that then.

Yes but were those “real” shoots? Often helping our friends with projects doesnt teach us anything because they are also doing everything wrong and simply dont know it. If you get on a legit project as PA, say a low budget indie feature that has funding/a budget and real industry pros working, you would most likely learn a ton about the way all the things youre asking about are properly done.

They were feature film shoots done by others I went to film school with, and I did the production audio and other things for them.

Not sure if those count as REAL shoots but they were features if that makes any difference? :). I also recorded sound for a trailer that was bigger budget.

They were feature film shoots done by others I went to film school with, and I did the production audio and other things for them. Not sure if those count as REAL shoots but they were features if that makes any difference?
Did they use those goofy multi-microphone schemes?
Did you talk to the audio editor?
Did you hear the resulting sound track?
Did it sound "professional grade"?

I also recorded sound for a trailer that was bigger budget.
Same questions.

I’d say try to get on something that isn’t a student/school/amateur project. You would want to get on something funded/with a real budget and real professional crew people. Cant tell you exactly how to find those...here in Houston, Texas you have the Houston Film Commission and Texas Film Commission websites that have ads with projects seeking crew. Hopefully there’s something similar in your region. I know this all sounds like a pain in the ass but if the recommended books and all the advice here aren’t getting you where you need to be then I cant think of anything else.

Oh okay, but the films I worked on were done by former students, and they didn't do them for school, they did them after we had all graduated. Do they still count as student projects, if we are no longer students, and it's been a few years since we graduated? They got cast and crews and everything.

I live in Canada, but most of the movies here that were advertised that I applied to, just so happened to be made by former classmates.

Accept the for the trailer I worked on, which was done by people I haven't met before then.

Did they use those goofy multi-microphone schemes?
Did you talk to the audio editor?
Did you hear the resulting sound track?
Did it sound "professional grade"?


No, they wouldn't have me talk to the audio editors, so I never met them. I heard the final mix after the movie was complete. I would say some was professional grade for a mix, and not were not so much, if that is what you are asking?

I really despair when you find graduates from film, TV and media schools who know a fair amount about one subject but the school skimmed over others in a way that either confuses or convinces the graduates of facts and practices that are simply wrong.

I NEVER blame the students. Their teaching staff however, get 100% of the blame.

Shotguns are a very common example of where students (using an English phrase) get totally the wrong end of the stick.

The number one rule of successful shotgun operation is all about distance. The shortest path from source to destination. You do NOT want reverb if it can be avoided. Mainly because it is NOT even reverb. Shotguns move in space so relationship between wanted sound and unwanted sound constantly changes. You hear reflections, flutter echos, unwanted sounds, and audio clutter and because it's changing, the type and content of the 'reverberation' changes too. You want dry, clean audio, with the highest signal to noise ratio you can get - even if in the edit it gets swamped with cathedral reverb - because this treatment will be constant. Shotguns are often criticised for being difficult indoors - but this is simply because they are a capturing instrument - they have no magic cut-off at a certain distance. If they aim at a wall, then you hear the wall - with whatever being reflected.

The art (or craft) of booming revolves around the operator hearing what the mic captures and adjusting it. You cannot do it without a clean feed of the mic output, so you hear odd reflections, aircraft, the PA sniffing - that kind of thing. You aim your mic with one eye on the camera lens to check what their focal length currently is so you can estimate how close in you can go to get the cleanest sound without cameras yelling "boom in shot" and having to reshoot. Novice boom ops droop the boom, they opt for more distant miking because it's easier and they mistakes don't get seen - but they do get heard. You see people booming indoors with the long haired wind sock over the Zeppelin shaped windshield basket. I'm amazed people had to explain hairy sausage! indoors experience will tell how light you can go. Maybe totally naked with no wind protection, and just long slow boom movements, or a simple foam shield for faster booming, or maybe just the basket without the wind cover because there is a light breeze through an open window. The boom ops will be discussing if DT100's are better than HD50s for the ancient ones, or the modern crop of 'posh' phones are better. Some demand isolation, others need some leakage. Each to his or her own of course. Shotgun mics are simply not a point and record device. They are a specialist tool, each with it's own character and preferred way of operating. I just don't see film school graduates knowing this kind of stuff. They vaguely point the mic at the talent, and react to movement, rather than predicting what is about to happen and preparing. You see them oblivious to the camera about to commence a slow zoom out, forgetting their booming distance is about to increase. You see many obsessed with overhead booming, not even considering camera framing where laying on the floor could get the mic closer in. They forget that the editor will be screaming when the only audio they have is so distant as to be useless, when they can see the subjects in the frame and wondering why the boom was in the next room, from what they hear?

The comment about student productions is very accurate, from what I see. Bad practice learned from other people's bad practice. A production shot by graduates has a quantitive lack of quality thresholds because everyone works individually based on their specialism, and a false sense of how good they are. A basic level sound person working with a basic level camera team have nothing to go on. The camera people may not enable sound to even see the framing, and maybe won't have the courage to warn of booms in shot, or spot boom shadows - I hate these, so obvious in the edit but not spotted on the shoot. Sound may not even discuss how close they can go. On a seasoned pro shoot you will see sound and camera coordinate. Can I go closer? The camera op warning when the frame is encroached and the boom op mentally storing that distance. The sound people will warn picture when they hear problems. They may make themselves unpopular, but not as bad as having a ruined scene because they didn't notice the guy two fields away with a chainsaw. Film schools just spend too little time on some subjects, and booming shotguns is such a common one - and I note, often not delivered by a sound specialist.

The idea a sound person even has to ask these questions brings the course credibility into question for me. Multiple mics? Dialogue? Sound effects? Should you use them? Yes - if it is appropriate. That's such an obvious answer, yet graduates seem glued to a fixed set of rules. Why would you record multiple mics? Because you need them. Lavs and shotguns? Why not - its a budget issue not a technical one. If you can afford a mic per person, your success rate goes up. If you cannot afford them, then you need a simple effective solution instead. Probably a boom op who is on the ball. A good op with a cheap mic that can be eq'd in post would win for me over an inexperienced one with an expensive mic.

As for sound effects, wild tracks and the dialogue - this is something for the pre-production meetings. Over the years I've lost count of how many times I have had to say STOP. We cannot record good dialogue on a single beach, with gulls and waves and have everyone look at me and say "but we have to - we don't have the time or budget for ADR". However - the location sound recorded is amazingly useful to the audio folk for realism. No damn good for the speaking though!

I really despair when you find graduates from film, TV and media schools who know a fair amount about one subject but the school skimmed over others in a way that either confuses or convinces the graduates of facts and practices that are simply wrong.

I NEVER blame the students. Their teaching staff however, get 100% of the blame.

Shotguns are a very common example of where students (using an English phrase) get totally the wrong end of the stick.

The number one rule of successful shotgun operation is all about distance. The shortest path from source to destination. You do NOT want reverb if it can be avoided. Mainly because it is NOT even reverb. Shotguns move in space so relationship between wanted sound and unwanted sound constantly changes. You hear reflections, flutter echos, unwanted sounds, and audio clutter and because it's changing, the type and content of the 'reverberation' changes too. You want dry, clean audio, with the highest signal to noise ratio you can get - even if in the edit it gets swamped with cathedral reverb - because this treatment will be constant. Shotguns are often criticised for being difficult indoors - but this is simply because they are a capturing instrument - they have no magic cut-off at a certain distance. If they aim at a wall, then you hear the wall - with whatever being reflected.

The art (or craft) of booming revolves around the operator hearing what the mic captures and adjusting it. You cannot do it without a clean feed of the mic output, so you hear odd reflections, aircraft, the PA sniffing - that kind of thing. You aim your mic with one eye on the camera lens to check what their focal length currently is so you can estimate how close in you can go to get the cleanest sound without cameras yelling "boom in shot" and having to reshoot. Novice boom ops droop the boom, they opt for more distant miking because it's easier and they mistakes don't get seen - but they do get heard. You see people booming indoors with the long haired wind sock over the Zeppelin shaped windshield basket. I'm amazed people had to explain hairy sausage! indoors experience will tell how light you can go. Maybe totally naked with no wind protection, and just long slow boom movements, or a simple foam shield for faster booming, or maybe just the basket without the wind cover because there is a light breeze through an open window. The boom ops will be discussing if DT100's are better than HD50s for the ancient ones, or the modern crop of 'posh' phones are better. Some demand isolation, others need some leakage. Each to his or her own of course. Shotgun mics are simply not a point and record device. They are a specialist tool, each with it's own character and preferred way of operating. I just don't see film school graduates knowing this kind of stuff. They vaguely point the mic at the talent, and react to movement, rather than predicting what is about to happen and preparing. You see them oblivious to the camera about to commence a slow zoom out, forgetting their booming distance is about to increase. You see many obsessed with overhead booming, not even considering camera framing where laying on the floor could get the mic closer in. They forget that the editor will be screaming when the only audio they have is so distant as to be useless, when they can see the subjects in the frame and wondering why the boom was in the next room, from what they hear?

The comment about student productions is very accurate, from what I see. Bad practice learned from other people's bad practice. A production shot by graduates has a quantitive lack of quality thresholds because everyone works individually based on their specialism, and a false sense of how good they are. A basic level sound person working with a basic level camera team have nothing to go on. The camera people may not enable sound to even see the framing, and maybe won't have the courage to warn of booms in shot, or spot boom shadows - I hate these, so obvious in the edit but not spotted on the shoot. Sound may not even discuss how close they can go. On a seasoned pro shoot you will see sound and camera coordinate. Can I go closer? The camera op warning when the frame is encroached and the boom op mentally storing that distance. The sound people will warn picture when they hear problems. They may make themselves unpopular, but not as bad as having a ruined scene because they didn't notice the guy two fields away with a chainsaw. Film schools just spend too little time on some subjects, and booming shotguns is such a common one - and I note, often not delivered by a sound specialist.

The idea a sound person even has to ask these questions brings the course credibility into question for me. Multiple mics? Dialogue? Sound effects? Should you use them? Yes - if it is appropriate. That's such an obvious answer, yet graduates seem glued to a fixed set of rules. Why would you record multiple mics? Because you need them. Lavs and shotguns? Why not - its a budget issue not a technical one. If you can afford a mic per person, your success rate goes up. If you cannot afford them, then you need a simple effective solution instead. Probably a boom op who is on the ball. A good op with a cheap mic that can be eq'd in post would win for me over an inexperienced one with an expensive mic.

As for sound effects, wild tracks and the dialogue - this is something for the pre-production meetings. Over the years I've lost count of how many times I have had to say STOP. We cannot record good dialogue on a single beach, with gulls and waves and have everyone look at me and say "but we have to - we don't have the time or budget for ADR". However - the location sound recorded is amazingly useful to the audio folk for realism. No damn good for the speaking though!

Oh okay, well in film school I took a course that deals a lot more with directing than audio. With audio, I learned a lot from asking other audio people, and be reading tutorials and watching tutorials online. It was only later that I was told I was doing it wrong and that I should be recording surround some on production, so I don't have to create a surround sound mix later. But those were only two people telling me that, who have a music recording background, and everyone else says one boom following the voices is the way to go, plus lavs if we can get them.

I was doing boom before, and I have a shotgun and hypercardioid mic. I already had a hairy sausage which I have used before, but I never heard it called that before, which is why I asked on here. I've been using it for about four years now, but it's always been called a blimp or a zepplin or wind protection. Never heard the term hairy sausage, and it wasn't called that at all on the box, or in the manual. But thanks for letting me know!

As for past experiences, one thing I hated is how the directors allowed the DP to have full control over where the boom goes. The DP will decide on where the boom goes based on what is best for their lighting, even when it's in too far away of a place. I wish that more directors would allow the sound department decide where the boom should be, and if there is a shadow from getting in close with the boom mic, the DP should just have to light around that and get rid of the shadow, for the sake of better sound.

But the directors I've worked with so far, allowed the DPs to have full command on where the boom mic is too be placed, so they ended up with sound that was too far away, and had to be turned up later in post, and you could tell there was a distance in some of the scenes I worked on.

But I don't think that film school can teach every department in all one course, or can they, and they just won't?

sorry Ryan - I didn't intend you to think it was a technical term, because not isn't but the Zeppelin shaped wind reducing device - windshield, windscreen, whatever gets covered by the hairy cover, so I figured using 'windshield' might be misunderstood, when I was thinking the hairy cover that gets wet, matted and bends the boom! Hairy Sausage is descriptive, but hardly a proper term. Hence why I like it!

I think, looking back at how I learned things, pre-internet from books was not that different from the net used info we have now, but just always out of date. However - they give a flavour. That's all. In technical disciplines like ours, experimentation and learning from poor (or maybe good) results counts. You listen to all the sources and learn from them. I've learned the hard way to have backups. Indeed, one of the reasons for buying any current favourite camera is the twin card slots for security. I still have my two similar, but tape based cameras, and used one as a B roll camera last week and suffered a head clog. I'd forgotten how these used to happen, but didn't use the hard drive recorded sitting on the shelf. Just a stupid mistake. With sound, I always run two mics, never recording one to both channels, because sometimes this gets you out of trouble.

Just get the mics in close, reduce unwanted pickup by careful aiming and listen really hard to what they are capturing. Loud capable headphones that shut out real sound are pretty critical too.

Oh okay thanks :). When you say headphones that shut out are sound are critical, I was told the opposite before, and that I want headphones to sound as realistic as possible, that way you know exactly what is being heard accurately, but is that true?

Oh okay thanks :). When you say headphones that shut out are sound are critical, I was told the opposite before, and that I want headphones to sound as realistic as possible, that way you know exactly what is being heard accurately, but is that true?
There are many (most?) headphones out there that are "hyped" to "sound good" to people listening to head-banging hard rock or rap or whatever is popular these days. They have names like "Beats" and/or names of celebrities attached (like "Dr. Dre") and made in a rainbow of colors to make them appealing to children. They are NOT designed to be accurate. Accuracy means even, uncolored response across the audio spectrum. That way you can actually hear properly the audio signal that you are trying to record. You won't hear hyped bass or squeaky highs, etc.

Headphones that shut out or "occlude" or "isolate" external sounds are important so that you can hear ONLY what you are trying to record. But that is a completely DIFFERENT, SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT factor from accuracy (or hype). "Realism" and "occlusion" are NOT THE OPPOSITE. They are completely independent factors. There are hyped, unrealistic headphones that have excellent occlusion. And there are accurate headphones that are "open-air" where you can easily hear outside sounds. There are reasons why people would buy headphones like that. But accurately monitoring what you are trying to record is NOT one of those reasons.

To properly monitor what you are recording, you need ISOLATION so that you hear ONLY what you are recording, and NOT any sound through the air into your ears. You want to hear ONLY what the microphone is picking up because that is the only thing that will be recorded. It doesn't matter what things sound like to your ears because you can't record what your ears are hearing. You can only record what the microphone is hearing.

And you need headphones that are ACCURATE so that you aren't fooled into thinking that your audio sounds "good" if it doesn't.

There are a few kinds of headphones that are favorites with production soundies around the world. In our part of the world, the Sony MDR-7506 have been popular for many years. I have several pairs and have gone through several sets of replacement ear cushions for them. But my current favorite appear also the favorite in Europe, the Sennheiser HD-280. Also popular are Audio Technica ATH-M50X.

Most earbuds are not very accurate and not recommended for serious audio recording. They are fine for entertainment, listening while jogging or on a long plane flight. However, there are SOME brands and models that are specifically made for accuracy and isolation for professional use.

Note also that "noise-cancelling" headphones are NOT RECOMMENDED for proper monitoring. Because they will cancel some types of noise that your microphone is picking up and being recorded. So you will think you are hearing noise-free audio, but you will discover that noise in your recording when you get back to your editing computer. Again, noise-cancelling headphones (or earbuds) are marvelous for entertainment, especially on a long flight. But they are NOT appropriate for serious monitoring.

Okay thanks. But as far as headphones go where you are only hearing what you want to record, let's say that later in post production, you hear unwanted sounds that you couldn't hear as much in the headphones, because of that. Wouldn't that be a bad thing, if you could not hear those sounds, and heard them later in post?

Okay thanks. But as far as headphones go where you are only hearing what you want to record,

NO! NO! You do NOT (NOT!) monitor "what you WANT to record". You need to monitor what you actually ARE recording.

let's say that later in post production, you hear unwanted sounds that you couldn't hear as much in the headphones, because of that. Wouldn't that be a bad thing, if you could not hear those sounds, and heard them later in post?

That is why you want headphones (or earbuds) that:
1) ISOLATE you from sounds through the air so that you hear ONLY what the microphone is picking up and recording.
2) ACCURATELY reproduce exactly what the microphone is picking up. Noise and all.

So that if you hear anything wrong, you can FIX IT right then and there during production. Because trying to fix it after the fact (in post-production) will be time-consuming, damaging to the audio, difficult, expensive, and often completely impossible.

Oh Okay thanks, sorry I misunderstood! :).

Yes that makes sense and that's what I want. However, I noticed the headphones I have actually display more noise than what is coming through in post. I hear noise and get worried, but then when I play it back in post, on big speakers, there isn't near as much noise. I don't think it's the headphones though, as I have tried two pairs so far, and I think it might be the headphone jack in my FR2-LE recorder, that I haven been using over the years, cause it's always seemed to give more noise in the headphones, compared to post later, where things actually sound better.

Does that make sense?

It is good that you are experimenting with your gear "offline" (not during actual production). That is the best way to understand how it all works together and what everything should look like (and sound like) when it is working properly, and to "calibrate" your ears to know what you will end up with in post-production editing.

Note that a lot of lower-end plastic consumer gear has inferior headphone amps. So it is not surprising that you may hear self-noise from the recorder that is not present in the recording. Until you can afford to use better equipment, at least you can listen to the self-noise from the recorder (with the input turned all the way down) to know what to ignore while you are recording the desired sounds.

To be honest Ryan, no it makes no sense at all.

Noise - you hear it in the headphones and not in the recording? What kind of noise? We're not talking about hiss, or hum or buzzes - we're talking about the sound your microphone is capturing. What kind of noises are you hearing/ my experience and I suspect Richard's will be the same is that what you hear is exactly what you record. You can hear the aircon duct rumbling, you can hear traffic passing by, you can hear the birds tweeting or the grasshoppers chirping - that kind of thing. Sound on Sound magazine (the only UK one I trust) liked it. The headphone socket was not pointed out in a negative manner - so I don't understand what you mean about it being the problem?

Can you explain what issues you have? I'm confused now. That recorder should do a decent job.

Oh okay, sorry I should have explained. I just meant hiss, as in the noise floor sounds higher in the headphones, than it actually is later in post, when playing through bigger speakers.

But I also feel that the background sounds are louder in general through the headphones than in post later. It's like when I turn up the gain on recorder while in production, I can just hear the background being closer whether it's be air ducks or traffic outrside, etc. Then it post, it's pushed further away then it sounded before.

I think there is more of a contrast between foreground and background sound in post, than it the headphones on production, it sounds like.

It is a GOOD thing that you hear unwanted noises LOUDER in monitoring during recording. It is a benefit to reducing the noises during production. The purpose of monitoring during recording is to capture cleanly the very best pickup of the dialog. MAXIMIZING the level and quality of the voice, and MINIMIZING the unwanted noises and environmental effects (echo, reverberation, etc.)

Yes, I suppose that is a good thing :).

I was just surprised at how much better it sounds in post. As for recording dialogue, I read from some sources not to let the gain and volume go over 75%. But some people's voices are kind of quiet, and I need to go over 75% I read. Is this because of the pre-amps of the FR2-LE, or is this normal on other field recorders?

Ryan - this is recording 101!!

forget totally any kind of percentage. Input gain is set appropriately to make best use of the available dynamic range. So A quiet voice, recorded with a rather insensitive microphone will require more gain than a loud voice with a sensitive mic. You cannot go over, even by a tiny amount, the maximum the equipment can handle. It can sound horrible, nasty and very distorted. At the other end, if you accidentally record too low, then when you boost it in post, it gets noisier.

So forget the idea of recording at 75% on the gain control, or even at 75% of the maximum scale on the meter - not really sure what you meant, or what your friends meant - but they sound the kind of friends who are best asked about video rather than audio, to be honest.

What you really MUST do quickly is get to know your equipment. Learn how it responds to low and high level inputs. Learn how it sounds when you accidentally go too high or too low. Learn how far you can push.

I'll give you an example. Today I've plugged in a new bit of kit to a mixer. The device is set to deliver what's called +4dB output level, which is pretty hot. It's connected to a Soundcraft mixer that does not have a pad control, and could really do with one, as a track mastered to -3dB peak manages to light the peak light on the mixer with the gains only a gnat's whisker above minimum. However, I know this mixer well and it can cope with this considerable overloading. It is impossible to connect to my Tascam interface without sounding dreadful, even on minimum gain. The Soundcraft just copes better with hot signals.

You say your recorder sounds better on proper monitors? Compared with what headphones? Comparable ones or hifi ones? Again, not all headphones are equal.

Okay thanks, but as far as turning it up to the max goes, I've done that a few times to get the voices louder in some locations, and it didn't sound nasty or horrible at all. It sounded fine, so it it normal for the equipment to be turned up max, and still sound decent, as long as the voices are not clipping of course?

As for comparing headphones to monitors, what counts as a hi-fi headphone exactly?

As for mic sensitivity, so far I have the NTG-3 and the 4053b mics only, and the 4053b seems slightly more sensitive but only slightly, it seems.

As @Paul R Johnson said, Recording 101 reduced to a single sentence is: Record the sound as accurately and appropriately as possible AT THE OPTIMAL LEVEL.

We keep going around and around on "accurately" and "appropriately" but you seem to have some goofy scheme of using "multiple mics to record dialog". But apparently, the only way to cure you of such a delusion is for you to try it for yourself so you can see why it won't work.

Recording at the optimal level means recording as high as possible (to stay above the noise-floor), but to keep the level low enough so that you never hit absolute zero clipping. There are no absolute rules about what level to record at. Adjusting recording levels properly is essentially the primary job of the sound recording person (the "A1") It requires experience and judgement. There is no cookie-cutter rule-of-thumb. And getting the microphone in the right spot is essentially the primary job of the boom operator ("A2") The definitions of A1, A2, etc are not the same for production audio as they are for live sound (like a rock concert, etc.)

The noise floor is a combination of all the noises from ambient noise, echo and reverb, source loudness, microphone sensitivity, microphone self-noise, microphone directionality, microphone working distance, mic preamp signal-to-noise ratio, recorder self-noise, etc. etc.

OTOH, clipping is very simple and totally unforgiving. If you allow the recording level to hit 0dBFS (clipping) then you are recording too loud. Period. Full stop. No debate. Some gear (like premium preamps in Sound Devices gear) are designed to have graceful behavior in the event of modest overload. But most gear simply falls apart at clipping.

If you are recording something very predictable, then you can set your levels high enough to stay well above the noise-floor but avoid clipping. But if you are recording something unpredictable, then you must select a lower recording level to leave yourself some "headroom" between the audio peaks and the absolute maximum (clipping).

You can set recording levels properly during rehearsal while leaving a bit of extra headroom for unexpected exuberance during the actual performance. We often prefer to use 24-bit recording which gives you a very comfortable 144dB dynamic range vs. the 96dB dynamic range from 16 bit recording. Remember that the release format may be 16 bit, but that is quite acceptable once you have properly mixed all the audio elements together. But during live recording, you don't have a crystal ball to predict exactly what the audio peaks will be.,

Perhaps you missed the discussion of headphones including mention of the top 3 favorite models used by production sound people. Sometimes it is not clear why you keep asking things that we thought we had answered?

Mic sensitivity is only one of a dozen factors that affect the signal-to-noise ratio of your recorded tracks.

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to ask the same questions, there are just certain variables, I am trying to understand more in depth, that's all.

But I never recorded with multiple mics, it was just suggested to me, by two people in the audio business, but they are much more experienced in recording music and musicians. But I will stick to recording with just one boom mic, like I've been doing and won't do what they say, like you said.

no Ryan - that isn't what we are saying at all! None of us have said just use a boom mic and ignore your friends - we're saying that as each project is different, there can be no single rule. For my last three video outings I have never even taken the shotgun out of the case, and the boom has had of all things, a camera on the end, and I used the audio the cameras shot. You seem to be a little like Gibbs in NCIS - but you only have rule 1 and maybe rule 2. You get to rule 100 after more than 100 jobs where you keep writing new ones to fill in the "what if?" holes.

In my career, I have never been good enough at any single discipline to earn the tag expert, because for me, every job has involved learning new things, so I have had consistent work since the seventies because I'm know to be good at lots of things rather than expert at one. I still make mistakes, but I'm proud to have never have made the same one twice. You seem desperate to learn as much as you can in advance, and frankly, because people cannot write sound down, you just have to learn by experience. I have two different shotguns in the same Zeppelin mounts, and I should probably colour code the handles so I know which is the 416 and which is the slightly longer AT815. I've done loads of jobs on what was probably, on paper, the wrong one - but I have never been able to tell the difference. They sound different, but as they get used on different sound sources all the time, this colour difference gets lost. I just tweak the EQ and always get sound that does what it should.

Richard made a good point about levels. We guess. We even get quite good at guessing. I did a single man, multiple job classical choir job a few weeks ago, and needed to set the gains from just a few minutes between the end of my rigging and the choir being broken before the live performance. I picked a level based on maybe 15 seconds of the end of a movement. No idea if this movement was typical, or was the loudest, or what. I knew the musical style, but not the piece. I watched the singers to see how loud they were singing compared to the conductor's hand waving, I listened to the organ, than I knew would be the same volume in the performance as it wasn't on the swell. I picked a level and I actually guess a little low - I had nothing recorded above -10dB on the meters, most being considerably lower. The preamps managed fine, noise was so low that I could hear the rumbles and motor blower on the organ NOT noise.

You have got to start to learn your equipment, and learn how it responds to your adjustments. We have an ex-BBC guy locally, who is in his late 80's and he still records on a Nagra (Google it) in analogue on reel to reel tape that has probably been erased a million times. The paper spec of this recorder, with two Coles (STC) mics is really not remotely the best compared to modern equipment, but his recordings are stunning in clarity and if I'm honest, a low noise floor. He simply rolls off the upper HF, and takes the hiss with it. Probably has always done this. He never makes a bad recording with this gear. He just knows how it works. this is where you should start! please don't think we're criticising - we genuinely want to urge you to stop planning and thinking about absolutes and get you into experimenting.

Okay thanks. I don't mean to say I will operate by one rule only, but as for the multiple mics thing, they are too hard to hide on a set design, without getting in the way of things. So I haven't found a reason yet to plant mics around that don't move with the actors.

As for gain on the field recorder, I can just keep on doing what I am doing then and turn the gain and volume up to around 75% since that gets the levesl at around -12 db most of the time, if that's best.

Hiding mics on set - movies, TV and theatre is actually a tried and tested system - but remember it's planned carefully. If you are using a boom but one shot needs a wide shot that makes the mic too far away, you will get that nasty hollow, weak audio from it. If the actors are grouped around a table with a central plant pot, or light fitting, then hiding a small lav there is a great idea. BUT - you only do it when it's a problem solver. It's the distance thing again - closer the better. If you have tight budgets then many options are simply unavailable - but at the pre-production meetings this is where people discuss and sort these things. You find it often is the same things. You discover the director wants the really wide shot, and asks you about lavs. You are happy, because if they ask, the budget for them is easier to get, but then wardrobe jump in and point out the actress has a tight cropped top and nowhere for a mic to be hidden, let alone the pack. You point out that so far that means no sound, so you'll have to budget for an ADR session. The producer vetos this and you ask wardrobe for a solution, and they ask if it's possible to hide a pack and mic in a hat the actor might be wearing? This is the way it gets planned. No reason why a production of any scale cannot do this process, and find answers.

If your 75% system works - then go with it. I'm just surprised it doesn't need tweaking.

Okay thanks. When you say you are surprised my 75% does not need tweaking, but tweaking do you mean adjustments in levels, here and there? Cause I do do that too, if that's what you mean.

Also, in my past experience, the director will always allow the DP to call the shots on where the mic is placed, and the DP picks places too far away, leading to not the closest sound as it could be. Is this common on a lot of shoots?

As for plant mics, I don't really like the idea of planting them for close ups, but not a master, cause I am worried about something messing with the continuity if I do that, but maybe not.

What about movies where they don't use lavs in wide masters and they used boom mics, but the mics are further away, and they just go with the audio anyway? Take the wide master shot from this scene for example:

Paths of Glory (5/11) Movie CLIP - Closing Argument (1957) HD - YouTube

The boom mic is further away then usual, and the audio sounds more distant, but the filmmakers chose to go with it anyway, so is further away boom mics in wide master shots, acceptable sometimes then?

Note that movie was shot in the mid 1950s when there were no reliable wireless microphones.. And clearly nowhere close enough to bother with plant mics. The only other alternative would have been ADR, but it seems quite possible they left the dialog extremely "wet" in order to capture the large, reverberant space in which the scene takes place. You won't find 1 in 10000 feature films that has such distant dialog track. It would normally be considered unusable. Note when they switch to a close-up, the sound is correspondingly close and clean. (Because of proper mic location.)

I would refuse to work on a production where the DP decides microphone placement. If the DP has that responsibility, what do the need you for? That is just insane in my book.