Ryan -after reading all these posts about recording levels, just wondering out of curiosity ... what recorders do you have with a safety track?

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.

Yeah it's just on a couple of shoots before I would say where I need to place the boom mic to get the best sound possible, and the DP would jump in and say that I cannot do that cause it will interfere with the lighting they have planned, and the director would always give the DP final priority on that. One off the movies I worked on, I saw later, and the cinematography was actually pretty good, but the sound was not as a result.

As for wet dialog during the master shot, I find that during the master it's more acceptable cause everyone is further away in the master, so it's okay for the dialog to sound further away, especially if the actors are distance in a courtroom such as that. But I am wrong, on not minding wet dialog on a master? Of course you have to make sure that the master dialog stays on the master shots, and you cannot swap it with any of the close up shots of the characters speaking, but is wet dialog okay like that as long as it stays on the master?

Ryan -after reading all these posts about recording levels, just wondering out of curiosity ... what recorders do you have with a safety track?

Oh I have the FR2-LE, which doesn't have safety tracks unfortunately, so I just have to use one track when using that.

Yeah it's just on a couple of shoots before I would say where I need to place the boom mic to get the best sound possible, and the DP would jump in and say that I cannot do that cause it will interfere with the lighting they have planned, and the director would always give the DP final priority on that. One off the movies I worked on, I saw later, and the cinematography was actually pretty good, but the sound was not as a result.
Doing a production is a TEAM EFFORT where all the departments are supposed to work cooperatively.

"Light the set so that a boom can swing overhead."
An Open Letter from your Sound Department - A Production Sound Manifesto written by audio professionals (http://filmsound.org/production-sound/openletter.htm)


If the Producer and Director let the DP get away with that, I won't be working with them again.
Unless, of course, they are making a silent movie.

Strongly recommend reading the "Open Letter from your Sound Department"
An Open Letter from your Sound Department - A Production Sound Manifesto written by audio professionals (http://filmsound.org/production-sound/openletter.htm)

As well as:
sync.sound.cinema: The Ten Commandments of Sound for Picture! (Part One)
sync.sound.cinema: The Ten Commandments of Sound for Picture! (Part Two)

Okay thanks, I will check those out!

I also like to see the storyboards cause I would like to get ideas for mic placement based on those, but the directors did not show me the storyboards, with one even saying the sound department does not get to go over storyboards. Is this common or no, and the director should do so for the sound department?

I thought you only used one mic? So you have a spare track you can set a different level on, so just split the input to the two XLRs and you have a hot channel and a safe one.

Okay thanks, but I was told before by others, not to do this, because using a splitter, cuts the signal in half and it's not good for the signal, cause you loose decibels this way, I was told. I was also told it's not good for the mic either to do this, so is using a splitter, a good idea therefore? Cause if I loose decibels, than I have to turn up the gain even higher then. I don't want to do anything that is bad for the mic if it is to, of course.

Okay thanks, but I was told before by others, not to do this, because using a splitter, cuts the signal in half and it's not good for the signal, ...
Not true. Microphone splitting is a widely used technique across all areas of professional audio.

Whomever you are getting advice from seem profoundly clueless about audio. Recommend staying away from them.

Ryan - you seriously have a bunch of advisors who seem to know very, very little about audio. I've been splitting audio for a very long time now. I have quite a few snakes - one has a three way 24ch transformer coupled split, I also have two others where the stage box end has a male and a female connector in parallel, with a further multicore out wired across them. Nowadays, I use a Behringer X32 and a Midas M32 both being fed from the Midas 32 channel stage box in digital. There is no difference I can hear between the lossless digital split and the passive splits. The physics says there is a loss. The practical upshot is that you simply never notice. On occasions, we've had one show with the passive splits feeding an OB truck, who de-rig and clear during the second show. They pulled out their cables and no gain adjustment was needed between the two shows.

If you cannot solder, buy a Y splitter, they cost nothing really - so a damn useful bit of kit for the tool box. The only rule with splitters is a simple one. Only ONE device supplies phantom, not two. However, it's easy to get wrong, and I've never had an issue with this. Audio folk do need a bit of physics/science, and your friends probably took an art class rather than science. It brings me back to the standard of education sadly. All those people who like to have a gain reduced safety track have to feed one mic to two inputs somehow? A splitter. My cameras for years have had a switch to feed the camera mic to one or both channels - it's just a link switch - another splitter.

Okay thanks, but I was told before by others, not to do this, because using a splitter, cuts the signal in half and it's not good for the signal, cause you loose decibels this way, I was told. I was also told it's not good for the mic either to do this, so is using a splitter, a good idea therefore? Cause if I loose decibels, than I have to turn up the gain even higher then. I don't want to do anything that is bad for the mic if it is to, of course.

It doesn't harm the mic at all and you lose very little signal. XLR mic splits are a common way to record a music event or to send the signals to a mixer for the audience and a separate mixer for the band stage monitors. Sometimes a single mic (e.g. lead vocal) is split to two channels for separate processing for audience and stage. The worst case scenario is that occasionally a console will do unwanted things if it sees phantom power from another console, but that's rare. Another risk is ground loop when the two ends of the split are on different A/C power, but if you're just splitting into two channels on one device those problems won't happen.

I own a couple of 16-channel splitter snakes. I've never had a problem using them.

Given the somewhat difficult working conditions that has been presented it would be handy to have more options available, like a safety track for example. Sure, the discussion has turned to splitters but just want to give a plug for the safety track because I think it would be really handy.

Speaking of handy, how about another recorder? While everyone has their preference, this Tascam DR44-WL has worked very nicely for me. Has two stereo inputs, records safety tracks, and is easily controlled with a smartphone. As I write this, eBay currently has a used one for Buy-it-Now open box US$193.30 or new for $205 (free shipping).

[Edit: forgot to mention, it can be operated from a distance via a smartphone application (iPhone in this case). Works well it in combination with a plant mic. Operate Start/Stop, gain adjustment remotely]

With a second recorder one can record the plant mic, hook up a lavaliere, or what have you.

Can’t have too much kit!

Oh okay thanks, but I don't think I would need a second recorder if I already have the splitter, but maybe. It depends on if I have another person to operate it or not, but if it's just me doing the sound mixing and the booming, I cannot operate another recorder successfully I don't think. I think I would need another person for that...

But arent you directing too? That’s going to be very tough (if not impossible) to split your attention and do both well. Sounded like you already had planned for a separate DP...I’d advise getting a separate sound guy as well. Then you wouldnt have to worry about any of this (other than that person’s competence)!

Oh in the past, I was forced to do my own audio on my own projects, if shorthanded. I look for other production sound mixers/boom ops, but there do not seem to be near as many of them around compared to cinematographers it seems. The two guys I talked to who recorded music bands were possibly interested they said, but they were the ones who wanted to plant mics all around the room, and create surround sound while shooting.

Hmmm. That's quite the wrinkly pickle. I guess you're better off doing it yourself with proper technique than using folks who have no idea what they're talking about.

I can hopefully find someone better. It's just most audio people prefer to use lavs as well, but they do not have enough for all the people I have, and I would rather just use the boom mics I have, rather than lavs, which have caused me problems in the past, but also do not have enough of usually. But it's hard to find someone who is good at booming, so I've done it since I've done it for other filmmakers before.

...The two guys I talked to who recorded music bands were possibly interested they said, but they were the ones who wanted to plant mics all around the room, and create surround sound while shooting.

Let them record a production like that and make them edit/mix it down to a professional-sounding track. If they have any sense they will quickly see why that is a bad idea.

Plant mics were popular back in the 1930s when a microphone was the size (and weight) a bowling ball. There is no logical motivation for that kind of compromise here in the 21st century.

Yeah that's what I thought, the only time I saw a plant mic used was in the movie Singin' in the Rain, which was hidden inside an actual plant.

Having made a film with surround sound, I would do it all in post. You have so much control that it's a dream laying the sound; going back to the 1930s for mic techniques is not really the way to go. It's extremely limiting, I've done it once when shooting on a low budget one man band corporate video on health and all the action has to be pinned down.

Read Walter Murch and others on sound design. Trying to get good surround sound whilst shooting will eat into your shooting schedule,so get good clean mono dialogue sound tracks (use radio mics if needed) and a separate stereo atmos track for each location and do the rest later. The sound recordist can pick up many of the spot effects etc when you've left the location or elsewhere in the location on the day or during breaks, otherwise you'll have to stop rigging/ setting up/ rehearsing every time they want to record something. However, schedule time for them to do this and other foley work.

Building up all the effects etc is really a fun job and you can really enhance a production with an imaginative sound track..

Have you ever done TV? You have a recorder on a strap around your neck, you have maybe a couple of its clipped on to the participants and maybe a boom to manage. Perversely possible. You don't have a hand on each control. You set the levels, then work the boom. You are NOT mixing, that's for later. You are just capturing sound, as cleanly as you can. The other day somebody was looking for a carrying solution for multiple receivers, the recorder and all the odds and ends. This is perfectly normal, everyday activity for audio people. You are making everything into a huge mountain, which is isn't. You just need proper planning.

I recently did a job where I had to do everything. There simply wasn't any budget for paying 3 cameras and one audio guy. The project was speculative. I had no idea if it would be viable. They wanted old fashioned DVDs as the end product. I recorded 9 audio tracks in the end, and five video cameras, two which were about 30m apart, so I was recording audio totally unattended, while I ran back and forth changing angles. Wore me out but with all the fixed cameras the result was ok. Could have been much better with proper cameramen of course, but for weeks nothing much happened then an order arrived after they saw the five minute clip I sent them. All the money is mine, nobody else to pay so turned out to be totally workable. Audio was no issue whatsoever set and forget. I perhaps guessed maximums a bit OTT, so clipping was never going to happen. Easy to mix and balance.

Ryan I think we are all trying to tell you that you need to stand back a step, review your past work, identify problem areas that were terminal and those that weren't, then use your experience and common sense, and stop letting audio idiots tell you how to do your job. Develop the knowing nod - where you appear to listen and contemplate, then reject the advice and do it your way.

Okay thanks. As for recording atmos sound, why do I need to record that in stereo? I've been recording it in mono before with no problems, but what's the reason to record it in stereo?

Before I just used a shotgun on mono and that was it. Any surround sound mixing was done after.

As for using lavs in addition to the boom, I didn't use lavs to save money, especially in scenes where there multiple actors, that would require quit a bit of lavs, so I just boomed from actor to actor only and went with that instead.

Recording the atmos track in stereo is pretty standard on a drama it gives a bed into which you can place your sound effects. It gives a sense of acoustic space to your location.

Don't confuse the atmos track with the sound effects. like clothing rustle or gun cocking etc

Don't confuse the atmos track with the sound effects. like clothing rustle or gun cocking etc
- Not to be confused with 'room tone' either.

It does seem the later sections of this topic are pretty useful - so much content and facts. The most boring short term contract I had was driving to locations, setting up an M/S mic and recording atmosphere. Sometimes, the lack of sounds to record meant I had hardly anything specific - no birds or even insects sometimes, and these tracks, even though they were kind of 'nothing' actually made the studio stuff sound so much more real. Does silence actually have a sound?

Okay thanks. As for recording atmos sound, why do I need to record that in stereo? I've been recording it in mono before with no problems, but what's the reason to record it in stereo?

Before I just used a shotgun on mono and that was it. Any surround sound mixing was done after.

I would record in stereo. Then you have the option of collapsing it to mono or of processing it to multichannel. I don't see a mono track being as useful in a surround mix. Disclaimer: I do live music videos more than videos with dialog and atmospheric audio, so that might not be the "right" answer for your type of production.

Oh okay thanks, but why is stereo better than mono? It seems to me that since I am pasting the room tone track into all of the surround sound tracks, it doesn't make a difference if it's stereo or not for me, so I was wondering what is better about it specifically?

With my current mics, I don't think I will be able to record stereo, cause I only have a hyper and a shotgun, and they are both mono. I could record with both simultaneously to make a stereo track but the room tone would sound different in both mics I am guessing?

Oh okay thanks, but why is stereo better than mono? It seems to me that since I am pasting the room tone track into all of the surround sound tracks, it doesn't make a difference if it's stereo or not for me, so I was wondering what is better about it specifically?

With my current mics, I don't think I will be able to record stereo, cause I only have a hyper and a shotgun, and they are both mono. I could record with both simultaneously to make a stereo track but the room tone would sound different in both mics I am guessing?

Putting the same signal into all 5 or 7 surround tracks defeats the purpose of surround, which is to have different (though often related) signal coming from different places.

Depending on your source audio and desired result you might be able to use different portions of the same audio file in different tracks to simulate a surrounding space.

(Again, I do live music videos, so take with a grain of salt. But that's what I'd do in your situation.)

So how long do you plan on keeping this up? Seems like you’re dedicating a lot of time and energy to something for free. I assume you’re hoping to win an award at film festival but I think the odds are very low.

The way to go is M /S, it's the standard film recording technique for the stereo.

https://www.uaudio.com/blog/mid-side-mic-recording/

Googling "m/s stereo film sound" will give you a number of references for the different mic combinations that will work with it.

I hope the script writer has put as much work into rewriting numerous drafts as you've been in asking technical questions,

Oh sorry, if I've been asking too many questions, I just wanted to get the best sound possible, and some concepts I feel there are certain exceptions and just wanted to be clear about the exceptions, that's all.

Well I can just do what I've been doing before then and just record with the boom mic, and record mono for room tone.

As for the notion that I shouldn't put a mono track into every channel in surround sound, I thought I should for room tone, so the whole room has it, but maybe I'm wrong.

The sound on the right and left sides is slightly different, but no one is stopping doing it your way.

I hate to think how many hours you have put into asking your questions and reading answers, but sound is about hearing, not reading. You would now be better off spending a similar amount of time actually getting out there with you sound recorders and mics, trying out different scenarios and techniques, then actually listening to the results and analysing what works for you and what doesn't.

You can ask questions and read answers for ever, but nothing beats actually doing it!

Roger

As for the notion that I shouldn't put a mono track into every channel in surround sound, I thought I should for room tone, so the whole room has it, but maybe I'm wrong.

You could do that, but in real life the sound coming from different directions is different, even if the difference is small.

I'm struggling a bit with the way you use jargon. "Room Tone" is one I hate because it means different things to different people. if I record with a boom, I normally record with a mono mic on the camera too. I never record with a stereo mic on the camera because of the weirdness it produces when the camera pans. Room tone - for me - is simply the sound of the room. It does NOT include dialogue, or physical practical sound from doors, things and people moving. I've heard people talking about room sound, but my rule book says room sound is just the absence of nothing and the capturing of something that can be used to fill gaps and sound exactly like an open mic sounds. These kinds of things are bandied about by students, as buzz words and smart-arse jargon. Not just sound, but the camera and lighting people do it too. That's probably why I make it up - like my hairy sausage.

As for surround - isn't this totally and utterly contrived and manufactured? Do people try to capture real surround? I thought most had given up on that quest. It works pretty well on a solitary static camera, but how do you deal with real surround in the edit? It's like my never using a stereo mic on a camera habit. If the camera pans, does the surround pan with it/ If you do, it's like turning your head - everything moves relative. But what about cuts/ Does the ticking clock on the right snap to centre, or does it stay right and be wrong.

As for surround - isn't this totally and utterly contrived and manufactured? Do people try to capture real surround? I thought most had given up on that quest. It works pretty well on a solitary static camera, but how do you deal with real surround in the edit? It's like my never using a stereo mic on a camera habit. If the camera pans, does the surround pan with it/ If you do, it's like turning your head - everything moves relative. But what about cuts/ Does the ticking clock on the right snap to centre, or does it stay right and be wrong.

I suspect in the vast majority of cases surround is manufactured rather than captured. It just isn't practical or necessary to capture it as it happens.

In my little corner of video production, live music, it isn't completely inconceivable to capture surround, or at least capture stereo and process it into surround. Even when the video perspective shifts the audio perspective remains "in the audience," so it makes sense to capture rather than manufacture.

I suspect that's why they record using M/S, since it gives you options in post. This is probably a drama thing, where everything is constructed in post, the days when stereo was recorded on say the average BBC programme are gone, they are recorded mono, even if going out in stereo.

The ticking clock would be on a separate effects track, where it goes may depend on if you can see it in the shot or if it's dramatically important. On my film we had gun shots flying over the audience, which was fun.

I'm struggling a bit with the way you use jargon. "Room Tone" is one I hate because it means different things to different people. if I record with a boom, I normally record with a mono mic on the camera too. I never record with a stereo mic on the camera because of the weirdness it produces when the camera pans. Room tone - for me - is simply the sound of the room. It does NOT include dialogue, or physical practical sound from doors, things and people moving. I've heard people talking about room sound, but my rule book says room sound is just the absence of nothing and the capturing of something that can be used to fill gaps and sound exactly like an open mic sounds. These kinds of things are bandied about by students, as buzz words and smart-arse jargon. Not just sound, but the camera and lighting people do it too. That's probably why I make it up - like my hairy sausage.

As for surround - isn't this totally and utterly contrived and manufactured? Do people try to capture real surround? I thought most had given up on that quest. It works pretty well on a solitary static camera, but how do you deal with real surround in the edit? It's like my never using a stereo mic on a camera habit. If the camera pans, does the surround pan with it/ If you do, it's like turning your head - everything moves relative. But what about cuts/ Does the ticking clock on the right snap to centre, or does it stay right and be wrong.

Oh it was mentioned in an earlier post to use stereo to capture 'atmos'. I meant atmos by room tone, sorry for the confusion. I meant whatever the previous post was referring to, as I am trying to understand what he is referring to when saying it should be recorded in stereo.

I suspect in the vast majority of cases surround is manufactured rather than captured. It just isn't practical or necessary to capture it as it happens.

In my little corner of video production, live music, it isn't completely inconceivable to capture surround, or at least capture stereo and process it into surround. Even when the video perspective shifts the audio perspective remains "in the audience," so it makes sense to capture rather than manufacture.

When it comes to recording live music, wouldn't it make sense to record from the mics of all the band member's voices and instruments though, so the voices and instruments are closer to the mics then, rather than from the perspective of the camera, if that's what you mean?

And as for this whole recording surround live, I won't do it then. They said to do it, and I even talked to them about manufacturing the sound later from mono tracks, and they said that the audience will be able to tell that something is off, if it's manufactured in post, compared to recording that way to begin with, and that they are not stupid. But I feel that they over-estimate the audience, and will record mono, and do a surround sound mix in post, based on the advice here.

Oh it was mentioned in an earlier post to use stereo to capture 'atmos'. I meant atmos by room tone, sorry for the confusion. I meant whatever the previous post was referring to, as I am trying to understand what he is referring to when saying it should be recorded in stereo.

A stereo signal can be processed into surround. It would be much more realistic that simply putting identical signal into all the channels. It would still be a manufactured soundtrack as the stereo wouldn't be captured during the acting, it would be recorded just like any "room tone" type material and used to create the impression of space.

When it comes to recording live music, wouldn't it make sense to record from the mics of all the band member's voices and instruments though, so the voices and instruments are closer to the mics then, rather than from the perspective of the camera, if that's what you mean?

Absolutely, but on top of that there can be audience mics. In my ideal setup I'll have a pair of wide spaced mics at the foot of stage pointing out and a coincident pair in the middle/back of the audience in addition to all the close mics. The middle/back mic would need to be adjusted to compensate for the acoustic arrival time of the sound from the PA and stage.

None of this applies to what you're doing but it might explain why some sound guys think you should use multiple mics. For dramatic productions I'd use a boom and/or lavs to record the dialog, use the same mics to get some room tone for in between lines, then use a stereo mic setup at some other time (or even another place) to get some atmospheric audio for the surround tracks, then put it all together in post. But as I said I really don't do those productions so don't take my word for it.

Oh okay thanks. Are you saying to record the room sound with a stereo mic though, or two different mono mics, that both lead to a stereo track?

Oh okay thanks. Are you saying to record the room sound with a stereo mic though, or two different mono mics, that both lead to a stereo track?
Can we assume by "room sound" you actually mean "ambiance" and not "room tone"? Ambiance and room tone are quite different kinds of sound recording and using a term like "room sound" is ambiguous and hinders our discussion. It makes us wonder if you understand the difference between the different kinds of sound recordings. If you don't understand, then go back and read response #63 again. If you have specific questions about those definitions, please ask. Otherwise, we must assume that you understand the difference between "room tone" and "ambiance".

Whether to record ambiance in mono or stereo (or surround) is an "artistic" question, not a "technical question. There is no clear, unique solution. It depends greatly on what kind of a scene it is. What is the nature of the sound, etc. etc.

Again, I am unsure whether you are asking about Room Tone, or about Ambiance. Room Tone has a VERY specific purpose, and recording it EXACTLY the same as you recorded the dialog is critical to its usefulness.

OTOH, ambiance could be anything. It doesn't even need to have anything to do with your specific production. With some rare exceptions, if ambiance for your scene is traffic noise coming through an open window behind the actors, it doesn't really matter whether you record the actual traffic on that specific street. Or even in that particular neighborhood, or on the same continent, for that matter.

And if the actors are walking along a beach, the background sound of the surf is pretty generic stuff. If you are using a cutaway of a wave breaking and flowing up to their feet, then it would be good to try to match the sound to the wave breaking if you can see it in the frame. Otherwise, it is just uncorrelated, non-synchronous background sound.

And even if you had a good stereo recording of traffic noise, you might well mix it down to monaural and pan it so that it sounds like it is coming through the window. OTOH, the actors walking along the beach would probably sound more realistic if the surf sounds were mixed in as stereo. Which illustrates the point that recording ambiance in stereo gives you the flexibility of using it in the mix however it fits that particular scene. Even if it us ultimately mixed down to mono and panned off to one side, etc.

But if you record the surf in mono, you are essentially stuck with it. It might be useful in a scene where distant surf sounds are coming in through a window. But not very useful for the scene where the actors are walking through the wet sand as the tide comes in.

And recording the traffic noise in the room where the scene takes place is probably not a good idea either. Because as you ought to know by now, microphones "hear" quite differently than our ear-brain system works. Much better to have a "clean" recording of the traffic without any effects from the room. For at least two reasons: (1) the effects of the room will limit and compromise how well you can produce a convincing mix for that scene. (2) Having a more generic, "clean" recording of the traffic noise is a much better addition to your library of sounds that you can use for future productions.

Can we assume by "room sound" you actually mean "ambiance" and not "room tone"? Ambiance and room tone are quite different kinds of sound recording and using a term like "room sound" is ambiguous and hinders our discussion. It makes us wonder if you understand the difference between the different kinds of sound recordings. If you don't understand, then go back and read response #63 again. If you have specific questions about those definitions, please ask. Otherwise, we must assume that you understand the difference between "room tone" and "ambiance".

Whether to record ambiance in mono or stereo (or surround) is an "artistic" question, not a "technical question. There is no clear, unique solution. It depends greatly on what kind of a scene it is. What is the nature of the sound, etc. etc.

Again, I am unsure whether you are asking about Room Tone, or about Ambiance. Room Tone has a VERY specific purpose, and recording it EXACTLY the same as you recorded the dialog is critical to its usefulness.

OTOH, ambiance could be anything. It doesn't even need to have anything to do with your specific production. With some rare exceptions, if ambiance for your scene is traffic noise coming through an open window behind the actors, it doesn't really matter whether you record the actual traffic on that specific street. Or even in that particular neighborhood, or on the same continent, for that matter.

And if the actors are walking along a beach, the background sound of the surf is pretty generic stuff. If you are using a cutaway of a wave breaking and flowing up to their feet, then it would be good to try to match the sound to the wave breaking if you can see it in the frame. Otherwise, it is just uncorrelated, non-synchronous background sound.

And even if you had a good stereo recording of traffic noise, you might well mix it down to monaural and pan it so that it sounds like it is coming through the window. OTOH, the actors walking along the beach would probably sound more realistic if the surf sounds were mixed in as stereo. Which illustrates the point that recording ambiance in stereo gives you the flexibility of using it in the mix however it fits that particular scene. Even if it us ultimately mixed down to mono and panned off to one side, etc.

But if you record the surf in mono, you are essentially stuck with it. It might be useful in a scene where distant surf sounds are coming in through a window. But not very useful for the scene where the actors are walking through the wet sand as the tide comes in.

And recording the traffic noise in the room where the scene takes place is probably not a good idea either. Because as you ought to know by now, microphones "hear" quite differently than our ear-brain system works. Much better to have a "clean" recording of the traffic without any effects from the room. For at least two reasons: (1) the effects of the room will limit and compromise how well you can produce a convincing mix for that scene. (2) Having a more generic, "clean" recording of the traffic noise is a much better addition to your library of sounds that you can use for future productions.

Oh okay, I meant whatever Bryan Drysdale meant when he used the term 'atmos'. I am trying to establish what we are talking about myself, so I meant whatever he was referring to.

As for the example of recording traffic noise, I would record it from whereevever I felt it sounded good. Do you think it's a bad idea to record through a closed window, if you want to capture a sound on the other side of the window?

For example, for one of my short film I wanted a character to knock on a door and yell, and I wanted to hear him through the door, since the characters in the scene hear him through the door. So I decided to have him go behind the door, and close it, and record his voice through a closed door to get the sound I want.

I could have recorded his voice dry, and manipulated to sound like he was coming through a door in post, but I thought that the sound of yelling through a door was pretty straight forward, that I could do it in production and it will turn out fine, which it did.

I also wanted to record a dog barking in the distance of neighborhood establishing shot. I could have recorded a dark barking with the mic right up close to the dog, but I decided to do it from about 50-100 feet away, to make the dog sound distant.

It turned out good as well. Is that a bad way about going about it?

When you say, if you record surf in mono and you are stuck with it, are you referring to a stereo mic, or two mono mics both being fed to a stereo channel?

I'm assuming we are talking about a stereo mic. But the thing about a stereo mic, is both mics on the stereo mic are right next to each other, so the sound going into both mics will be the same anyway, when the mics are right next to each other. Therefore, what difference does stereo make, when the mics are both next to each other?

Unless you are talking about two mono mics placed a distance apart?

To get a decent stereo image directly with mics (as opposed to a stereo mix composed of various stereo or mono elements) you need two two identical mics, or a stereo mic, or a compatible pair for mid-side. For mid-side I would prefer a pair of the same model of multi-pattern mics, one set to cardioid and one set to figure-8, but two very similar mics, like LDCs of different models, could work. Definitely don't try to combine a condenser as the mid with a ribbon as the side.

There are various stereo mic techniques. I suspect a coincident pair would be best, and that's my general preference. Spaced pairs of several methods are common in some applications.

Oh okay, I meant whatever Bryan Drysdale meant when he used the term 'atmos'. I am trying to establish what we are talking about myself, so I meant whatever he was referring to.
Yes, when I use the term "ambiance" it appears to be the same as Drysdale's term "atmos" (short for atmosphere or atmospherics).

As for the example of recording traffic noise, I would record it from whereevever I felt it sounded good. Do you think it's a bad idea to record through a closed window, if you want to capture a sound on the other side of the window?
I said explicitly that recording outside ambiance or atmos through the window is NOT a good idea. Did you miss that part of my response? Did I not phrase that strongly enough?

For example, for one of my short film I wanted a character to knock on a door and yell, and I wanted to hear him through the door, since the characters in the scene hear him through the door. So I decided to have him go behind the door, and close it, and record his voice through a closed door to get the sound I want.

I could have recorded his voice dry, and manipulated to sound like he was coming through a door in post, but I thought that the sound of yelling through a door was pretty straight forward, that I could do it in production and it will turn out fine, which it did.
Good. You must experiment with each situation to see what sounds best when recorded with your talent, crew, location and available gear.

I also wanted to record a dog barking in the distance of neighborhood establishing shot. I could have recorded a dark barking with the mic right up close to the dog, but I decided to do it from about 50-100 feet away, to make the dog sound distant.

It turned out good as well. Is that a bad way about going about it?

Maybe, maybe not. Typically you can make something recorded close sound far away by reducing the level and by rolling off the high frequencies, just as happens in the Real World. Recording a far away barking dog in the city at the other end of a street of brick buildings will not work if you are using the sound in a scene out in a desolate wilderness. That is why you want to get good clean, close, intimate, well detailed recordings. You can always artificially "degrade" them (for distance, for echo/reverb, etc. But you cannot do the opposite. You can't use a distant dog bark if you need a close sound.

When you say, if you record surf in mono and you are stuck with it, are you referring to a stereo mic, or two mono mics both being fed to a stereo channel?
You do the research. Record something with one mic (mono). And record it with a stereo ("single-point") microphone (or a close pair like X/Y or ORTF) And then the same sound with wide-spaced microphones in stereo. They will all give you different recordings. Some of them will be useful in one situation but not in another. You are wandering again into "artistic" or subjective decisions vs. "technical" or objective questions. Recording sound well is an ART. It takes more than understanding the chemistry of paints to become a good artist.

Oh okay, thanks I can do some tests, as I haven't recorded with a stereo mic yet before.

For the dog scene, I recorded the dog barking from a backyard of a house in a neighborhood that was similar to the one we shot it in before, so I felt the acoustics match. Is it a bad idea to save time in post, by matching acoustics to the scene in the recording, rather than doing a lot of post manipulation?

For example, I did a fight scene in a bathroom and then needed to go out and record the sound effects and foley, but I did it all in a similarly acoustic bathroom along with the actors' voices as they made their grunts and scream sounds.

It just saved me having to do it in a dry studio, then giving it bathroom manipulation later. I mean I figure if I can get the bathroom in camera, why not get it in mic, as well, but is that a bad idea, since a lot of people, I know, seem to prefer post manipulation more?

It's generally better to keep it clean. you can't undo the reverb in post, but you can easily add it.

The most time consuming aspect can be recording all the sound effects and you may not want the real sound, it's common to use a "simulated effect" or a composite of a number of sounds to create the effect you want.

Fight scenes tend to have exaggerated effects, the reality isn't like the movies.

...Is it a bad idea to save time in post, by matching acoustics to the scene in the recording, rather than doing a lot of post manipulation?
It feels like you have asked this 100 times and 100 times we have said NO! If you are only doing something simple and low-quality, it may seem like is "saves time". But if you are doing anything serious, you will kick yourself.

I despair that you are not learning anything from this discussion or the one over on Creative COW. If you don't like our answers, why do you keep coming back and asking the same questions over and over? I'm getting tired of this. Maybe you should spend more time going out into the world and actually recording things rather than sitting at your computer keyboard asking the same questions over and over.

It feels like you have asked this 100 times and 100 times we have said NO! If you are only doing something simple and low-quality, it may seem like is "saves time". But if you are doing anything serious, you will kick yourself.

I despair that you are not learning anything from this discussion or the one over on Creative COW. If you don't like our answers, why do you keep coming back and asking the same questions over and over? I'm getting tired of this. Maybe you should spend more time going out into the world and actually recording things rather than sitting at your computer keyboard asking the same questions over and over.

Well said Richard, exactly my point from post #131

Roger

Here is another take for Ryan: I think you WANT to hear that yes you can save time by doing blah blah blah in the field, but the reality is that what all these guys are telling you is the way every movie and tv show has been mixed for who knows how long.

I have done plenty of low/zero budget projects as writer/director and I suspect that like me, you will end up doing the editing/post production yourself (possibly because anyone else you have lined up to do that will drop out once they see the actual workload for a feature-length project compared to the little to no money that you can afford to pay). That means edit, color grade, and anything to do with sound. It is an unbelievable amount of work, probably into the thousands of hours, but that is why in the professional sector all of that is handled by many different people (and it still takes them a year!).

So it is understandable that you want to avoid as much of that as you can, but if you want PRO results then what everyone is telling you above is how it’s done. So now the question is, how polished do you want this to be? Are you trying to compete with the high quality content on Netflix, theatrical releases, etc., or are you ok with it looking and sounding like a low budget student/amateur film? The answer will determine your approach to the entire process.

3 minutes of pressing records is infinitely better than two weeks of text! What I simply don't understand is that most of these questions can be answered by you, with a single mic and pair of headphones.

Please don't be offended, but you sound very much like a younger friend of mine who is on the autistic scale. he has to ask and ask and ask before he tries anything himself - he needs a framework to work in and he can't learn at all from experience.

What I mean is your question about recording through a window. I've never actually thought about it, but the glass as barrier does things to the audio. It will reduce amplitude, probably not linearly, and it introduces a tonal shift. I can do this with EQ. In practice, I'd stand in the room and listen with my ears, then listen with the mic, and then probably open the window and record that, and make it sound dull and filtered in the studio.

We seem to tell you things, then you ask "so you mean?" or you crazily say what you mean is what somebody else meant, when you have no idea what they were actually thinking?

We've tried to help, we honestly have - but we get the impression you ignore the whole, focus on the trivial and get confused very easy and switch your viewpoint on a whim.

If you read the topic start to finish, you will find all the people who do audio have broadly the same solutions, a few have found alternate systems, and while we often do it differently, I think that's within the limits of professional alternatives. Rarely have any of us disagreed. For goodness sake - put in some effort and try what we suggest out and decide for yourself.

PS it's ALWAYS Foley, never foley. Common error but it's proper name, so always something people spot as a 'sign'.

Of course, you could always record some stuff and let us listen and guide you. Sound works so much better than text.

Oh okay, well sorry if I kept asking questions, it's just that there are certain variables I want to nail down, that's all. Like when people say to introduce a stereo mic for atmos, or recording dry, that creates a whole new world of variables, that I just wanted to ask about, that's all. I feel that the answers, provide more questions that I felt like I needed to address, that's all.

I guess to me, that choosing to record a lot of the sound effects dry is like shooting a scene in front a green screen, and then saying that the reason for doing so is, is that if you shoot in a real location, you can never undo it later. So I figure if you can do video in the real location, then why not audio as well. But I just wanted to cover why audio is best done dry and then adding later, if you wanted everything to match, that's all.

A book is a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Film-Sound-Practice-Elisabeth-Weis/dp/0231056370/din02c-20