An experiment never hurts, as long as nothing gets broken and you're not under any deadline. Did the waveform look clipped when you viewed it on your audio editing software?

No there is no clipping at all accept for the first couple since I had to get the levels right. But not for the rest of them. I am just not sure if there is distortion in other ways, since gunshots sound kind of distorted to begin with.

Yes, you're absolutely right. The mic preamp (before some of the controls) or even the mic itself could produce distortion, but that would not necessarily show up as clipping. Although it might produce a clipped-looking waveform at a level that's lower than 100%.

If you have heard some movies (or TV shows) that have gunshots that sound good to you, I guess you could compare your recordings to those. I believe this thread had some earlier links that talked about gunshot recordings, hopefully those are useful to you. I have no experience with gunshots so I'm afraid I can't provide any personal opinion.

The great thing about gunshots is that they're always so obvious meaning in the edit you can just replace them.

Well I am going out to record them soon. I couldn't before because the event was cancelled but I am soon.

However, it worries me what was said before that the mic could be damaged from the loud sound of the gun. Is this true, even if you have the gain turned down super low?

Why are we back to this?

On paper, loud sound can damage a thin mic capsule diaphragm, but I have never found any of my microphones, or my physical colleagues microphones damaged this way. I would suggest the chances of s loud sound making you drop the mic would be far more risky.

Forget this ryan, there's every chance it will distort but even that will be a transient you can edit. Move on and smile a bit. This one is not worth brain power.

The mic will be damaged by the sound if it's far too loud. The same thing can happen to your ear drums, if it comes in the form of a shock wave from an explosion, it can even kill you. However, it's unlikely in this case. since you're not recording right beside the muzzle of an artillery piece, as Paul says distortion on the recording is the more likely outcome.

This is a physical effect, which has nothing to do with the gain levels used on your recorder..

Think of what can actually happen. You have a backplate and then a thin film of mylar or similar. In a typical electret, the film has a permanent charge on it, that lasts for years and years. If the sound pressure level is high enough to make the flexible element make contact with the rear plate, the charge dissipates instantly, and the capsule is dead. A near excursion might over stretch it, but a short is the likely killer, and to do that it needs to be VERY, VERY loud, and I doubt even a moderately close gunshot is enough. Your ear drums are likely to get damaged more than a microphone, being fair.

As mentioned earlier, dynamic microphones are more resistant to damage from loud transients than condenser mics.

The trouble is, we've all been told that exposure to loud sounds destroys condensers, and the physics matches completely, but what none of us have, is a figure for spl@distance=destruction. We sometimes have max SPL - but is this for the point of distortion reaching maximum, or output reaching saturation, or what......?

As mentioned earlier, dynamic microphones are more resistant to damage from loud transients than condenser mics.

Oh okay well for the one short film I recorded audio on, I recorded an actor screaming, in the same scene as dialogue and it was all using the same mic. I turned down the gain a lot, but the scream didn't seem to destroy the mic and the mic still worked fine.

So if a mic can take an extremely loud scream, could it take a gun shot as long as the gain was turned down extremely low, and I stood back about 10-20 feet as mentioned before?

On microbudget productions, if there is only one mic in the budget, do they just use that to record everything, but take precautions to prevent damage?

A gun is usually louder than a scream, but shorter in duration. Indoors it will have even more impact.

This is going over old ground, Haven't you read the previous 7 pages, where the technique of recording gun shots was explained? Can't you work out a progressive method of moving in closer with each shot, so everything is recorded in a methodical and safe way? .

Ryan - put a sound app on your phone and get somebody to fire a gun (I hear this is absurdly easy throughout the Americas). These apps will tell you how loud it was If you can get a reading.

Have you thought about every recorded gunshot you have ever heard. None of those - absolutely NONE killed the microphone. You are dreaming up dangers that are extremely tiny. If the shooter doesn't go instantly deaf, then the mic will be fine. The damage comes from putting the microphone in VERY VERY close to the muzzle where the pressure is greatest. You point your mic, you watch the display. If it goes off the top, the gain was too high. If you have a zoom or similar it will have pads and one combination of pad and gain adjustment will work perfectly well. I'd suggest that until you are within 3 feet of the muzzle your worst problem will simply be distortion, not damage. The inverse square law means the volume drops very quickly as you move away. Watch the American crazy gun videos and see people with cheap cameras recording shooting at ranges - they are not being destroyed.

So if a mic can take an extremely loud scream, could it take a gun shot as long as the gain was turned down extremely low,

Ryan, the fact that you have asked this twice indicates that, sadly, you have absolutely no conception of how audio (mics, amps, sound waves, etc.) works. I say "sadly" because someone past high school who has so little understanding of the field would seem to be pursuing the wrong line of work and, I suspect, will always be frustrated.

Brian already answered this a few hours ago. Did you read his answer? If so, why are you asking this again?

This is so simple and should be so intuitive. The gain setting does not somehow send a secret message to the mic saying "don't be sensitive to large shock waves." If in fact a shock wave (from a firearm, as we're discussing here) is large enough to damage a mic, it wouldn't matter where the gain is set, or even whether the mic is plugged in. The damage is caused because the shock wave pushes the diaphragm further than it is designed to move. It's the same reason a human can have their hearing instantly damaged (or lost) because of excess pressure waves from gunshots.

As others have said, a scream is not the same as a gunshot. The former is some waveform that continues over a second or so, while changing in frequency, waveform, etc. A gunshot starts with a large sharp rise in air pressure, especially close to the muzzle. (Then there are various resonances, echoes from nearby objects, etc.) Additionally, a gunshot is much louder than a scream. All this info can easily be found on Google.

What would you do if you hadn't found a forum like this one? Would you then look for some books containing the appropriate knowledge? In all seriousness, do you have difficulty reading? (e.g. are you dyslexic?) If you can read normally, please go to the library or buy a few books about very basic audio, basic acoustics, etc. and read them. Unless you want to be very confused and needy for your entire life.

Buy this book:
The Sound Reinforcement Handbook by Gary Davis, Ralph Jones, Gary Davis

It's full of useful information AND the physics behind it - and it's from Yamaha, so a manufacturer of long standing. My understanding is they commissioned the book to correct misunderstandings in the live sound world where mistakes can be uncorrectable - there being no take 2!

I've read the Yamaha book. It's everything you want to know about PA systems, preamps, mic types, gain staging, etc.

I learned a lot of the basics from a hardback about radio broadcasting, which was published by CBS. That was MANY moons ago. I have since tried to find the book, but without success; I'm sure it's long out of publication. Also the Audio Cyclopedia was a great resource, but is much too deep for beginner-level reading.

I think it might be helpful if other folks would make suggestions for Ryan's reading list.

Ryan, the fact that you have asked this twice indicates that, sadly, you have absolutely no conception of how audio (mics, amps, sound waves, etc.) works. I say "sadly" because someone past high school who has so little understanding of the field would seem to be pursuing the wrong line of work and, I suspect, will always be frustrated.

Brian already answered this a few hours ago. Did you read his answer? If so, why are you asking this again?

This is so simple and should be so intuitive. The gain setting does not somehow send a secret message to the mic saying "don't be sensitive to large shock waves." If in fact a shock wave (from a firearm, as we're discussing here) is large enough to damage a mic, it wouldn't matter where the gain is set, or even whether the mic is plugged in. The damage is caused because the shock wave pushes the diaphragm further than it is designed to move. It's the same reason a human can have their hearing instantly damaged (or lost) because of excess pressure waves from gunshots.

As others have said, a scream is not the same as a gunshot. The former is some waveform that continues over a second or so, while changing in frequency, waveform, etc. A gunshot starts with a large sharp rise in air pressure, especially close to the muzzle. (Then there are various resonances, echoes from nearby objects, etc.) Additionally, a gunshot is much louder than a scream. All this info can easily be found on Google.

What would you do if you hadn't found a forum like this one? Would you then look for some books containing the appropriate knowledge? In all seriousness, do you have difficulty reading? (e.g. are you dyslexic?) If you can read normally, please go to the library or buy a few books about very basic audio, basic acoustics, etc. and read them. Unless you want to be very confused and needy for your entire life.

Oh okay I see thanks, sorry for my misunderstanding of it. Well I managed to get out today, and record some gunshots. I couldn't set the fader at unity like normal, because it's way too loud for a gun shot if you try to turn it up to unity. I turned the fader up to 15% and the gain up to about 5% or even lower for some of the guns.

At these settings the levels were around -24 decibles, some shots reached -12.

However, I am not happy with because they sound like any other online. They sound too far away. I stood about 10-20 feet away like I was advised to on here, but that changes the perspective though. Or here are some samples, what do you think of them?

Gunshot effecs test - YouTube

Why did you think unity was where the gain would go? They sound exaltly like what they were distant gun shots, so why didn't you carry on the experiment and shoot a few at closer distances? His would let you be used to how the gains/pads work. You are just doing what you did in your old shotgun mic tests. Too far away. If you personally find the bangs too loud so hearing protection would be sensible, that's the closest I'd want to go. The only weapon I have ever held and fired was a shotgun, but I'd have risked any of my mics where my ears were.

If you want audio perspective to sound real for the context, then use a video camera and then you can see if it sounds right and the images match the sound.

You've heard mics can be destroyed, and have over-reacted as usual. Listen to sound effect library gunshots. If they recorded them close, so can you. Tell you what, look up the spl for the level a snare or kick drum creates with mics just an inch or too away. Plenty of mics work for these loud sources, and one of them is pretty cheap and bomb proof. If you are worried this much, borrow an SM57 or D112 and put them very close. The won't even notice!

However, on recording forums you often find beginners complaining their kick is distorted. People explain the pads and gain settings, like here, but NEVER have I found somebody who destroyed their condenser mic, they just got a poor sound.

If you are going to experiment, do it properly

There's a point when you can't get any closer because you can't adjust the levels any further. I would take it up to - 4, which I know works with the drums on our local loyalist bands. Setting that level with a gun, will be a bit more fiddly, because there's no steady beat. You can use pads or attenuators on the mic, which allow you to get closer,

Analogue tape recordings can sound rather good when driven over the mox levels on the meter for some sounds, but you can't do that with digital.

I'm not sure why you should think your gun shots would sound much different to those recorded by other people. If you want different you need to experiment more, which what the guys who create the major sound effect libraries do.

Also, bear in mind, the gun effects used in feature films are mostly created in post by the sound people by combining various gun sounds. They may have their own favoured cocktails in their personal sound effects library.

Why did you think unity was where the gain would go? They sound exaltly like what they were distant gun shots, so why didn't you carry on the experiment and shoot a few at closer distances? His would let you be used to how the gains/pads work. You are just doing what you did in your old shotgun mic tests. Too far away. If you personally find the bangs too loud so hearing protection would be sensible, that's the closest I'd want to go. The only weapon I have ever held and fired was a shotgun, but I'd have risked any of my mics where my ears were.

If you want audio perspective to sound real for the context, then use a video camera and then you can see if it sounds right and the images match the sound.

You've heard mics can be destroyed, and have over-reacted as usual. Listen to sound effect library gunshots. If they recorded them close, so can you. Tell you what, look up the spl for the level a snare or kick drum creates with mics just an inch or too away. Plenty of mics work for these loud sources, and one of them is pretty cheap and bomb proof. If you are worried this much, borrow an SM57 or D112 and put them very close. The won't even notice!

However, on recording forums you often find beginners complaining their kick is distorted. People explain the pads and gain settings, like here, but NEVER have I found somebody who destroyed their condenser mic, they just got a poor sound.

If you are going to experiment, do it properly

Oh okay, it was just pointed out on here before that getting real close could damage the mic, so was weary of doing that therefore. It was also pointed out before that the shotgun mic, even if not damaged, would still sound too distorted because of the signal to noise ratio involving loud noises. So I was trying to avoid distortion as well. But I was more so afraid of the mic getting damaged possibly from being too close, as pointed out.

But when you say 'why did I think unity is where the gain would go', I said that I started out with the fader at unity, not the gain. It was said before on here, to start out with the fader at unity when setting the levels, so that's what I was doing.

You can move in progressively closer, you'll hear if the levels are getting beyond what the mic can handle before there's any damage.

Oh okay, but Greg Miller mentioned in his post before, that if you get too close, the mic can be damaged, no matter what the gain setting is though. He said even if there is no power running through the mic, it can be damaged. So therefore, how do you tell from gain what the mic can handle, if the mic can be damaged from loud sounds with the power turned off?

Ryan, the fact that you have asked this twice indicates that, sadly, you have absolutely no conception of how audio (mics, amps, sound waves, etc.) works. I say "sadly" because someone past high school who has so little understanding of the field would seem to be pursuing the wrong line of work and, I suspect, will always be frustrated.

Brian already answered this a few hours ago. Did you read his answer? If so, why are you asking this again?

This is so simple and should be so intuitive. The gain setting does not somehow send a secret message to the mic saying "don't be sensitive to large shock waves." If in fact a shock wave (from a firearm, as we're discussing here) is large enough to damage a mic, it wouldn't matter where the gain is set, or even whether the mic is plugged in. The damage is caused because the shock wave pushes the diaphragm further than it is designed to move. It's the same reason a human can have their hearing instantly damaged (or lost) because of excess pressure waves from gunshots.

As others have said, a scream is not the same as a gunshot. The former is some waveform that continues over a second or so, while changing in frequency, waveform, etc. A gunshot starts with a large sharp rise in air pressure, especially close to the muzzle. (Then there are various resonances, echoes from nearby objects, etc.) Additionally, a gunshot is much louder than a scream. All this info can easily be found on Google.

What would you do if you hadn't found a forum like this one? Would you then look for some books containing the appropriate knowledge? In all seriousness, do you have difficulty reading? (e.g. are you dyslexic?) If you can read normally, please go to the library or buy a few books about very basic audio, basic acoustics, etc. and read them. Unless you want to be very confused and needy for your entire life.

But let's say I go closer. Even at about 15 feet away, which I tried at one point, the fader was set to about 10% turned up and the gain was at about 2% turned up.

So even at these very low settings, I was still hitting -!2 decibles. So how do you get closer, to have a closer perspective, if it's going to be too loud if you do, since I am already hitting -12 decibels from about 15 feet away?

Ryan - we have explained and explained. The mic can be in it's box and damaged with exposure to a transient pressure wave - this is possible - but you've taken the advice out of context. We explained the physical action that could, not will, damage a mic - but we've also explained that people record gunshots every day, with their equipment close enough to sound VERY close, without damage.

Gain setting is totally different. Most people start with their gain set fully down. You then increase it to give a sensible reading on the meter. Some condensers are very sensitive, and have pads to give an extra 10 or 20dB of cut for louder sounds. If I put a mic on a kick drum, I will normally press the pad button because I know it's going too be hot. If the player is gentler, I might switch the pad out. Gains will be set all over the place - some turned up for quiet sources, others way down for louder ones - it doesn't matter, the idea is no distortion. The inverse square law. If your mic is one foot away, and too loud, move it to two feet and the sound drops to a quarter, not half of what it was. Move it to 4 feet and it's a 16th of the original. This is what really matters. You have been told quite rightly that too loud sound could damage - but you've taken that to mean too loud a sound will damage absolutely at ten feet, or six feet or whatever you have in your head. Sound simply doesn't work like this. If it did, the person who fired the gun you recorded would be deaf, wouldn't they?

If you really don't get this, now is the time to move out of sound. It's a subject area that needs good science, good ears and a solid foundation.

I tell you what. I have some very nice expensive mics and I'd be happy to put any of these a couple of feet from a gun and record it. I know, without trying that I'd switch on the pad on one of them, to stop audio distortion, NOT destruction - the pad won't stop that. The other would I am certain distort, but I would NOT be worrying about destroying them. The mechanics says that a bigger diaphragm would be more easily able to touch the two membranes or backplates together because the larger diameter makes this possible with less SPL. A smaller diaphragm is harder to deflect.

Would I put a condenser two inches from a gun muzzle? No
Would I put a condenser six inches from a gun muzzle? probably not
Would I put a condenser twelve inches from a gun muzzle? probably
Would I put a condenser two feet from a gun muzzle? yes

If the gun looked bigger (bearing in mind I know nothing about guns) then I'd increase the distances, but the reality would be I'd use a dynamic that didn't cost too much simply because there's more damage potential from the smoke and chemicals thrown out by weapons, not really the pressure wave.

You quoted Greg's excellent post without understanding a single word of it, didn't you?

You honed in on "the damage is caused" without even considering the rest of the sentence - as in gun = damage.

You know? Life is NOT risk free. In my life I have destroyed a number of microphones.

A coles lip mic, which I wrecked by attempting to unscrew near the ribbon without considering the magnetic field that grabbed the screwdriver, and squashed the ribbon.

A Shure bullet proof SM57, that isn't bullet proof under water when you drop it

An Audio Technica 815 shotgun that got turned into a banana when I stood on it.

The loudest thing was a radio pack and Sennheiser condenser attached to a drag racer - from the camera position it was deafening - no idea how loud it was cable tied to the spoiler, but it survived!

A dynamic mic is a handy piece of kit for recording effects and other things. You can put one in places that a shotgun mic won't fit.

It will also offer another option when recording voice overs etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shure_SM57

the shotgun mic, even if not damaged, would still sound too distorted because of the signal to noise ratio involving loud noises

Ryan, this indicates your complete lack of understanding of how audio works, and the appropriate terminology. If, at your age and your point in life, you still don't grasp the basics, after all the help and advice you've received here, I honestly think you should quit trying to be a sound man and pursue something else that is more appropriate for your skill set. Otherwise you are just banging your head (and ours) against a brick wall.

There have been loads of TV news sound recordists and one person camera crews who have recorded gun shots without the slightest problem over the years. While doing so, they haven't gone through all the double and treble thinking that Ryan is going through.

An Audio Technica 815 shotgun that got turned into a banana when I stood on it.

Paul: Could you then aim it to pick up sound from around corners? ;-)

That's a pretty painful list. I once put a jeweler's screwdriver through the diaphragm of a dynamic mic; like you I didn't consider the force of the magnet. Luckily it was a cheap mic. In my defense, I was then in my early teens.

Ryan - we have explained and explained. The mic can be in it's box and damaged with exposure to a transient pressure wave - this is possible - but you've taken the advice out of context. We explained the physical action that could, not will, damage a mic - but we've also explained that people record gunshots every day, with their equipment close enough to sound VERY close, without damage.

Gain setting is totally different. Most people start with their gain set fully down. You then increase it to give a sensible reading on the meter. Some condensers are very sensitive, and have pads to give an extra 10 or 20dB of cut for louder sounds. If I put a mic on a kick drum, I will normally press the pad button because I know it's going too be hot. If the player is gentler, I might switch the pad out. Gains will be set all over the place - some turned up for quiet sources, others way down for louder ones - it doesn't matter, the idea is no distortion. The inverse square law. If your mic is one foot away, and too loud, move it to two feet and the sound drops to a quarter, not half of what it was. Move it to 4 feet and it's a 16th of the original. This is what really matters. You have been told quite rightly that too loud sound could damage - but you've taken that to mean too loud a sound will damage absolutely at ten feet, or six feet or whatever you have in your head. Sound simply doesn't work like this. If it did, the person who fired the gun you recorded would be deaf, wouldn't they?

If you really don't get this, now is the time to move out of sound. It's a subject area that needs good science, good ears and a solid foundation.

I tell you what. I have some very nice expensive mics and I'd be happy to put any of these a couple of feet from a gun and record it. I know, without trying that I'd switch on the pad on one of them, to stop audio distortion, NOT destruction - the pad won't stop that. The other would I am certain distort, but I would NOT be worrying about destroying them. The mechanics says that a bigger diaphragm would be more easily able to touch the two membranes or backplates together because the larger diameter makes this possible with less SPL. A smaller diaphragm is harder to deflect.

Would I put a condenser two inches from a gun muzzle? No
Would I put a condenser six inches from a gun muzzle? probably not
Would I put a condenser twelve inches from a gun muzzle? probably
Would I put a condenser two feet from a gun muzzle? yes

If the gun looked bigger (bearing in mind I know nothing about guns) then I'd increase the distances, but the reality would be I'd use a dynamic that didn't cost too much simply because there's more damage potential from the smoke and chemicals thrown out by weapons, not really the pressure wave.

You quoted Greg's excellent post without understanding a single word of it, didn't you?

You honed in on "the damage is caused" without even considering the rest of the sentence - as in gun = damage.

You know? Life is NOT risk free. In my life I have destroyed a number of microphones.

A coles lip mic, which I wrecked by attempting to unscrew near the ribbon without considering the magnetic field that grabbed the screwdriver, and squashed the ribbon.

A Shure bullet proof SM57, that isn't bullet proof under water when you drop it

An Audio Technica 815 shotgun that got turned into a banana when I stood on it.

The loudest thing was a radio pack and Sennheiser condenser attached to a drag racer - from the camera position it was deafening - no idea how loud it was cable tied to the spoiler, but it survived!

Oh okay thanks. But how do you get the mic that close without the sound clipping though? I have the game turned up at 5% and the fader turned up at around 5%, or even less? I'm not sure how to get that close and get the levels down enough since I'm already at the bare bottom, and still getting close to clipping. My mic also does not have any pads which is the NTG-3 I was using.

Then you obtain an external pad. This is not rocket science.

Q. I need a pad, what do I do?

A. You get a pad.

Oh okay, but what I meant is they do not make a pad that is external for the NTG-3 either do they? At least not that I've been able to find.

Who is "they"?

"They" are those mysterious people who tell Ryan things that aren't always accurate.

Pads are also called audio attenuators, you can buy them as separate items, rather like you can buy adapters that allow T powered mics to use 48V phantom power.

There's the Audio-Technica AT8202 Adjustable In-line Attenuator, Hosa ATT-448 Input Attenuator, XLR3F to XLR3M, Whirlwind IMP-AD40 XLR Inline Barrel 40db Attenuator or Whirlwind IMP PAD Microphone Attenuator (-30dB) . I'm sure there are other makes.

How hard would it be to google "microphone pad" as a starting point?

For the sake of reference, the NTG3 specs say maximum level is 130dB SPL @ 1kHz. Typically that is the level to reach 1% distortion, but I'm not sure whether Rode uses the same reference.

For the record, I believe Whirlwind also makes a 20dB pad. Given that the NTG3 is such a hot mic to begin with, 40dB might be more appropriate for gunshots ... but that's just an educated guess on my part.

Oh okay, I googled pads for NTG-3 but all that came up so far, when I looked was wind protection devices.

I didn't know they were also called attenuators, thanks.

Well when you say 40 db may suit the NTG-3, do you mean a 40 db external attenuator, you buy for it?

Pads/attenuators work for any mic, so you just google a generic name, rather than for a particular model.

Why don't you google the examples given? You're expected to do some research for yourself.

Well when you say 40 db may suit the NTG-3, do you mean a 40 db external attenuator, you buy for it?

That's what we've been talking about, isn't it?

oh yes, I see that the ones that were given as well as some others online are universal and can be used with any mic which I didn't know there was. Thanks. I can get that!

I also talked to another person who's recorded sound and he says that if there is a noticeable difference in perspective from two feed versus 15 ft then I am doing something wrong since gunshots are so loud that there shouldn't be a difference. Is he right or no and the distance is a huge difference?

It depends on the environment. Firing a shot in a cathedral will have variations with distance as will in a forest, it's how it tails off that reveals the distance.

I've never recorded firearms.

With any sound source I've encountered, there is definitely a difference in perspective as you change distance. I suspect this is true for firearms as well. I can think of two reasons for this.

1.) The inverse square law. As you double the distance between the source and the mic, the level will drop by 6dB (1/4 the power, 1/2 the voltage). Compared to a reference of 2 feet, 16 feet that is 8 times as far away, so there will be an 18dB decrease in level of the direct sound from the muzzle. (1/64 as much power, 1/8 as much voltage)

BUT if you also have reflected sound from a building 100 feet away, it will change by one dB or less (because the distance changes no more than 15%). If you have reflected sound from a hillside 200 feet away, that reflection will change by roughly 1/2 dB or less.

So in theory the reflected sound changes very little, but the direct sound from the muzzle becomes relatively quieter. Of course if the hillside doesn't exist, or is very far away, or if the building is very small, then the overall sound will change less. In the middle of a desert, it would probably not be a noticeable change. (If you're recording something indoors where there's a lot of reflections from the walls, ceiling, floor, etc. then it will be a really big difference.) Describe the environment where you're shooting / recording.

2.) Proximity effect. The frequency response of directional mics is different at different frequencies. (This does not apply with omnis.) Proximity effect is especially audible when the distance approaches two or three feet. Since the NTG3 is decidedly directional, and you're talking about two feet as one of your distances, I suspect the recording at that distance would have noticeably more LF content than one made 15 feet away.

* The variable is that the above applies to sound waves that have some repetition of the waveform. But a gunshot also has a shock wave. I'm not sure how that propagates, except that the velocity is faster than the velocity of sound.

I've left a message for two firearms experts I know. I'll report what they have to say after I hear from them.

By all means, if anyone here has actually recorded firearms, I am curious about your actual experience.

Oh okay, well I recorded on an outdoor range, which is basically a grass field. It seems too far away, at around 12 feet though, but was afraid to get closer because the audio was close to clipping, and I could turned the knobs any further down.

At the outdoor range, are there any hard objects nearby? A building? A protective roof? Vehicles? Just speculating here ...

Let's back up. Why are you recording gunshots? Are you just curious, or is this for use in one of your films?

If it's for a specific film, then in the script where is the gun fired? And where is the audience? It might be nice to match the script situation with the recording situation.

OTOH as other people have stated, gunshots in soundtracks are usually processed and combined sounds ... not simply one actual recording of one actual gunshot.

BTW, I just googled "recording gunshots." I got 579,000 results. Have you tried reading any sources like that? (And hasn't this suggestion been made before?)

Yeah. I've tried looking for samples of gun shot sounds, but a lot of them sound further away perspective wise. I haven't storyboarded the shots where the gun is fired yet but they are in closer proximity in some shots, so I thought it would be best to get close perspective recording to begin with and then make them sound more distant in post, if need be.

I know that movies combine other sounds with the shot, but I thought I still needed a close perspective shot to begin with though. I was recording also for experience and practice as well, for much louder sounds, you don't hear everyday.

The shooting range is grass but sorrounding by treets on one side, and a pond on the other, but the pond is quiet.

Ryan, are you perhaps getting ahead of yourself here? Shoot the scene. Will the guns go bang, or will your actors have somebody shout bang which they respond to? Then you need to make a gunshot that sounds right for the scene and the viewpoint. Does it really warrant a recording session with real guns when there are thousands of alternate perspectives? Grab some of the truly great, dry and editable sound files and create whatever battle you want without going out of the door. Your fumbling and misunderstanding over quite basic audio concepts suggests sound effects will be a far more productive technique.

I have a close friend who shoots a lot ... everything from handguns to WWII German weapons. He asked some of the same questions I already asked (which have not been clearly answered).

In addition he said:

1.) You're using the wrong mic; use an omni. The "crack" from a gunshot is a shock wave created by the bullet. The shock wave originates at the bullet and travels along with the bullet. If you have a shotgun mic aimed at the end of the barrel, you will get a narrow and unrealistic recording.

2.) When he is on the shooting range, gunfire that sounds "most natural" to him is perhaps 20 to 50 feet distant. He suggests putting the mic (an omni) about 20 feet in front of the gun, and about 45º to the side, relative to the axis of the gun.

3.) Every weapon sounds different. You need to be recording the same model weapon that is pictured in your story. Do you even know this detail yet?

(I'm still waiting for a reply from the other ballistics expert.)

But yeah, what Paul said! IMHO you are naming the baby before you've even gotten the girl into bed (to put it politely). If you haven't storyboarded yet, then you're just doing random experiments now. Which is fine! We keep telling you to get out and try things. But ask yourself whether this is the best use of your time at the moment. If you want to make a movie

"and then make them sound more distant in post, if need be"
What makes you think you have the ability to do that, given that you don't even have a successful recording yet, and are not an expert at editing SFX? Paul is being realistic, working toward a practical goal. What is your most important goal? (This recalls my question a few weeks ago: do you want to make a movie, or talk about making a movie?)

Remember: Google has 579,000 results for "recording gunshots." Read some (or all) of them. This looks like a good starting point:
https://www.creativefieldrecording.com/2013/09/18/how-to-record-gun-sound-effects/

But you should have taken the initiative to eagerly do that on your own, without being spoon-fed.

Oh okay, I just thought if I used my mics, that the sound effects will match the rest of the movie, rather than sounding more like more obvious stock sounds you can find online or in packages if that makes sense?

The reason why I went out to record before storyboarding the scene, is because they were doing the shooting at the range now, but will not go back for a while because of winter, so I seized the opportunity, even though it was before storyboarding

As for am omni mic, an omi records sounds from all directions, so wouldn't that make the gun sound less potent, as oppose to a shotgun mic, which cancel out sounds from different directions and concentrate more on the gun sound therefore?

Also, why 20 feet away with am omni? Am omni has a less narrow pick up pattern, so you are going to sound even more distant with that compared to a shotgun if 20 feet away, wouldn't you?

As for where I was aiming the mic, I was aiming it at the muzzle more so, because I thought most of the sound would be coming out of the barrel, but is that the wrong place to aim it?

I think he recommended an omni because he likes a more natural and distant sound. He says the gun will sound different from 20' than it does at 2' and he thinks 20' is closer to what most observers would hear. That might not be the sound you want for your track. If it sounds too wimpy for your taste, then boost the "potency" band on your EQ. But then again you don't have a track or even a storyboard at this point in time ...

EDIT: After doing some reading, I find that the speed of the projectile is important. It affects the time delay between when the shock wave reaches the mic and when the *sound* reaches the mic; and it affects the angle at which the shockwave reaches the mic.

I think he dislikes the narrow shotgun because, as I said, the shock wave comes from the bullet, which is moving. Presumably an omni at 20' would pick that up in a more uniform manner. As others have pointed out, a lot of movies do *not* use a realistic recording, they assemble something that sounds ... well, the way they want it to sound.

Please just read what I wrote, so I don't have to write it again.

EDIT: I've read a few dozen articles and posts about this topic now, and they've contained nearly that many different opinions. Many people record with multiple mics simultaneously but at different locations. I have to conclude that gunshots are extremely difficult to record, and take a lot of time and experience (and frequently a lot of post-production work, too). Probably the best results will not be obtained by an amateur with one mic and very limited knowledge and experience.

Oh okay, thanks. I know a lot of movies use other sounds, it's I couldn't figure out what other sound, would sound quite like a gun shot, or how to create one, since it's a unique sound.

Why don't you read some of those 579,000 articles and find out for yourself ... if this is really how you want to spend your time right now.

Here, we don't have access to guns, so using a real gun involves an armourer. We have to pay a qualified person to do all things 'gun'. Even blank firing guns an even starting pistols are controlled. Oddly, part of my job is to licence the damn things and keep them secure, but I'm not the one who fires them. We've been simulating gunfire for years here because of the hassles. If the sound people need to experiment, here there is a real cost.

I loved Ryan's assertion that simulated gun noise doesn't sound real. Only the badly done ones don't sound real. I ran this topic past a friend who was in the services and he laughed because the first time he actually had people shoot at him for real in Afghanistan, he was amazed how totally unlike the movies it was.everything was smaller, and tighter sounding. Very little booming from small fallible weapons, unlike the movies. Sharp cracks, not sonic booms. I don't know because I've never heard a real gun firing bullets.

Does every US car shreak turning in or out of their driveways or swapping lanes on highways. Do they all squeal when you slam the brakes on? Our British ones don't. We must have different roads and tyres to US ones, and have differentials in rear axles, which don't seem to exist in Hollywood.

Gun shots vary, depending on the type of gun and their rate of fire. One feature of a real gun compared to a recorded gun, is that they are louder (unless you've got a turbo powered sound system) until you start to move away from them. If you listen to gun fire from war zones on the news, it's not like Hollywood sound, it's as Paul's friend says, short cracks.