Discontinuous sound = full sound design in post?
 

Lets say I was filming a microubudget production on location in a shopping center. I was filming a dialouge between different characters while muzak and other mall-sounds are heard in the background during filming. When I'm arranging the shots in post, there'll be an obivious break in the ambient effects. Shot 1 could have muzak at the beginning of the song, shot 2, filmed later, could have the same song, but two minutes into it This discontinutiy will obviously be perceptable, so when this happens do you totally erase the audio tracks and build it up from scratch? ADR, sound effects, different ambient track etc? Is the ADR easy to achieve when it comes to getting lip syncing to work? How long should it take? A day worth of your actors in your suite re-recording the dialogue to an audioless video? (ie, Video imported into Adobe Audition and using it as a reference to record)

You need to minimise as much as possible any ambient sound in the background. Shoot dialogue in close up, and mic as close as possible, or choose a shopping centre that doesn't play muzak.

Worse than have the same piece of music jumping around, if you're shooting coverage, but the time you get to the second actor's angles, it could be a completely different song (after all, a song is usually 3-4 minutes, you can't get much coveage on 4 minutres!). If the songs are recongisable, there are copyright issues.

ADR is hard to get to seem "right" on a microbudget.

Yeah, I was thinking PC Mic, Audition and lots of EQ :/

On a Hollywood production that's being shot on location, how does it work when that problem arises? In that situation, is all the sound redone?

On a "Hollywood" production, they'll shoot on a location or backlot where they have control of the background extras and can control sound (i.e. if they shoot in a Mall, it's closed to the public, all the stores are closed unless needed in shot, in which case they're staffed by extras).

Most feature films (and not just Hollywood but independent and international films too) are a combination of controlled sound shooting and ADR. Even if they've used the original dialogue a lot of sound work is created in post.

You're planning to fix it in post huh? Good luck with that one...

EQ will help you a bit but not much. The problem is music and background chatter will be in the same frequency range as dialogue, so as you try and eq out all the background sound, you'll affect the foreground dialogue too.

Audition might have some good noise removal filters, but it will be good at mechanical/electromic noise of a consistent tone and volume, whereas location noise and piped music will have random constantly changing patterns, hard to filter out. Plus again as it is sitting on your foreground sound, filtering out the BG noise will again filter out some of the foreground sound. This might be acceptable for a Documentary but not for a fiction film.

Pardon my ignorance but what is a "PC mic".

Your basic run of the mill $10 microphone meant for PC use. Yes, microbudget is my keyword! However, I do have a friend that owns a small recording studio, so I could always do ADR there.

Tell me though, when working on a small/guerilla budget, how does one film well on location?

By not shooting in a noisy shopping mall?

Well, one solution I can think of off the top of my head is to use two cameras at the same time to cover the reverse angles of your two-person scene. Rehearse your actors over and over again until they can perform the scene non-stop. Film it from start to finish.

That way you can edit from both shots and have it as continuous as possible. But there will most likely still be very small gaps. Although if you record enough ambient sound (minus music) you could use that to mask the cuts. I think you might be able to tweak the sound issues in post doing it this way - cutting and pasting bits of sound - and have a presentable soundtrack. (is that an oxymoron?)

Besides, if this is microbudget, then your audience may forgive the mistakes more readily. Although not always... Hope this helps!

Aviv, from the productions I have participated, I now firmly believe in doing all audio in post with ADR and background tone replacement. I think it will actually save man-hours and definitely provide a better result. The reason it will save man-hours is that the time of the whole crew on-set is wasted doing re-takes because of audio problems. It also takes a lot of time and crew to set up the audio and a very dedicated person to monitor. I now plan to only use on-set audio in easy/quiet locations where the audio just happens to work. With a short movie, there is only about ten minutes of dialog to replace, so I would rather take the actors into a comfortable environment and have them replace their audio instead of stressing everyone out on the set and taking up the time of the entire crew.

Also, ADR is a skill that filmmakers must learn eventually (if not on their very first production) and you may as well develop that skill now. Once you learn how the process works and how to direct your actors in the audio room, it really isn't that hard.

You can save the video, but I think fixing the audio is beyond your means. You could capture purely background audio from the mall, and do dialogue in a studio enviroment.

Then I would recommend shooting a silent film.

Dubbing engineers have this nifty tool I think from the company Cedar Audio. It's a little box with faders, coupla passes through the box works some magic in cleaning up dialogue. Ask around for a demo.

Good ADR is hard to do...
 

Your success doing ADR will be highly dependent on (1) the actor's ability to match the pace of the original dialog; (2) the actor's ability to deliver the right inflection and emotions of the original performance; (3) and the sound editor's ability to match the quality of the dialog with other dialog that was recorded for the production.

Good ADR is hard to do. I strongly suggest avoiding ADR if at all possible, especially with inexperienced actors, who often have a hard time delivering a good performance. To make things easier for them, if it's a conversation bwtween two people, look with both actors present, assuming you're getting a better performance with them playing off each other. That said, if you simply can't avoid it, make sure you get good sound during the shoot so you have a decent guide track, which will make the looping easier for the actors. Sometimes ADR is done in order to improve performances, so for every point in this discussion there's a counter-point. That's what I love about filmmaking, it's all about problem solving, trade-offs, creative solutions to problems... there is never one right way.

Another option, if you're not shooting on the sly and are shooting with permission, is ask the mall management to turn off the Muzak for your shoot. Background walla walla is OK to work with and easier to hide the cuts of, it's the music jumps that really kill you. LOCATION SCOUTS are a good time to eliminate these problems before they start. Since I really like the quality of original performances, I'd rather have good location sound and change locations than deal with all the issues around ADR.

The reasons I believe in ADR are thus:

Drunks in the vicinity
Computer noise
Sporadic traffic (especially when the location is supposed to be remote)
Mopeds (thousands of them in Hawaii)
Hogs (the kind with V-twin motors and no muffler)
Airplanes flying overhead
Mic in the shot
Sneezes
Time setting up the recording on-location while the crew waits
Crewmember noise ruining the take
Cell phones going off during a take
Someone ringing the doorbell during a take
Noisy neighbors
No A/C allowed in a room full of people and lights on a Summer day
Dogs barking
Bad saxophone players on the beach (really, I'm not kidding)
Loud surf noise drowning out the dialog
MIC IN THE SHOT!
And the worst of them all...MIC IN THE SHOT that nobody noticed during the actor's best performance of the day and now we have to throw it out even though we thought we had the perfect performance on tape and struck the set.

It seems impossible to completely avoid ADR, so I consider it a necessary skill that must be developed in every filmmaker. Since I find it relatively easy to get right, I want to take advantage of ADR on the set. Now, I will be happy with any good audio I gather, but I won't waste time and takes if the inevitable audio interruptions occur.

I don't want the worst of both worlds. I won't make everyone crazy on the set expecting the impossible with audio then go crazy trying to avoid ADR when editing and finally begrudge it when it is inevitable. My thinking is to plan for ADR and make up a bunch of time on the set (every minute wasted on-set is multiplyed by the people involved) and in the editing bay. I refuse to waste a good take because there was a noise in the background. I refuse to ever again make a dozen crew and actors wait for 5 minutes while a noisy weirdo in the neighborhood meanders away.

Once ADR is assumed, many other things become easier. Since ADR is unavoidable, we may as well make it part of our skill set and take advantage of it on-set.

I'm not trolling or trying to start flames, but you may have detected that I have had a lot of anger involving location audio. I only hope to keep others from having the same experiences.

How much time does it take to produce 1 minute of video/audio on location compared to 1 minute of dubbed audio?

Thanks. I'd love to save myself the expense of location microphones and mixers and use ADR for my upcoming low-budget films.

It might be easier to rotoscope (or simply mask) the mic in the shot out than to do ADR? This depends on the shot though (i.e. does the camera or background move).

you seem very experienced and professional.........
 

so I have a (probably stupid) question.......if you can record the dialog and at the same time the background WITHOUT dialog, but in phase, what would happen if you invert phase on onetrack and mix with the background volume the same in both?

That is essentially what shotgun mics do, but at the mic instead of in the recording. Shotguns are a bit like multiple mics out of phase. I believe the problem comes with different frequencies phasing in an unrelated manner. Therefore, low frequencies can be sent back to a shotgun mic if the room has a lot of reflective surfaces.

Here is a great video by Ty Ford about different mic types:

http://homepage.mac.com/tyreeford/.P...al%20VIdeo.mp4

He has a list of things that audio people want on set:

http://home.comcast.net/%7Etyreeford/GoodSound.html

"The letter" is a list of things to do to get good audio on set as well as an explanation why audio is best done on location. Unfortunately, the sheer lenght of the list helps explain why ADR (redubbing) is sometimes the best solution. If you have a skilled audio person that is dedicated to only getting audio, it is a great thing for your production. If you are doing micro-budget stuff with a small crew and uncontrollable locations, ADR will probably be cheaper.

I am not a dedicated audio guy, but I strongly believe in good audio for any production. Perhaps trying ADR for one of your productions is a good exercise in learning about audio. Everyone should try some "studio" style recording to learn about clean sound recording. Make your own sound booth and use some quality headphones to experiment with recording. I think you will like the results.

Here is Ty Ford's homepage:

http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford/

*****************

I missed the posts from Seun and Glenn...

I agree that rotoscoping out a mic in the shot may be a solution, but the time for rotoscoping needs to be weighed against ADR. I don't know how much time it takes to do ADR per minute of film, but we did ADR on the main character's voice of a 22-minute dialog-heavy movie in one evening. None of us had ever done ADR before. It only required myself and the actor to be present instead of the whole crew. The actor's audio was ruined by loud computer noise. We doubled the quality of the whole production in one evening while sitting in comfortable chairs. I did not use a special sound booth, but the close proximity of the mic kept the audio clean. I did foley for some of the sounds and that went very quickly.

I don't know why people have such an aversion to trying ADR, but it really isn't that difficult and is a great solution to the audio issues micro-budget productions experience. It doesn't require expensive mics and a dedicated, experienced audio person. At least try it once. You can video yourself and experiment with ADR without anyone else working with you. Then, when it is time for you to re-record actors, you will already know the technique.

Marcus,

it's a cultural thing as much as anything else. Some audiences are much more tolerant of dubbing than others. In Europe (Especially Italy, Germany and Spain) for example, dubbing was the norm, if not the actual rule for a long time. In the UK and the States, whenever possible live audio was the aspiration whenever possible, because in Hollywood they had the resources to build proper soundstages, and in the UK there is a tradition of documentary realism, and also, and I think importantly, we weren't seeing dubbed versions of Hollywood films, so poor dubbing in Local films would show up in comparison.

In Turkey they use to dub Hollywood films, usually pretty appallingly, and Turkish films had similarly bad sound quality. In the Nineties, Turkish cinemas installed digital surround sound systems and had to use the original English languages tracks and started subtitling the films. Then, the poor quality of local sound production was thrown in sharp relief, and in recent years, Turkish film sound tracks have improved dramatically. In addition there is more of a move towards recording direct sound for local TV dramas and Feature films whereas once ALL such shows (even though recorded on sound stages) would have been dubbed without a second thought.

Hence, in a lot of places, ADR is seen as an admission of failure, as an aesthetic weakness. Yes it can be done really well, and I've used it on my productions. But first choice for me is always direct sync sound, even as I know it's a cultural thing.

Basically though I agree with you - good, or even mediocre ADR is preferable to bad location sound.

Dylan,

I'm not including dubbing to other languages in my recommendation to do ADR.

For same-language productions, I think it is a function of your resources and set conditions. Add a wind machine and uncontrollable traffic and the biggest-budget production still can't get good location sound. There are tricks around many problems that a good sound person will use, but sound engineers are not cheap. The thousands of dollars that are spent on microphones to do the job right can be substituted for one decent mic and a quiet room.

"Basically though I agree with you - good, or even mediocre ADR is preferable to bad location sound."

I think what I'm getting at is that I know the budget level of many people on this forum and ADR fits into that picture. It also is an absolutely necessary skill if you ever have a shoot with uncontrollable noise. Since people can't get away from it, the skill should be developed and the technique used when appropriate. We may not have the budget, but we probably have the time to try improving our skills as editors and shooters.

ADR is a technique that must be used on occaision, so you may as well develop the skill and use it whenever it benefits the production. Heck, toying around with your mic and camera is the fun part of all this work! :)

You must be talking about people like me! I shot a scene in an ethnic market with noisy fridges, and I knew I was not going to get good location sound. I found a nice mic with which to dub. Now where do I record? I have no studio. What kind of a room would be best?

Minimizing reflections and reverb is your goal when choosing a room to record in. You want your ADR to be as flat as possible so you can match it to the situations of the room later using effects (unless you can somehow create a room with the exact acoustic properties of your location -- but that's usually out of the question).

Perfectly square rooms are usually bad, as are rooms which lengths and widths are in a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1. Fortunately, your average size 13x10 bedroom usually falls outside of these parameters. Mattresses and large volume, differentiated materials help cut down on low frequency noise, while high frequency reflection is best controlled by suspended blankets, or by creating multiple angular projections on the wall (in the way that egg crate foam does). Remove anything that vibrates, turn off the AC, and unplug your refrigerator. Also, don't use a room with dimmer switches on the lights.

For a small recording mic booth, sometimes a walk in closet is all that is needed, provided that its not perfectly square. Leave the clothes and all the junk in it (provided it doesn't vibrate) and that should help deaden the sound.

Like Matt said, you don't necessarily need a sound booth if you understand that your audio is only going to be 95% good when recorded in a bedroom. That last 5% costs BIG money and is worth it on many productions. On low-budget movies, clearly understandable audio without any weird background is what you need to achieve and can keep the audience happy for only a few dollars.

Put objects in your room that absorb sound and keep it from resonating. The resonance is caused by the parallel walls Matt mentioned. Couches and big soft recliners are often available in most homes. Throw some extra furniture in your recording room. If there is a closet in the room, open it so the clothing will act as an absorber. Hang a comforter/blanket on the wall. Sound guys sometimes use cheap moving blankets. Throw blankets all over your hard furniture.

Keep background sound sources muffled in some way. Put something dense and soft between the mic and any air vents. Don't have any line of sight between the mic and a noise.

Use quiet furniture for your talent to sit upon. A squeaky chair will drive you crazy when it is time to edit. Cover hard-surface table tops. Don't sit too close to the computer screen or it could cause a reflection.

Build a tabletop sound booth. Make a cube with it's insides covered with foam and put it behind the mic. It should be a cube with one side open so the sound will go in and be absorbed. Make it about two-feet square from thin plywood or cardboard.

Have the talent be quiet before and after a take for a couple of seconds so you can isolate the takes.

Turn off ceiling fans and the furnace, if possible.

Keep the mic at the right distance - too close and there will be a bass resonance/too far and you will start recording the room noise. I would guess about 4 inches to be a good starting point if you are using a vocal performance mic (cardioid) like the Shure SM58.

Most of these things are common sense once you are in a frame of mind to eliminate sound. Just sit in your room and start listening for noise sources. You will be surprised how noisy an industrialized society can be.

Don't click the mouse during a take! :)

I absolutely agree with everything Marcus said there except for the mic choice. The Shure is a good mic, but it has a close proxmity bass resonance that sounds somewhat unnatural. I personally believe in using large diaphram condensor mics, and a very affordable one is the MXL MXLV63M Condenser Studio Microphone. It's about $100 out of musicians friend (about the same price as the SM58) and people are always shocked when I show them at it sounds nearly as good as some of the $500-$800 shure condensors.

Alternatively you could use your field mic. This may be a good idea since you'll have the exact same acoustic properties as the field audio. However, I really wouldn't use a dyanmic mic to do ADR.

I should clarify that I used the SM58 as an example since it is what is laying around the world in similar quantities to leaves and stones. There are definitely better mics for ADR but I am not the expert with mic types.

Regardless of mic choice, every mic and person will have an ideal mic placement that is even more critical than the room or mic choice. Perhaps some sort of pop filter (pantyhose?) between mic and person is also in order?

Recording is all about mic placement and room noise. With ADR, you get to influence those variables tremendously.

Personally I planned to use an AT4040 for ADR and perhaps my AT4073a field mic. The AT4040 has its own stand. I might try to knock together a pop filter that clips onto it.

Thanks for the informative replies.