Audio Curriculum Discussion...

[knightly]

Let's figure out how to present audio pre/pro/post to visual learners...

 

[Jeff Troiano]

I've got some work to finish, when I've got some more time later, I'll try to explain what sound design actually is.

G

This is where I'd like to see this thread go. We've had explanations by both Alcove and A.P.E. about their frustrations. But I'd love to learn about how sound design becomes a part of my process. How it becomes part of my writing, and preproduction. I've given a good amount of time and thought to sound, because I've always believed it was important. But I'm sure I haven't scratched the surface. I'd love for this to be geared for the "indie" level. It's cool to know how they do it on a major production, but in reality, that doesn't do all that much for me. How can I indie size sound? I'd love to see links to reading material that is recommended. I bought a good book, called Sound for Digital Video, I haven't yet had the time to do more then browse through it. I bought because I don't know the difference between microphones, and I want to learn more about production sound.

I'd love to see discussions about types of microphones and production sound gear, so I can make a more informed purchase or rental. But I don't want this to turn into the "what's the best mic or headphones". Because that doesn't teach me anything. I want to know why I want to use a certain type of microphone, and the situations in which its good.

I've emailed Alcove several times since I've been here. He's always been more then happy to answer a question, or offer a bit of advice. And while he may not know it, he's taught me a little. I'd love to learn more.

I want enough sound knowledge, so that I can have a conversation with the person running sound for me, and us both understand what we're trying to get.

 

[Alcove Audio]

You see, here is where I become befuddled and confused.

... I'd love to learn about how sound design becomes a part of my process.

I went into that in great detail in post #15 of this thread.

Did I fail in my mission to describe the mental processes involved? To delineate the minimum
goals that are achievable at the low/no/mini/micro budget level?

You should not have to worry about gain-staging. You should not have to worry about mic selection.
You will not be swinging the boom. You will not be monitoring the audio recorder. The TECHNICAL
process of production sound should not concern you at all - you should have someone knowledgeable and
competent to handle production sound for you. From my point of view if you do not expend the budget, time
and effort to find a PSM/boom-op (yes, it can be one person) then you don't give a damn about sound. Because
no matter how smart you are - Einstein may be a moron compared to you - and no matter how talented you are
- you're Scorcese, Spielberg, Hitchcock and Ford all rolled into one - YOU WILL NOT BE SWINGING THE BOOM
AND HANDLING THE AUDIO RECORDING GEAR. You are a human being, not a god; you can only do one thing at a
time. You cannot magically transfer all of your knowledge and talents to someone else. If you had the budget would
you buy $50k worth of audio gear or would you hire someone to do that job for you? Okay, you don't have that kind
of a budget, but shouldn't you have someone on the set of competency equal to that of your DP to exclusively handle
and oversee the audio?

Your film will only look as good as it sounds.

Sound is half of the experience.

Sound and picture are equal partners.

Sound and picture are Siamese twins that will die if separated from each other.

More otherwise worthy projects fail because of poor sound than for any other technical reason.


A film is an immersive experience. But you have only two of the five human senses that can be tapped into with which
to involve your audience - sound and sight. There is nothing for them to smell or taste (except for popcorn and soda) and
nothing for them to touch. Since you only have sounds and visuals should you not use both to the fullest extent of your
capabilities? How much time during preproduction did you spend discussing the sonic world of your last project? How
much time did you spend discussing how to capture clean intelligible production sound? On your last shoot how much
time did you spend blocking and lighting? Did you spend that much time on the sound? Who was swinging the boom
and monitoring the audio gear? Did s/he have as much experience with sound as the DP did with picture?

Okay, let's take a different perspective. Whether you like it or not your audience is judging your work against Scorcese,
Spielberg, Hitchcock and Ford et. al. Did those luminaries hand the boom pole to a PA on his first film set? No, they
found the best audio talent available to them. Once they started sitting in the directors chair I don't think any of them
worried about sound; they relied of the technical and artistic excellence of the sound teams with which they worked,
just as they relied upon the DP, grips, gaffers, hair/MU, wardrobe and other crafts to deliver what was desired.

I'm sorry to sound like a grumpy, bitter old curmudgeon. In fact, that's probably what I'm turning into, if that's not what I
already am.

"Can't you fix that?"

"Well, yeah, if you really want me to; but it's going to take a couple of hours."

"But that's another $XX.00!!!!!"

"That's right, and there are a dozen other places in the film with the same problem."

"But that's another $XXX.00!!!"

"You've got it. There are also a few places that need to be ADRed."

"How long is that going to take?"

"Well, it's been done in four hours or so, but it will depend upon your actors; more likely eight hours. I once did
a session where it took the actress over three hours to get one line right."

"But that could be another $X,XXX.00!!!"

"Yup."

"Why do I have this problem?"

"Well, if I were you, I would stop payment on the check to your sound team; they FUBARed pretty badly."

"Uhmmm, I didn't hire anyone, a friend of mine helped me out."

"Well, if you had hired someone at $150 a day it would have cost you a hell of a lot less than what you're paying
me to fix all of these problems."

"Well, I don't have the money; I guess that I'll just have to live with it."

"Your call. I'll do what I can within your budget, but the results will be marginal at best, and we'll have to take away from
the time we spend on sound effects and Foley."

This is the third time I've had this identical conversation with this client, and it's repeated ad nauseam with numerous others.

I didn't sign up to be a repairman; I signed up to be creative and to have some fun. No wonder I'm becoming disillusioned.

 

[Jeff Troiano]

Now here's my problem. And I'm not slamming the Audio guys. As I said in my prior post, Alcove has answered every email I've ever sent him, and has taught me a thing or two. And I respect him very much. I also note, I agree with the things Alcove says above.

With that said.......

I thought the reason for starting a thread like this, and frankly I was hoping this would turn into a dedicated audio section of the forum, was so that I could learn about audio, where it pertains to film making. I posted that desire in my prior post. I also posted some specifics that I'd hope to learn. Instead the door was slammed in my face, telling me I don't need to know these things. All I need to know is the phone number for the nearest dedicated audio guy. As much as the audio guys are frustrated by indie film makers lack of concern for audio, I'm frustrated with the attitude that I'm not worthy to learn about it. I've read in numerous post, how we need to "learn how to listen". That's great! I want to learn. I don't want to be told my only option is to hire someone who knows what their doing.

I've been a home theater nut for as long as I can remember. And for the most part, when I went to buy some new equipment, before I even walked I to a store, I did my research. And it never shocked me, that I ended up knowing more then the guy selling me the thing. I'd start asking questions, and they wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about. I WANT TO LEARN ABOUT SOUND. that's why I posted in this thread, that's what I thought e intentions with starting a thread like this was about.

I'm sure there are many more out there like me. Will I end up being an audio guy? You never know. I got into this hobby with a specific idea in my head. But as I've learned, things have changed, areas of focus have changed. When it come to my home studio, I've spent almost as much on the audio side of things, as I have on the video side of things. By the time I get the last few audio things I need for that system, I will have equalled or put spent the video side.

I still want to learn how I can create a better listening environment, as I'm going to be buying a new house next year, and hope to put in a dedicated studio.

As I said before, I want to learn the differences between microphones, and when to use one over another. I want to learn proper the proper way to swing a boom pole.

Why do I want to learn these thing? Because I naturally curious and want to learn everything there is. Because maybe I know someone who's doing an indie project, and instead of some random PA, or his friends friend holding the boom, he might be able to rely on me.

I've been talking to friends for years, about the aspects of film indie film making that have always bothered me. I've always run into the same old crap,...... All you need is a camera and a good script. BS, I've never bought into that. Production value (including the audio side) has always been paramount, to just a camera and a script. I've learned a lot about all sorts of things, and audio is an area I'm still wanting more info.

I'm sorry, it's not an acceptable answer to tell me to hire someone. I'm here to learn.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Sound design is a true art form and trying to define it is therefore surprisingly difficult, in much the same way as trying to define music. Any simple or obvious definition of music ends up excluding various areas of legitimate musical endeavour. Simply put, and therefore rather inaccurately, sound design is the manipulation of the audiences' perception, in order to elicit emotional responses, to allow the audience to feel and experience the story rather than just be spectators. In a certain sense, sound itself is rather irrelevant, it's just the medium used by the sound designer, in the same way as paint is just the medium used by a painter, it's not so much the paint itself which defines a great painting but what the painter does with it.

One of the most important considerations of the sound designer is to understand how humans (and therefore an audience) perceive sound, as knowing this is what allows us to manipulate their perception. Most importantly, when I say “manipulate their perception” I mean their perception of everything, not just their perception of the sound! Understanding this last sentence will start to give you an idea of why sound design is of such fundamental importance in film making.

Before going any further, I'll explain the basic procedure of the sound designer: Initially, the sound designer collaborates with the director and scriptwriter, to help make sure that the script takes full advantage of the story telling tools which sound design offers. Later, the sound designer will work with the costume and set designers, spend considerable time with the DOP and of course also with the production sound mixer. Later still, the sound designer will work closely with the VFX supervisor and finally in audio post, will specify what sounds are required. The job of the Sound Designer is as much to help design the film for sound as it is to design the sound for the film!!

This begs the question, how do you design a film for sound? The obvious starting point would appear to be; write in lots of references to sound in the script but actually this is not the correct answer! Except in specific and rare circumstances we do not want the audience to just see a situation as it happens through the lens of a camera, we want the audience to feel what it would be like to actually be in the situation. To experience it, rather than just see it. An experience is far more than just what we see, an experience is a combination of what we see, what we hear and what we feel. With sound design's unparalleled ability to manipulate what an audience feels, not using sound design means that you're using half or even less than half of the story telling tools available to you as a filmmaker!

We can take this a step further though, we can if we wish, make the POV of the sound different to the POV of the camera and we can, if we wish, hear the sound from the POV of one of the characters. This is where we return to perception and the fact that it's always a two way street: Not only does what we hear affect what we see and vice versa but taken as a whole, what are thinking and feeling is largely dictated by what we are experiencing (perceiving) but just as importantly, what we are perceiving is strongly influenced by what we are thinking and feeling. In other words, our thoughts and emotions give context to our perceptions and dictate how we interpret what we are perceiving. This fact dramatically increases our sound design options because if we choose to hear the sound of a scene (or part of a scene) from a character's POV, the character's perception of the sound will be affected by what they are thinking and feeling. As sound designers, we can therefore modify the sound to reflect how the character's perception is being affected by what they are thinking and feeling. This is obviously a very powerful filmmaking tool because it's one thing to see an actor acting anxious (for example) and it's one thing for the actor to tell us through dialogue that he/she is feeling anxious but it's far more involving and far better story telling IMO, for the audience to actually share in the character's perception/experience of their anxiousness. If you think about it, this use of sound POV also provides a great tool to aid to character development, because as the character develops, so does their perception of the world around them. This same development tool applies not only to individual characters but also to individual scenes and indeed to the film as a whole.

Even this though is not all of sound design is for or can achieve, we can use sound design to turn a creature, animal or even an inanimate object into a character. We can use it to help the audience to make connections between characters, time periods, places and/or other narrative themes and ideas, or we can use it to misdirect the audience in any of these areas. We can use it to smooth edits and transitions or to emphasise and increase their dramatic impact. Indeed, at any one point in time, the design of the sound is likely to be doing several of these tasks simultaneously.

However, most of the fantastically powerful filmmaking tools which sound design offers can't be employed unless the film is written, filmed and edited in a way which allows them to be employed. Without the opportunity, the art of sound design is reduced to the technical skill of sound editing, with a token bit of sound FX design squeezed in where possible. For example, a good screenplay for sound design needs to present POV opportunities for characters to perceive the world around them and if necessary to respond to those perceptions and, it needs to present opportunities for the sound to tell the story rather than always relying entirely on dialogue and/or setting. In addition, choosing locations which allow for the clean recording of dialogue is very important but so too is providing visual elements which provide sound design opportunities. A factory, workshop, train station, school, playground, hospital, construction site or a myriad of other common sights (background or foreground) each provide a rich potential sound design palette which we can employ, manipulate, evolve or even minimise if we choose, to elicit any number of different perceptions and emotional responses, even when cutting to a nearby interior scene. You also need to think about sound design opportunities for interior shots, heating or sewage pipes in the background, machines and music systems might be switched on (though obviously stopped or muted) and briefly captured while filming. Clocks and other noise making objects present in the scene can all be used not only to subconsciously manipulate the audiences' perception of the environment and of the emotional content of the scene but also of the pace, geography and continuity as the characters move to different rooms within that location. Also consider the use of extreme close ups, areas of darkness in the frame or any other type of shot which may restrict the information presented visually, to intrigue the audience, to allow them to use their imagination and to open the door for sound design to manipulate and enhance that imagination.

I realise that few if any of you have the budget to hire a top class professional sound designer for the duration of your film. Likewise your budgets don't allow for a top class professional DOP but you wouldn't say: “I can't afford a professional DOP therefore I'm not going to have any cinematography in my film”. Without cinematography you haven't really got a film, so you would have to take an interest, study up on the subject and act as DOP yourself. Exactly the same is true of sound design!

Hopefully this has whetted your appetite for the use of sound design to enhance your arsenal of story telling tools and we can discuss more about specific cases, techniques and how to implement it.

G

 

[Mannie Bothans]

I'm enjoying this thread. Is there any way to cite or link to specific stellar examples of when sound is presented from a particular character's POV, or when it is used to turn a creature, animal or even an inanimate object into a character; or used to help the audience to make connections between characters, time periods, places and/or other narrative themes and ideas, or when it was effectively used to misdirect the audience in any of these areas. Or examples of how we can use it to smooth edits and transitions or to emphasise and increase their dramatic impact?

 

[Alcove Audio]

Ahhhh...

You explained yourself much differently in your second post (#23). With that said...

This thread is not the personal education for one person, it is intended for all forum members
and lurking guests. An overwhelmingly large percentage of them want to direct and only direct.
They buy a camera because they think they have to; they buy sound gear in the hopes that it will
improve their sound. They have no interest in working on anyone else's set, and have no interest
in learning any of the crafts; both positions are a huge error from my point of view.

I still stand by everything I wrote in post #15. The very first thing that needs to be done is a complete,
almost radical adjustment of your thinking and mental approach to filmmaking; all of my favorites -
Your project will only look as good as it sounds, sound is half of the experience, etc. These are not just
platitudes; as I said, you must believe this to the very core of your soul.

Before we dive into all of the technical aspects lets stay with the "thinking and understanding" portion of this
immense topic. You need to learn to listen. This takes HUGE amounts of patience.

Go to numerous varying locations - parks, malls, train/bus stations, playgrounds, diners/restaurants/fast food
places, etc. Sit down, close your eyes and listen to what you hear going on around you. Not for two minutes,
not for five minutes, for one half an hour or more. Keep your eyes closed. Concentrate on what you are hearing.
Identify things and people by how they sound. You only open your eyes to confirm what you are hearing - yup,
that's a medium size dog, toenails clicking on the sidewalk and dog license tags jingling - or when you cannot
identify a sound - a little old lady using a wheeled walker. Listen to the way the entire ambience around you is
constructed; some birds tweeting, moderate traffic, kids playing, business types passing through during lunch,
the lunch truck on the far side of the park. Then return to the same place at rush hour, and after dinner, and
late at night, and early in the morning - and do all of that for each season. Do the same with ten or a dozen
other locations; YOU ARE LEARNING HOW TO LISTEN. Did you notice how many things you didn't really hear
until you concentrated on them? That's your mental "editing function" tuning out the non-threatening sounds
so you can concentrate on what is interesting.

If you want to be completely radical you can try an exercise that I have done several times - spend an entire
day as a blind person. Now you have no choice but to rely upon your ears to provide you with information about
your surroundings. I sometimes wish it was possible to turn off smell, taste and touch, so your reliance upon
sound is 100% complete. After all, films are only sound and vision.

Exercise two: choose one object to record, then set up your mic and recorder. I liked a glass jar with the top on.
I dropped it from about six inches onto the concrete in my garage (with the doors closed), definitely not enough
for it to break. I verbally slated each take. I recorded it up close (2") at ground level and progressively moved the
mic back several inches at a time. I then did the same thing moving the mic higher. Then I repeated using the
compressor. Being a sound guy I also did the same with different mics (same recorder settings.) The point of this
exercise is how mics "hear" very differently than human ears, that varying types of mics can sound quite unique,
and the radical difference between what your ears hear and what is recorded and subsequently reproduced.

Why is this important? We are not set up to "remember" sounds. Until we train ourselves most of the time all we
know is "it doesn't sound right" but not WHY it doesn't sound right. This is the effect of the sound being
recorded not by out brains and being reproduced there but being "heard" by the artificial means of a microphone,
remembered by the artificial means of an audio recorder, and recalled by the artificial means of a speaker system.
The key word, obviously, is artificial. As sound folks we have to compensate for all of this artificiality. This is where
we begin with equipment choices and learning to rely on our talents and experience to compensate and "translate"
sounds back into an believable sonic world that "sounds right" or is believable to the audience.

We'll move on to playing/experimenting with sounds in another lesson...

 

[Jeff Troiano]

As always, thank you Alcove, and A.P.E. for all the time and passion you take to help everyone out.

And yes, this isn't a thread for one single person to learn. I hope there are many more people, like myself, who want to know about the audio side of things. I can imagine a lot of us come from the low budget/no budget area. And I know many times we don't have the resources for a "real" audio guy. And to me, learning more about this subject can only better me and the things I strive for. I hope others agree.

I would never and do not expect Alcove and A.P.E to be instructors, creating learning curriculum. I would love for links to things to check out and read, websites, books, videos. I know you both have limited time and being teachers shouldn't be part of that. I hope you'd take pleasure in knowing others are passionate also.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Is there any way to cite or link to specific stellar examples of when
sound is presented from a particular character's POV...

"Saving Private Ryan" - the entire D-Day scene is from Capt. Millers POV.

or when it is used to turn a creature, animal or even an inanimate object into a character; or used to
help the audience to make connections between characters, time periods, places and/or other narrative
themes and ideas, or when it was effectively used to misdirect the audience in any of these areas. Or
examples of how we can use it to smooth edits and transitions or to emphasise and increase their
dramatic impact?

Any "Star Wars" or "Harry Potter" film will give you examples of creatures as characters. Just one example
is Chewy the Wookie - he sounds like he is speaking a language, and is often quite emotional about it.

"Titanic" is a wonderful example of an inanimate object as a character. It is very subtle, but it is there
throughout the entire film. The engines are always present, and the perspectives are consistent with
each passenger class; you can barely hear the engines in first class, they are very present in steerage, and
of course are almost deafening in the engine room itself.

For misdirection? Pick any horror or psychological thriller that uses a creak on a floor board or a tree branch
tapping on a window to build tension. This is usually followed by a big relaxing sigh and some silence, which,
of course, precedes the figurative "monster" jumping out and saying "BOO!!!"

Period pieces are easy; you just need to convince the audience that they are there; it does not have to be
authentic, not that anyone really knows what 18th century New York City really sounded like. And that is
the sound designers job, to use his/her imagination and skills to create something completely believable.

The biggest problem with sound design is that it is extremely difficult to give very specific answers. Sound
design is a cohesive whole, not a specific point. If you want another wonderful example of terrific sound
design check out "The English Patient." There is everything from battles to the "silent" desert to cities in
various parts of the world to love and hate and... The sound design was done by Walter Murch who also
edited the film and won both of those Oscars for his work on that film. The entire film from beginning to
end is an exercise in cohesive sound design. Since he edited there are plenty of opportunities for sound
to "speak" on its own in addition to all of its other roles.

 

[Alcove Audio]

... I know many times we don't have the resources for a "real" audio guy.

To get back to your original objection to my posts, resources aren't just financial funding. Your "resources"
include your time, your passion, the internet, the telephone and schools/colleges/universities in your area. I would say
that you should expend the time and and passion looking for someone who can be your "real" audio guy/gal. As I
mentioned, sound being an equal partner your PSM/boom-op should have experience equivalent to your DP. If your
DP (you?) has only a few projects under his/her belt a hungry up-and-coming audio guy/gal is a great choice. No
matter what s/he will do a MUCH better job than a camera mounted mic, and will be better than a randomly chosen
PA. And your PSM/boom-op doesn't have to be just a PSM/boom-op; s/he can also be your audio post person. You
use your time and passion (and the internet and your telephone and...) to find someone as passionate about sound
as you are about getting your film made.

I would love for links to things to check out and read, websites, books, videos.

FilmSound.org

My favorite books:

Sound Design - David Sonnenschien (take this one in small nibbles)

Practical Art of Motion Picture Sound - David Lewis Yewdall (A general technical guide)

The Foley Grail - Vanessa Ament (Some history, fun anecdotes and some "how to" in relatively simple language.
The DVD is fun.)

The Sound Effects Bible - Ric Viers (Lots of technical info and some practical stuff presented in an
"introductory" fashion)

Dialog Editing - John Purcell (This one is a bit deep for beginners.)


I reread these and others almost every year, usually before I begin work on a feature.


Most Pixar DVDs have something about the sound design in the extras.

There is a post production forum on the GearSlutz audio site populated by some amazing people.
There are also some dedicated audio post groups on LinkedIn, and the audio folks on CreativeCow
are also pretty good. http://soundworkscollection.com/ is good, and, believe it or not,
there are quite a few good videos on YouTube.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Is there any way to cite or link to specific stellar examples of when sound is presented from a particular character's POV, or when it is used to turn a creature, animal or even an inanimate object into a character; or used to help the audience to make connections between characters, time periods, places and/or other narrative themes and ideas, or when it was effectively used to misdirect the audience in any of these areas. Or examples of how we can use it to smooth edits and transitions or to emphasise and increase their dramatic impact?

To be honest Mannie, I would say watch and carefully listen to any good film. You will find examples all over the place in each film. I could give you specific examples which I particularly like, such as the opening of Apocalypse Now, the ambiances in Solaris, the train squeal which becomes the scream inside the head of the novice hitman in The Godfather, the "character of the Ring" in Lord of the Rings, the "character of the Tornadoes" in Twister, the list just goes on and on, and on! When it comes to smoothing or emphasising edits and transitions, I would say find any good commercial film which doesn't use sound design in this way virtually constantly. Pretty much the same can be said when it comes to making connections or misdirecting the audience.

The point I was trying to make is that in commercial films sound design is an absolute basic requirement of film making, not an optional extra. Therefore to find good examples of the sound design I've described, you just have to watch any good film! If you want great, rather than good, examples of sound design, just watch any great film! I've said it before, it's no coincidence that those films considered great by most people are pretty much the same films which demonstrate the greatest sound design!

G

 

[Jeff Troiano]

Alcove, I will go on the record and say I'm in 100% agreement with the statement of finding someone else to do the sound. Whether its an up and coming person, who's skill level match that of another up and comer, or a seasoned professional.

My passion for knowledge still wants to fed, and sound has been an area of interest for as long as my interest in film has been there. I actually have very specific areas I want to learn (with regards to sound). But as has been stated, This isn't a thread for 1 person to learn. I like the idea of having a discussion about audio (in a general sense), and hopefully we all will achieve a realization about how import sounds is to film/video.

I'm sure any specific question I have, I will research, to the best of my ability, and possibly post questions here and there.

 

[Mannie Bothans]

This is all extremely helpful.

Since we are sharing links...

Here's another thread that helped me wrap my brain around the "roominess issue."

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=36997

Salient quotes:

A hypercardioid will pick up more of the ambient noise in the surrounding area when used outdoors, and it will need serious wind protection, but will do an okay job of it.

As with most things it is a series of tradeoffs. A shotgun mic indoors requires a lot of set prep and precise handling to avoid the "roomy" sound so prevalent in most low/micro budget indie films. Using a hypercardioid is not a cure-all for avoiding that roomy sound indoors, just as a shotgun is not a cure-all for the problems encountered outdoors. When using a hypercardioid indoors you should still do all of the things that I have so often suggested be done when using a shotgun - sound blankets, carpeting, etc.

Solid production sound is as much a skill as cinematography, make-up, writing or any other discipline, which is why I always recommend working with someone competent and experienced if at all possible.

Why is that alcove? What is it about shotties that increase the roominess? That kind of confuses me a bit. I would of thought a tighter pick up would pick up less room but a very unnatural room noise that may change with different angles. I know that this is fact and not disputing this just would like to understand is all.

From Wikipedia:

Reverberation is the persistence of sound in a particular space after the original sound is removed. A reverberation, or reverb, is created when a sound is produced in an enclosed space causing a large number of echoes to build up and then slowly decay as the sound is absorbed by the walls and air. This is most noticeable when the sound source stops but the reflections continue, decreasing in amplitude, until they can no longer be heard... In comparison to a distinct echo that is 50 to 100 ms after the initial sound, reverberation is many thousands of echoes that arrive in very quick succession (.01 – 1 ms between echoes). As time passes, the volume of the many echoes is reduced until the echoes cannot be heard at all.

Okay? What you have to keep in mind is that these millions of millisecond and microsecond "echoes" are bouncing off of every hard surface in the room in every direction.

Now you have to take into consideration how shotgun mics work.

From Wikipedia:

Shotgun microphones are the most highly directional. They have small lobes of sensitivity to the left, right, and rear but are significantly less sensitive to the side and rear than other directional microphones. This results from placing the element at the back end of a tube with slots cut along the side; wave cancellation eliminates much of the off-axis sound.

Even though it says "left and right" there are also reflections from up and down.

Are you with me so far?

So because of it's narrow polar pattern a shotgun mic picks up, primarily, the sounds directly in front of it. Since the shotgun mic is pointed at the sound source the sound reflections that are being picked up are the ones that are bouncing off of the hard surfaces behind the sound source, so they are the ones that have traveled the furthest. So because of the way the shotgun mic works, capturing only the longest reflections from behind the sound source, the shotgun mic actually exaggerates the reflective qualities of the room.

Clear as mud, right?

The last thing you have to consider is that a microphone is picking up a very directional way. Your ears pick things up in a spherical pattern, and then your brain actually "edits" the way that you hear things.

If you are using both within about 6" to 12" and you are speaking directly into them, yes, they will sound quite similar. It's when you get into a reflective environment at larger distances that, as long as they are aimed exactly the same, you will notice less of the "roomy" sound with the hyper. You will notice the differences even more when you are actually "swinging" the boom between the actors during a real shoot. Do some experimenting in highly reflective environments like a kitchen, a bathroom, a long hallway or a gymnasium at varying distances; you'll notice a much more marked difference as the distances increase. BTW, your monitoring environment will also make a difference in how you hear the recordings. In a treated studio environment there are very few reflective surfaces when compared to your living room or bedroom which are, after all, reflective environments themselves; you'll hear more of the differences in a controlled monitoring situation. Also, the biggest difference is not the "tail" but the amount of reflection you will notice in the dialog itself.

More so than any other creative/artistic pursuit, filmmaking is a team sport. You can paint alone, sculpt alone, write alone, take photographs alone, compose alone and even perform alone. But storytelling with actors, whether it's on a stage or committed to audio/visual media, requires that you involve others.

Filmmaking is about telling a story. The audience experiences the story through the actors and the interactions of the actors with each other and their environment. So far those interactions are limited to sounds and moving pictures.

The directors job is to make those physical and verbal interactions interesting. What happens all to often is that, once s/he is on the set, the director forgets about the dialog; yet the dialog, the verbal interaction between the characters, is what involves the audience in the story.

"Filmmaking is the art of the invisible; if anyone notices your work you have not done your job correctly." And nothing is more invisible than sound. Get the sound right and no one notices; get it wrong, if the audience cannot understand what the characters are saying to each other, they will not care how beautiful the visuals are.

Everyone is always asking "what mic/recorder/whatever should I get" hoping that it will improve their sound. But as with every other aspect of filmmaking - in fact with almost every other art form - it is the skill with which the tools are used and not the tools themselves that makes the ultimate difference. That's why I always advise getting someone who knows what they are doing to swing the boom and set the levels. Then, if the acting is good, the project has a chance. After all, especially at the indie level, most films are about the verbal interactions of the characters. So get the production sound right and your project, from a technical standpoint, stands a good chance.

I have heard people advise against a hyper outside and against a shotgun inside-- but this helped me understand why.

I also see why pros have a wide array of tools for the myriad variables present in every different location.

Still, like Jeff-- I still have other specific questions that might benefit only me. For one thing, I would benefit from learning how to interpret polar patterns. For example, one thing I still don't understand is: if a hypercardiod is preferable to a cardioid for indoor dialogue, why do so many people fawn over the indoor sound from the CMC 6/MK 41 -- because Glenn Trew says the Schoeps CMC641 has a cardiod pattern that is more like the Sennheiser MKH 40 than the pattern of the Sennheiser MKH 50.

 

[rayw]

Suggestion from the passively interested peanut gallery here...

Just like with the camera end of the project comes in at the Canon Vixia vs Canon 5D vs Red - you guys oughtta consider entry level vs prosumer vs not-d!cking-around-anymore quality levels of GIGO: Mics ---> Editing Programs ---> Speakers... er... MONITORS.

"If you're THIS high collect with X, process edit with Y, and listen to it with Z."

 

[knightly]

"The Conversation" has alot of really good POV sound work

 

[Alcove Audio]

My passion for knowledge still wants to fed, and sound has been an area of interest for as long as my interest in film has been there. I actually have very specific areas I want to learn (with regards to sound).

It all begins with training your ears, learning how to listen, and then learning how "technology" distorts "reality" or how it changes what our ears expect to hear. So start with the listening exercises in post #26.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

"If you're THIS high collect with X, process edit with Y, and listen to it with Z."

It's not that simple, film (and sound) unfortunately rarely is. I already said somewhere that I'd rather have Gary Rydstrom doing the sound on a laptop than have a student doing the sound in a $20m facility. Sound design is an art and therefore depends more on the artist than what equipment he/she is using. On the other side of the coin one could justifiably ask: Would Gary Rydstrom ever have been able to achieve the level of one of the world's greatest sound designers if he had not had significant access to $20m facilities?

With regard to Knightly and Mannie. We need to be careful to not just pick little bits or even entire scenes of particularly obvious and good sound design. While these might be good examples of sound design they are only a small part of the picture. Most of what we do in sound design is not obvious and is specifically designed to not be obvious. So, while it's useful to study the obvious uses of sound design, it's the unobvious use of sound design which is far more common and far more worthwhile learning. Additionally, like filmmaking itself, sound design is not only about individual scenes or even sequences of scenes but of the film as a whole. Not only does the sound design evolve with the story and the characters but as I mentioned, the sound design is one of the elements which actually causes that evolution! If you take nothing else away from everything I've said, take away that sound design is (or should be) a collaborator in the filmmaking process, not a slave, not something just squeezed in or bolted on at the end when the rest of the film is finished.

An example: Take Jurassic Park, how effective were the distant approaching footsteps of the Tyrannosaurus, how did the character of the tyrannosaurus and of the other dinosaurs affect your experience of the film and it's entertainment value? It wasn't just a stroke of luck that someone in audio post came up with some great sound FX which fitted the various scenes, the film was specifically designed this way from the very start. The sound design was a true collaborator, not just a slave in audio post to what had already been done. In fact, most of the dinosaur sound FX were completed way before audio post even began and even before the dinosaurs were created. The dinosaur sound FX were given to the CGI team, who then created the dinsaurs to fit the sound! I'm not saying that every sound FX and every film should be made this way, far from it, I'm just demonstrating the workflow and the level of importance great film makers place on the sound design being a collaborator.

G

 

[knightly]

I agree with having folks do the exercises... but it took me 6 years to start doing that with light as a cinematographer. For me, until I'd acquired a few tools (right or wrong ones) and started to use them, the artifice didn't present itself. For me, the quest to understand why most of my footage looked like crap led me to start exploring composition and light. Without the failures, I wouldn't have had the mental tools necessary to understand the "sitting and staring at light" exercises I do all the time now.

I learn best from failure. My audio failed for a long time until I focussed my attention on it. I now think you're selling sound short at saying it's only half the experience... I believe it's more.

As far as the exercise goes, I think that every hour spent listening to the world should be interlaced with an hour listening to the world through a pair of headphones with a microphone feeding them. That way, the differences are fresh and you can tell what's missing more immediately.

 

[rayw]

I think that every hour spent listening to the world should be interlaced with an hour listening to the world through a pair of headphones with a microphone feeding them. That way, the differences are fresh and you can tell what's missing more immediately.

Agreed.

Record an environment.
Make written notes about what you "think" you hear.
Then listen to it the next day being played back on your computer's speakers/monitors and make written notes about what you "do" hear, then.

They ain't the same.

"Crickets?! Why am I hearing crickets? It's almost December?
Is that a train?
Good Lord that audio hiss sounds like cr@p!
Oh, listen! I can hear myself drop a lens cap then bend over and pick it up. Huh huh huh! Idiot."

 

[AudioPostExpert]

As far as the exercise goes, I think that every hour spent listening to the world should be interlaced with an hour listening to the world through a pair of headphones with a microphone feeding them. That way, the differences are fresh and you can tell what's missing more immediately.

Hmm, while this may provide a rudimentary learning experience, I'm not sure I would recommend a great deal of it, for 2 main reasons:

1. The frequency response of your headphones or speakers are going to emphasise certain sounds and minimise others. Listening to that same recording through different headphones and particularly different speakers in different environments is going to emphasise and minimise different sounds. In other words what you have recorded, is not what you are monitoring. This same problem rears it's ugly head frequently in sound and sound design and is unfortunately something you can only slightly improve, unless you have serious sums of money to throw at the problem.

2. When you listen to sound in the real world you are often listening to a significant number of sound sources at greatly differing positions and distances. Furthermore, you are listening to reflections (echoes and reverb) of those sound sources coming at you from virtually every angle, horizontally and vertically. In sound we have only two sound sources (stereo) or five (in the case of 5.1), with psychoacoustic tricks we can give the impression of other positions and distances but it's a trick and not the same as reality. Trying to accurately recreate reality is therefore ultimately a dead end when it comes to sound. Additionally, reality is not what we want to create anyway, we want to create something more than reality to enhance the emotional impact of what the audience are hearing. Listen to the sound of any good film, on it's own without the picture, what you will hear is almost always considerably different to reality. We usually have to create something which is believable but believable is not by any means the same as reality. I like to say that in sound we don't try to recreate reality but create the illusion of reality. In other words, as sound designers when listening to and using sounds we are looking at the properties of the sound which make it believable and which elicit or can be made to elicit an emotional response. This gives us a great deal more artistic leeway than just trying to recreate reality, which would be impossible anyway.

G