Best way to record audio?

P

projectaero

Hey guys, just wanting to know what these days is the best way to record audio when on the set.

I read that they used to use DAT machines, but is there something newer which is recommended?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
DRthunderMD said:
If you're recording on a separate device, not directly to the camera, aren't you now faced with problem of syncing the audio and the video in editing. That seems like it would be very difficult, but hey, I've never tried it so I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

They did it for 70 years before there was even any such thing as timecode. You can sync the picture of the slate clapper impacting with the spike on the audio track created by the clap.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The best way to record dialogue is to get the mic within 2 feet of your actor's mouth (via closeups). Period. Single or dual system (camera plus mixer), wireless it doesn't matter.

For noisy scenes - wind, car, speedboat scenes, you should ADR your dialogue, during editing. Plan on bringing those actors in and re-record the scene. Make sure to record 30-60 seconds of the location's room or ambient tone, so you can level it on its own track.

Those of us who don't have the crew/gear for dual system recording, there are cameras like the Panasonic DVX, HVX, etc. that have nice audio converters, with Phantom power. You can plug 2 microphones into these cameras, or.....you can plug in one mic to Input 2, and set both mic 1/2 levels to Input 2. Set one level for nominal (strong dialogue signal) and set the other level lower. This way, when your actors yell or scream (as they often do), you second level will save you from distortion. Your editing program should be able to separate the L/R, to use as 2 separate tracks. On Premiere, I use the "Fill Left, Fill Right" function to even the audio on both channels.

I usually carry 3 mics on location - Sennheiser ME 66 and 67, and the Audio Technica AT-3031 for reflective, echoey rooms, like a tiled bathroom. I have a mic stand and I get all my dialogue scenes in closeup, so I can get my mic really close. I often use that same audio in the wide shots, just use a high pass filter to cut down the bass proximity effect, if it's there.

A lot of productions use wireless mics, which will keep those mics close. This does require receivers, plugged into a mixer, especially if you have 3 or 4 people talking.

Unplug refrigerators, turn of the AC, use headphones to listen for line hum, which can come from crossed cables, overhead flourescent lights, TVs, etc. The quieter the set is, the easier it is to crosscut dialogue. Nothing worse than cutting to another actor and the audio noise jumps up, then changes, when you cut back to the other person.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'll also throw out there that you must... MUST pay as much or more attention to audio as you do the visual part. Bad sound is the movie killer. It will make the most visually stunning movie ever made into an unwatchable hunk of garbage.

If you have any budget at all, spend as much on a sound recordist as you do the DP, he is a critical member of the crew.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Absolutely, Gonzo_Entertainment! I just attended 3 days of the Xanadu film festival (Las Vegas) and watched some talky indie movies. I even told one director that he could get away with the poorly lit wide shots, if the dialogue was well recorded. Instead, I could hear more room and car noise than I could hear what the characters were talking about. This is rampant in indie movies.

Sound is potentially 60% or more of the audience experience. Bad, shaky CLOVERFIELD shots, which wouldn't normally work, become acceptable when the sound is really good.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Scoopicman said:
Absolutely, Gonzo_Entertainment! I just attended 3 days of the Xanadu film festival (Las Vegas) and watched some talky indie movies. I even told one director that he could get away with the poorly lit wide shots, if the dialogue was well recorded. Instead, I could hear more room and car noise than I could hear what the characters were talking about. This is rampant in indie movies.

Sound is potentially 60% or more of the audience experience. Bad, shaky CLOVERFIELD shots, which wouldn't normally work, become acceptable when the sound is really good.
Click to expand...

No doubt and I got very lucky on my current shoot. This will be the second weekend of a 5 day shoot on a 25 minute short and my sound guy is gold. My editor is on set doing a rough cut of the dailies as we dump the P2 cards and so far the sound is great. I am getting with him tomorrow night for all the Foley work and the tiny bit of ADR we need. $100 a day, plus an extra $100 for the Foley and he supplied his own Roland digital recorder and boom. You can't beat it. The only better deal was my 1st assistant camera is working for $50 a day and we are using his HVX200A with a Redrock and half a dozen lenses... all for $50 a day... yes, you heard correctly, all for $50 a day.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is between you an me, but nothing annoys me more as an actor, then to show up to set and not have a boom operator. If all the sound is being recorded directly off the camera mic, this means a lot to me...it means they don't take themselves seriously as filmmakers, it means I'll need to do a lot of ADR work, and it means the sound of the overall picture is probably going to suck. All of this combined, means I won't want to work with them again.

From a filmmaker and audience member's eyes...it illustrates to me that they are amateur and still need time to learn. It says to me (depending on the other elements) I shouldn't expect anything of real quality from them for another few years. Don't get me wrong, some companies jump right into quality production value...and these guys you'll see booming necessary shots...other people don't care about that side of the craft, and their work and reputation will suffer for it. People remember hack jobs more than they remember quality pieces they were indifferent towards.

I don't mean to sound snooty, but this is what an experienced actor or astute audience member sees when a production doesn't record, design, or mix sound properly.

So many indie films are plagued with bad sound. If a production company doesn't know how to record nat sound and level off traffic noise...then they should take a little time to learn how to do it. Nothing is more annoying then background noise jumping all over the place, and it is a tell-tale sign of hack work.

Most everyone here understands that I think...I'm just beating a dead horse.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DRthunderMD said:
If you're recording on a separate device, not directly to the camera, aren't you now faced with problem of syncing the audio and the video in editing. That seems like it would be very difficult, but hey, I've never tried it so I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

It's an extras hassle if you're running an external mixer or recorder. You get amazing sound (depending on the quality of the cam's recorder versus the mixer), but just some extra time to sync. I've sync'd in FCP as well as Avid, and it's not to tedious. Just need a clapper.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just for fun...

SMPTE - Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers

EBU - European Broadcasting Union


Long before digital audio/video (and long before I got into audio post) SMPTE was used to sync computers and hardware MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) sequencers to reel-to-reel tape machines in addition to its original intended use in the film world.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've tested those $1,000.00 Marantz recorders that record to card media. The frequency response is horrible for some sounds. I recorded some coins dropping onto floor tile and it just plain could not handle the high frequencies. It was completely unusable. Sounded like distorted coins landing on particle board. I recorded the same thing into a computer and it sounded fine.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Godchoo said:
Assuming I had a marantz PMD660, do I still have to go through a mixer and then into the recorder if I only have two boom mikes? What's the benefit of doing so if yes?
Click to expand...
Provided that you use a QUALITY mixer you will get better sound.

Leaving out the talents of the person in charge of the sound, the quality of your sound is dependent upon the quality of the components used.

First there is the mic.

Then you tell the sound impulses where to go with a cable or wireless transmitter/receiver. If you are going wireless then there is the quality of the output cable of the transmitter to the mixer/recorder.

Next is the mic pre-amp(s). The pre-amp(s) will be in either the mixer or the audio recorder. (Between a $1k mixer and a $1k mixer/recorder which do you think will have the better pre-amp?) If you are using a mixer there is another cable between the mixer and the audio recorder.

The last link is the recorder.

All these separate elements put together are links in the signal chain. And what do they say about chains? They are only as strong as their weakest link.

So, to finally answer your question, unless you are willing to spend a lot of money on the mixer (something like the Sound Devices 302), which means you will be bypassing most of the circuitry in the Marantz, there won't be that much of an advantage. Conversely, if you get a good mixer/recorder set-up and use a crappy mic, then what was the point?

Blade_Jones said:
I've tested those $1,000.00 Marantz recorders that record to card media. The frequency response is horrible for some sounds. I recorded some coins dropping onto floor tile and it just plain could not handle the high frequencies. It was completely unusable. Sounded like distorted coins landing on particle board. I recorded the same thing into a computer and it sounded fine.
Click to expand...

Which Marantz? What mic? What settings on the Marantz (bit/sample rate, etc.)? Was the compressor/limiter on? What was the signal chain going into the computer? Did you use the same mic? Sounds like you overloaded the mic pres. I've used the PMD660 in the field. The gain settings were a little touchy, once I got it dialed in it was fine. The mic pre-amps are a little noisy too, but the frequency response was okay.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I totally agree with Alcove here. I have recorded one bands song in my personal studio (worth about $20,000) and had an opportunity to record the same song in a pro studio in minneapolis (worth more than 1.5 million). Guess which one had the best quality? Yup, my cheapo home studio. Thats because I know my equipment inside and out. I know my $200 compressor and $200 mic pre more then I know their $3,000 distressor compressor and their $4,000 tube tech mic pre. (well maybe not the pre amp because it only has one knob, but you get the point.) A great setting on a crappy piece of equipment will be 100 times better than a crappy setting on a great piece of equipment.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mine was a Marantz PMD670 Compact Flash MP3/Wav Recorder. I recorded in WAV at the highest quality. I used a Neuman TLM-103. Also tried with a Sure SM-58. Same distorted results. I tried bringing the volume level way down to see if that would cure the problem. Still the same results.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Blade_Jones said:
Mine was a Marantz PMD670 Compact Flash MP3/Wav Recorder. I recorded in WAV at the highest quality. I used a Neuman TLM-103. Also tried with a Sure SM-58. Same distorted results. I tried bringing the volume level way down to see if that would cure the problem. Still the same results.
Click to expand...
Sounds like something is wrong with the unit.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Godchoo said:
So the PMD660 just sucks you're saying. What would be a better DAT recorder?
Click to expand...
These are not DAT recorders, there is no tape. They are compact flash recorders.

Look, opinions are like a**holes; everyone has one and they all stink. I think the PMD 660 was okay when I used it. Blade_Jones had a bad experience with the PMD 670. I love my RE-20 mic for some VO work. A buddy of mine wouldn't use it if you put a gun to his head.

So it's time for you to go back to the drawing board. The first thing is your budget; how much money do you have to spend on production audio gear? Would it make more sense to rent the gear or even hire a production sound mixer with his/her gear (always the best option, in my opinion)?

If you have decided that you absolutely must own your own production sound gear you now have a number of options; each of these options has its pros and cons

A mic plugged directly into the camera

Pros: Very simple. Inexpensive.

Cons: The audio is completely reliant upon the quality of the cameras audio components. Audio implementation on most cameras in minimal. You are tethered to the camera. Long able runs could lead to RF interference. Difficult to control levels on the fly. Difficult to monitor levels. Problems with headphone distribution.

A mic/mixer plugged directly into the camera.

Pros: Relatively inexpensive. Less reliant upon the quality of the cameras audio components. Easier to control levels.

Cons: Audio implementation on most cameras in minimal. You are tethered to the camera. Long able runs could lead to RF interference.

A mic into an audio recording device.

Pros: Relatively inexpensive. Is not reliant upon the quality of the cameras audio components. Better audio implementation. Freedom from the camera.

Cons: Small mixing controls. Dependent upon the recorders mic preamps. Syncing audio in post.

A mic, mixer and an audio recording device.

Pros: Is not reliant upon the quality of the cameras audio components. Better audio implementation. Freedom from the camera. Easy to use mixing controls. More mic inputs (depending upon the mixer, of course)

Cons: The need for advanced audio knowledge (such as signal chains). Syncing audio in post. Can be expensive.


It's that simple and a lot more complicated. The sound will only be as good as the worst link in your signal chain. Another thing to consider is that mediocre gear in the hands of a genius will sound great, phenomenal gear in the hands of an idiot will sound like crap.

A decent budget mic will cost $250 - $400 plus the boom pole and other accessories, call it another $250. A top-of-the-line mic can go for well over $2k and a boom pole for $600 to $1k.

A decent budget mixer, $500; a pro mixer $1300 up to $5k or more.

A decent budget digital audio recorder, $500; a pro digital audio recorder $2500 up to $10k and more.

Add in all of the accessories like cables, cases, etc. and it can mount up very quickly.


Most professional production sound mixers have their own kits. Figure on - at the minimum - four mics (2 shotguns, two others),a minimum of two wireless systems, mixer, timecode recorder, two boom poles and a whole ton of accessories and you're anywhere between $25k and $50k. Daily rates for these folks $400 to $750 per day with the gear. There are plenty of "working their way up" types who can be had for a lot less.

You can rent a basic package - shotgun w/ boom pole, two wireless and all the accessories for $75 to $100 a day and there's a big discount for weekly rentals, call it $250. With a mixer add another $25/day or $50/week, plus the same for an audio recorder.

Time for you to do some thinking and some directed research.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top