Since I'm doing it dry, in a closest full of hung clothes, as I was told to do, does it matter if I use a shotgun or a hypercardioid? Whichever is best.
editing Which mic should I use for dry ADR?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
Test the setup... don't sit the actor down and use them as guinea pigs as you try to work out the best setup... get a friend and site them down in a bunch of different configurations and record it... including video or sketches with setup numbers and descriptions on the audio "Setup 1, blanket behind, talent facing closet"... "setup 2, blanket below, talent in closet facing out"... etc.
Once you review the audio, repeat the one that gets you the best sound with the actor when they show up.
Once you review the audio, repeat the one that gets you the best sound with the actor when they show up.
I use an extra video output from my computer and run a 20' DVI cable to a monitor in the next room. I just clone the display that has the my preview on it. this way we can see the preview in the control room and the performer can see it as well. This eliminates fan noise getting into the microphones. This works very well for Foley and ADR.
Kurt Kroh
Noise Ninja
Kurt Kroh
Noise Ninja
I use the Canopus ADVC110 to feed my video monitor in the control room. The video out of the video monitor in the control room feeds the video monitor in the studio. Cheap, efficient.
http://www.grassvalley.com/products/advc110
http://www.grassvalley.com/products/advc110
Okay thanks. Testing the set up myself didn't really do a lot of good cause the actor has a louder voice than mine, and had to keep readjusting anyway. I hope it went well, and hope I can get it too match the room, if not I'll probably just have to live with it, and it match the closest.
So you said before that once I lay down the room tone, having recorded screams and whispers at different trims and gains won't be noticeably different. Like I can hear the gain and trim switch as the screams get louder, to quiet heavy breathing, but I wonder if I am suppose to be constantly adjusting the trim and gain, or if I am suppose to keep it the same so it will all match and am suppose to be doing something else. Such as moving the mic closer and farther back instead, when the volume of the voice changes.
Oh I see. No I didn't think of testing the room reverb before. And had to make adjustments as I went. I hope I got it right, but it was difficult to tell if there was reverb or not considering, that I can tell much better after it's recorded. The reason is through the headphones it's hard to tell. Playing it through speakers later helps me tell better. After I put all the new sound in my final edit I want to then send the scene to Adobe Audition to sees if I can reverb it to the sound the same. But what export format should I use for this, when sending it to Audition that would work the best? Thanks.
That's because when you play it out of your speakers you are not just hearing the reverb you've recorded but also the reverb of the room your speakers are in! So although you're hearing more reverb you're not hearing the reverb you've recorded accurately. This is one of several reasons why mix rooms/dubbing theatres have very specifically designed acoustic properties.
Also, unless you record your ADR in an anechoic chamber, you will always have some reverb on the recording. The skill is in getting it low and unobtrusive enough so it can be masked in mixing. The best ADR studios have acoustics which are designed not only to reduce the reverb of the recording room but to make the reverb which is inevitably captured as neutral as possible, so it can be more convincingly mixed.
I know none of this really helps in your situation but if I were you, I would check your ADR recordings with your headphones rather than your speakers. Providing you've got decent headphones, you will hear more accurately what you've actually recorded.
G
And the control room is acoustically isolated and balanced, and they have a much better selection of microphones, and they have the best equipment money can buy, and the ADR mixer has thousands of hours more experience than you do...
And the same applies to the Foley team
And the same applies to the sound effects team.
And the rerecording team is mixing in an actual, meticulously maintained movie theatre with perfect acoustics and the best speakers that money can buy.
No matter how hard you try you are not going to get your projects to sound like a Hollywood movie. Sound-for-picture is truly the only aspect of filmmaking that requires tens of thousands of dollars to accomplish even the basics. The "big" houses have hundreds of thousands, even millions, invested in the rooms and equipment. Just take a look at Skywalker Sound, Todd-AO or Sony, just to name a few.
But most of all the lesson learned, at least as far as ADR is concerned, is to capture great production sound. This way you avoid in the first place all of the problems posed in this thread.
http://www.skysound.com/
http://www.toddao.com/
http://www.sonypicturespost.com/
Alcove, the only thing I would disagree with in your last post is your figures. Even small to medium audio post facilities spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, the big ones (like the ones you linked to) cost tens of millions to build and equip.
G
Edit: Just in case anyone is choking on the tens of thousands for even the basics which alcove mentioned: To put it into perspective, the cost of the sound and music for a big Hollywood blockbuster could be around $15m!
G
Edit: Just in case anyone is choking on the tens of thousands for even the basics which alcove mentioned: To put it into perspective, the cost of the sound and music for a big Hollywood blockbuster could be around $15m!
Last edited:
Okay thanks. Yeah I listened to the ADR through the headphones too, and I can't hear any reverb through those.
I know I can't get it as good as Hollywood but I do want to do my best to make a good impression on the actors and other people I show it too, to get people to want to work with me more.
What's next to see about 'reverbing' it in Audition?
I know I can't get it as good as Hollywood but I do want to do my best to make a good impression on the actors and other people I show it too, to get people to want to work with me more.
What's next to see about 'reverbing' it in Audition?
Well it's there. Maybe your headphones aren't very good or maybe you don't have the experience to identify it. Hopefully though, the reverb is low enough not to get in the way when you mix it.
Before you try to mix the ADR you obviously need to sync it up and cut in the appropriate room tones. Once this is done you can try mixing it. I can't give you any specific advice without hearing your ADR and what production sound you are trying to cut it with. First is almost certainly some EQ treatment . The use of reverb is relative, in other words, the type of reverb you use on the ADR will depend on the production sound and the amount of reverb you use will be relative to the amount of reverb on the Foley, SFX and production sound. So there's not much point in EQ'ing or adding reverb to the ADR until you have all the other sound elements sync'ed and ready for mixing.
G
PS: Whatever you do, make sure that you don't destructively edit or process the original production sound or ADR. If you're not sure about about what's going on "under the hood" when you're editing or applying processing, copy all your sound files on to another hard drive or DVD and put it somewhere safe. Also, leave all your production dialogue (which is being replaced) where it is, don't delete or remove it, just mute or disable it.
Last edited:
I do not remember if it was Alcove who told me this advice (I think it was), but I used a blanket over while recording, and got a pretty dry voice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qThPuCWsbs&hd=1
Yes, it can be better, but I think I'm starting to get the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qThPuCWsbs&hd=1
Yes, it can be better, but I think I'm starting to get the way.
I do not remember if it was Alcove who told me this advice (I think it was), but I used a blanket over while recording, and got a pretty dry voice.
Yes, it can be better, but I think I'm starting to get the way.
Is that clip supposed to be a VO or ADR? Whatever it's purpose, you'll really need to record it again. The actor was far too close to the mic and you have all the audio faults associated with this: Plosives, essing and proximity effect. The actor needs to be a minimum of 2ft from the mic (maybe more) and a pop screen might help. Obviously as you get further away from the mic, you pic up more of the room reverb, so mic placement (relative to the actors mouth) is a bit of a balancing act.
If the recording is supposed to be ADR, then you'll need to record it with the actor speaking into an empty shoe box (for example), to simulate the audio effect of the mask he's wearing. You'll have to experiment with different ideas a bit. This could be emulated with effects processing but would be better to just record it to sound convincing. If you have to match this scene with others where the actor is wearing the mask but is not being ADR'ed, then matching the production dialogue and his ADR could be tricky and he'll need to wear the mask when recording the ADR.
G
Last edited:
Actually it is a VO. And the voice is this close to the mic because this character is related to fear, fatigue, trauma and above all, loneliness in an urban center. The way I found to build it was directing the actor's speech to a very low hushed tone. How could I do this without being so close to the microphone?
Thanks for any help.
Well, like I said, the absolute BASICS cost tens of thousands. That gets you a nice quiet control/editing room, a decent studio/tracking room, a basic Pro Tools system with the essential audio post plug-ins (Altiverb, Serato Pitch ‘n’ Time, Vocalign or similar plug-ins), nice speakers, a selection of decent mics, and a solid mic pre. I've put about $25k into building my rooms (you can save a lot when you know a guy and do a lot of the work yourself), the gear about the same (I had more but lost a lot in the flood of '07; but that's another story...). I do some very nice work. I much prefer mixing somewhere else, but my clientele just doesn't have the budgets - but that's my niche.
I freelance at a studio in Manhattan that is probably about $500,000 in build and equipment. Two control rooms with booths, each with PTHD3, Genelecs, etc. Lots of TV and radio work. There's a couple of other similar facilities in the area I freelance at once in a while. I've also mixed (well, flown second chair) at a certified facility that is in the few million range. So I know what the nice places are like and what they can do. I know you have A LOT invested in your place - looks great, BTW - and that's for your client base.
The point of my post for Harmonica was that he's obsessing over things that will never come out the way that he wants due to lack of experience, lack of budget and lack of facilities. My mantra for everyone here at IndieTalk is to GET THE FRIGGING PRODUCTION SOUND AS PERFECT AS YOU CAN. It will save you all of the BS that Harmonica is going through now. If you FUBAR the production sound you've already lost. 90% of the work I do is rescue work, fixing crappy production sound, coaxing passable ADR out of inexperienced actors and attempting to explain the facts of sonic life to fledgling directors - most of whom never listen even the third time around. The saving grace is the occasional excellent project that challenges my talents and provides me with a lot of fun. Those folks get A LOT more than they pay for.
Do either of the two pro folks here have sound clips demonstrating the difference between a wet and a dry sound? Or could you produce one, it's hard to explain audio to folks... with picture, you can point and say: right there! That is the thing I'm talking about, right be the giant blinking arrow.
It's much harder to talk about audio to people without illustrating somehow. I've been trying to get enough time to continue my audio screencasts, but don't really have the time to invest in those. I personally feel we're at the point where there's so much information on how to make a serviceable image, but almost nothing comprehensive about audio in the normal filmmaking places... this would be an awesome time to start getting a comprehensive thread about audio technique starting with equipment and moving through miking techniques and through dialog editing and post production. Build a vocabulary so when new folks show up and ask questions without having the audio jargon background to discuss this here, they can be directed to that thread. It'd take alot of the headache and frustration out of these conversations for you... it's hard to be in a field and not assume a base level of knowledge for the folks asking questions of you.
It's much harder to talk about audio to people without illustrating somehow. I've been trying to get enough time to continue my audio screencasts, but don't really have the time to invest in those. I personally feel we're at the point where there's so much information on how to make a serviceable image, but almost nothing comprehensive about audio in the normal filmmaking places... this would be an awesome time to start getting a comprehensive thread about audio technique starting with equipment and moving through miking techniques and through dialog editing and post production. Build a vocabulary so when new folks show up and ask questions without having the audio jargon background to discuss this here, they can be directed to that thread. It'd take alot of the headache and frustration out of these conversations for you... it's hard to be in a field and not assume a base level of knowledge for the folks asking questions of you.
You'll want to get as close to the mic as possible but you must avoid plosives (the popping sound from letters like "P" and "B") and reduce essing (too much sss sound) as much as possible. Experimentation is the only way, as it depends on the actor's voice and the microphone. Certainly the use of a pop screen will help and also possibly recording the mic off-axis (recording at an angle to the microphone rather than directly at it).
While a good idea in theory I'm not sure it's doable in practice. The problem is there is so much technical knowledge required but at the end of the day all the technical knowledge in the world is only a starting point as there are so many variables that only years of experience helps to narrow down the correct choices and ultimately, it's all towards an artistic end. The same with equipment, there's some useless equipment but generally each different piece of equipment provides a different sound. So a particular piece of equipment might be considered to be poor quality but there may be circumstances where it is perfect for the sound required. As an example, I once encountered a situation in one of the best recording studios in the world where, for a particular instrument, a cheap $100 mic out performed a $120,000 mic! I think trying to create anything even vaguely comprehensive and at even a basic level would be a huge undertaking. Maybe just a very simple glossary of classes of equipment and audio disciplines might be useful but otherwise just going from thread to thread would be more manageable. I'm out of the studio for a few days but when I'm back in, I'll try to create some examples of dry sound and reverb.
Alcove: I agree with all you've said, my only slightly varying opinion was with the commercial investment costs. For example, De Lane Lea is one of the bigger audio post facilities in London but still quite small compared with Todd-AO or the others you mentioned. 3 years ago the building next door burnt down and seriously damaged De Lane Lea's facility. Just the refit cost about $13m. I would guess that places like Skywalker and Todd-AO probably cost well in excess of $30m and maybe even $50m+. A $500k investment in even a small audio post facility in London is probably close to the minimum.
G
Last edited:
I think more importantly, building a vocabulary resource so that productive conversations can be more easy may behoove us. Part of the difficult is that you're on a site with very visual people. I've found that pictures of a quick setup answer questions much more quickly than trying to explain in text... even when dealing with visuals... saying "Place the microphone 3 feet from the subject" may not promote the direct understanding that a picture of this setup would (simplified example, but you get my meaning).
Perhaps a picture of H44's ADR "booth" setup would go a long way for us to try to help out, but that goes for the responses a bit as well. Describing the abstract concepts of dry v. wet in audio or clipping or RF Interference are really things that need to be heard in either an isolated example, or a comparative one. I also like to use screen shots of my spectrum analyzer to "show" the sound... and that's really simple to get on both win and mac.
Perhaps a picture of H44's ADR "booth" setup would go a long way for us to try to help out, but that goes for the responses a bit as well. Describing the abstract concepts of dry v. wet in audio or clipping or RF Interference are really things that need to be heard in either an isolated example, or a comparative one. I also like to use screen shots of my spectrum analyzer to "show" the sound... and that's really simple to get on both win and mac.
I can see how an audio glossary would be useful. That's still a pretty big undertaking though. Is there a way to create a single message which many people can edit? Or maybe an embedded editable spreadsheet?
I have to say, although a spectrum analyser can be a valuable tool, I spent a great deal of my time as a lecturer trying to get students not to use spectrum analysers, EQ graphs and other graphic interfaces. Mixing with your eyes rather than solely with your ears is a common mistake, a difficult habit to break and potentially very detrimental to the sound. Although it may seem implausible, what we hear is altered by what we expect to hear, which means that what we see can dramatically affect what we hear. Watch the clip below for a perfect illustration of this phenomena. If you haven't heard of the McGurk Effect before, it's very surprising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
I have to say, although a spectrum analyser can be a valuable tool, I spent a great deal of my time as a lecturer trying to get students not to use spectrum analysers, EQ graphs and other graphic interfaces. Mixing with your eyes rather than solely with your ears is a common mistake, a difficult habit to break and potentially very detrimental to the sound. Although it may seem implausible, what we hear is altered by what we expect to hear, which means that what we see can dramatically affect what we hear. Watch the clip below for a perfect illustration of this phenomena. If you haven't heard of the McGurk Effect before, it's very surprising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I played a lot of the audio back and I cannot hear any reverb or if there is, there is very little. One problem though, there some static. Is that common while recording in a closet full of clothes and with the actor under a blanket? I have to edit around the static now, and try to fade it all to make it all sound like's not all obviously chopped up and cut.
Last edited: