I feel as though this entire conversation can relate directly to sound design, client relationships, the caliber of the studio you work at, the creative process. Just an amazing conversation. Take an hour and enjoy. :)
Showing posts with label workflow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workflow. Show all posts
Thursday, December 12
Friday, November 16
pouring concrete
Last week we poured some concrete for the foley stage concrete surface. The pits in our breakaway floors are 4 feet long, thirty inches wide, and 8 inches deep.
After several days of curing the concrete has turned out very nice. I was a total of 5 full bags to fill the pit, and the resulting slab has zero ringing to it and a very nice surface texture.
apologies in advance for the blurry photos.
After several days of curing the concrete has turned out very nice. I was a total of 5 full bags to fill the pit, and the resulting slab has zero ringing to it and a very nice surface texture.
apologies in advance for the blurry photos.
Saturday, March 24
it depends: condenser or not?
One of the more important decisions you make when deciding how to record something is what type of mic to use for any given perspective.
My default position tends to be to go with a condenser and then make further decisions from there because condensers are going to (generally) give me the quickest path to a flat, true recording.
In fact, there are times when you have no choice but to use a condenser to get what you're looking for. Specifically:
With that said, there are some important reasons to deviate from the condenser mic perspective:
--------
I think a great recording kit can be built with very few mics, and the majority of the weight falls on the condensers. When recording extreme sounds or looking for non-linear though, it's important to have other tools in the toolbox.
My default position tends to be to go with a condenser and then make further decisions from there because condensers are going to (generally) give me the quickest path to a flat, true recording.
In fact, there are times when you have no choice but to use a condenser to get what you're looking for. Specifically:
- when isolating sources in moderately noisy environments
With that said, there are some important reasons to deviate from the condenser mic perspective:
- when recording super high dBspls
- when recording super bright subjects
- when looking for non-linear sounds
--------
I think a great recording kit can be built with very few mics, and the majority of the weight falls on the condensers. When recording extreme sounds or looking for non-linear though, it's important to have other tools in the toolbox.
Monday, January 30
It Depends: how many channels?
In my previous post I set up the reasons and context for the It Depends series, and in this series I'll attempt to approach the decisions of recording in order.
I considered beginning with the question of "what should I record?" but then I figured that the answer to that would be way broader than the scope of this series of articles or even of this blog, so instead I'll assume that you've decided what you're going to record and are now on to the next step of the recording thought process:
"How many channels should I use?"
The answer here, as in all of the questions is "it depends," so let's look into exactly what it depends upon, and what factors will move us in one direction or another.
In any recording situation you're limited to the number of channels and mics that you have available, so if your only recorder is a zoom H4n then you're pretty much locked into a max of 4 channels and two of the mics are built into the thing. If you have a larger project and any budget at all, you can start to get into gear rentals - which can broaden your recordings considerably. The trick is to use your resources efficiently, and not to rent/use channels that won't serve a specific purpose in your recordings.
All of this is to say that you may have in your mind a reasonable number that is the max number of channels you can record this sound with. If the answer to the question of how many channels isn't immediately "all of the channels that I have or could rent" then you have to approach this question with a little more thought.
- time
Adding channels increases the amount of time that it takes to setup, troubleshoot, monitor, record, organize, sort, edit, master and catalog anything. As such, the two most pressing time issues are subject availability and deadlines.
This means that the closer your deadline the more likely you should be to go with fewer channels, since time spent sorting and editing recordings that are only moderately useful or moderately different can be a detriment to the work you do on the other primary tracks. Also, this means that the narrower your window of subject availability, the more likely you should be to go with fewer channels.
An example where you'd be able to go nuts with all the mics and channels you have access to would be if you're recording your own vehicle and have an entire weekend to do it, and no pressing project deadline to hit. An example where you'd probably only bring one or two channels of audio based purely on time considerations would be if you have a 30 minute window of availability with an exotic animal for use in a project due tomorrow.
- subject dynamic range
The vast majority of subjects to be recorded have dynamics that fall within the recording capabilities of a wide variety of mics. Things like human voices, dogs, acoustic guitars, business machines, gas powered portable generators and anything in between can be recorded beautifully with 3 or fewer channels.
There are certain subjects, though, whose dynamics may require as many channels as you can muster in order to fully express what they sound like in a recording. Highly transient subjects like weapons, explosions, baseball bat hits and metal crashes can require a lot of channels to properly record all of the various elements of the noises that they make. This is both because playback systems only have so much dynamic range with which to use and also because highly dynamic sounds tend to be defined by how they sound in the spaces in which they exist. This means that that you'll often want mics up just to catch the reverberation in space in addition to the various parts of the sound that's causing them.
The rule of thumb is that the more dynamic (and loud) a subject is, the more channels you'll need to get the type of coverage that works.
- motion of the subject
All of sound is motion, but some subjects move while creating their noises more than others. If a subject is sitting static in space you're more likely to get a good recording of it with fewer mics than if it's hurtling through space in front of you.
If something is zooming in front of me I tend to want both onboard and exterior stationary channels to cover the various perspectives of all of the noises being made. Objects in motion can tend to double track counts.
- stealth
If you don't want to be seen recording, you're probably stuck in stereo or mono based on the fact that you'll need to hide both the mics and the recorder on your person.
- setup and mobility logistics
Bringing more channels means bringing more of everything - mic stands, mic mounts, wind protection, cables, cases, etc. All of this extra physical, mental and logistical baggage need pretty specific justification once you get past about 4 channels. Big multichannel shoots also tend to require setup and staging areas. If you lack a setup area having 12 channels of recording may be out of the question.
When I recorded a printing press recently, I ended up bringing more channels than I used due to setup constraints in the facility. I just didn't have a safe staging area and had to leave a fair amount of gear unpacked both for that reason and for time considerations. I also was faced with a vast warehouse of crazy noisemaking machines and I opted for breadth rather than depth of recordings. This meant that I had to be mobile, and while repeatedly moving and setting up 3 mics is doable, any more than that and I would have missed the chance to record entire machines.
The more restrictive your recording environment is to big shoot logistics, the more likely you should be to roll with fewer channels.
- width of the subject's sound creating parts
Certain subjects are pretty big and can have different noises coming out of all different parts. Things like industrial machinery and vehicles can require many channels to get all of their sounds, even when they're stationary.
The more spread out the physical soundmaking elements of the subject are, the more likely you should be to roll more channels.
- redundancy
Rolling more channels reduces the risk of failure if one of the channels doesn't get what you need. This is not to say that you should roll multiple channels of the same perspective for the purpose of redundancy, but rather to say that if you roll a lot of different perspectives, having one or two channels give you nothing is not a tragedy. Getting zero useful stuff from a channel happens all the time in complex vehicle and weapon shoots.
If you're out recording a vehicle for use in a film, then a lot of the context will be defined by the cut of the picture you're working with. Video games are a little more open ended, but they're still pretty well defined.
This means that if you're only ever going to see that aston martin in a few wide shots cruising down the street then you probably don't need to bring a hundred mics to the shoot. Focus on what you need to get for the project, and then get any extra goodies afterward.
- reality vs hyper reality
The more you're looking to get a realistic image of a subject, the more likely you're going to be to use a small number of mics to do the job. Again referring to context, this is because the specific reality you're looking to capture is already likely to be very well defined, and you're not looking for a lot of contingency perspectives.
The more hyper-real your aesthetic takes you, the more like you are to need many more channels of audio, because the process of creating hyper real sonic images involves isolating and accentuating the individual elements of a given sound, meaning that you'll need as much distinct isolated coverage as you can get.
-----------------
The process of deciding just how many channels to bring to a shoot can be a complex and interesting one, as is every decision one makes when deciding to record something. Thoughtfully planning out this step of the process is an important part of getting great recordings.
I considered beginning with the question of "what should I record?" but then I figured that the answer to that would be way broader than the scope of this series of articles or even of this blog, so instead I'll assume that you've decided what you're going to record and are now on to the next step of the recording thought process:
"How many channels should I use?"
The answer here, as in all of the questions is "it depends," so let's look into exactly what it depends upon, and what factors will move us in one direction or another.
In any recording situation you're limited to the number of channels and mics that you have available, so if your only recorder is a zoom H4n then you're pretty much locked into a max of 4 channels and two of the mics are built into the thing. If you have a larger project and any budget at all, you can start to get into gear rentals - which can broaden your recordings considerably. The trick is to use your resources efficiently, and not to rent/use channels that won't serve a specific purpose in your recordings.
All of this is to say that you may have in your mind a reasonable number that is the max number of channels you can record this sound with. If the answer to the question of how many channels isn't immediately "all of the channels that I have or could rent" then you have to approach this question with a little more thought.
- Practical considerations:
- time
Adding channels increases the amount of time that it takes to setup, troubleshoot, monitor, record, organize, sort, edit, master and catalog anything. As such, the two most pressing time issues are subject availability and deadlines.
This means that the closer your deadline the more likely you should be to go with fewer channels, since time spent sorting and editing recordings that are only moderately useful or moderately different can be a detriment to the work you do on the other primary tracks. Also, this means that the narrower your window of subject availability, the more likely you should be to go with fewer channels.
An example where you'd be able to go nuts with all the mics and channels you have access to would be if you're recording your own vehicle and have an entire weekend to do it, and no pressing project deadline to hit. An example where you'd probably only bring one or two channels of audio based purely on time considerations would be if you have a 30 minute window of availability with an exotic animal for use in a project due tomorrow.
- subject dynamic range
The vast majority of subjects to be recorded have dynamics that fall within the recording capabilities of a wide variety of mics. Things like human voices, dogs, acoustic guitars, business machines, gas powered portable generators and anything in between can be recorded beautifully with 3 or fewer channels.
There are certain subjects, though, whose dynamics may require as many channels as you can muster in order to fully express what they sound like in a recording. Highly transient subjects like weapons, explosions, baseball bat hits and metal crashes can require a lot of channels to properly record all of the various elements of the noises that they make. This is both because playback systems only have so much dynamic range with which to use and also because highly dynamic sounds tend to be defined by how they sound in the spaces in which they exist. This means that that you'll often want mics up just to catch the reverberation in space in addition to the various parts of the sound that's causing them.
The rule of thumb is that the more dynamic (and loud) a subject is, the more channels you'll need to get the type of coverage that works.
- motion of the subject
All of sound is motion, but some subjects move while creating their noises more than others. If a subject is sitting static in space you're more likely to get a good recording of it with fewer mics than if it's hurtling through space in front of you.
If something is zooming in front of me I tend to want both onboard and exterior stationary channels to cover the various perspectives of all of the noises being made. Objects in motion can tend to double track counts.
- stealth
If you don't want to be seen recording, you're probably stuck in stereo or mono based on the fact that you'll need to hide both the mics and the recorder on your person.
- setup and mobility logistics
Bringing more channels means bringing more of everything - mic stands, mic mounts, wind protection, cables, cases, etc. All of this extra physical, mental and logistical baggage need pretty specific justification once you get past about 4 channels. Big multichannel shoots also tend to require setup and staging areas. If you lack a setup area having 12 channels of recording may be out of the question.
When I recorded a printing press recently, I ended up bringing more channels than I used due to setup constraints in the facility. I just didn't have a safe staging area and had to leave a fair amount of gear unpacked both for that reason and for time considerations. I also was faced with a vast warehouse of crazy noisemaking machines and I opted for breadth rather than depth of recordings. This meant that I had to be mobile, and while repeatedly moving and setting up 3 mics is doable, any more than that and I would have missed the chance to record entire machines.
The more restrictive your recording environment is to big shoot logistics, the more likely you should be to roll with fewer channels.
- width of the subject's sound creating parts
Certain subjects are pretty big and can have different noises coming out of all different parts. Things like industrial machinery and vehicles can require many channels to get all of their sounds, even when they're stationary.
The more spread out the physical soundmaking elements of the subject are, the more likely you should be to roll more channels.
- redundancy
Rolling more channels reduces the risk of failure if one of the channels doesn't get what you need. This is not to say that you should roll multiple channels of the same perspective for the purpose of redundancy, but rather to say that if you roll a lot of different perspectives, having one or two channels give you nothing is not a tragedy. Getting zero useful stuff from a channel happens all the time in complex vehicle and weapon shoots.
- Artistic considerations:
If you're out recording a vehicle for use in a film, then a lot of the context will be defined by the cut of the picture you're working with. Video games are a little more open ended, but they're still pretty well defined.
This means that if you're only ever going to see that aston martin in a few wide shots cruising down the street then you probably don't need to bring a hundred mics to the shoot. Focus on what you need to get for the project, and then get any extra goodies afterward.
- reality vs hyper reality
The more you're looking to get a realistic image of a subject, the more likely you're going to be to use a small number of mics to do the job. Again referring to context, this is because the specific reality you're looking to capture is already likely to be very well defined, and you're not looking for a lot of contingency perspectives.
The more hyper-real your aesthetic takes you, the more like you are to need many more channels of audio, because the process of creating hyper real sonic images involves isolating and accentuating the individual elements of a given sound, meaning that you'll need as much distinct isolated coverage as you can get.
-----------------
The process of deciding just how many channels to bring to a shoot can be a complex and interesting one, as is every decision one makes when deciding to record something. Thoughtfully planning out this step of the process is an important part of getting great recordings.
Monday, January 23
It Depends: Preview
In keeping with my resolution to blog at least once a week this year I figured I'd introduce a little structure into some of the things I blog about.
What I decided upon was the thoughtful decision making process that goes into recording something.
The recording process involves dozens of decisions, some of which can be have answers that are fairly obvious and some of which can be downright baffling. Half of the process is pragmatic and the other half is artistic. Too often, people earnestly seeking perspective from more experienced recordists receive the answer "it depends" with no further illumination.
My purpose in this series of posts will be to explore the answers to "It depends on what!? And then once I've defined what it depends on how do I execute it?" in as much detail as I can to as many aspects of recording as I can. This will include things like how many channels to record, which mics to choose, where to place those mics, what devices to record to, what other gear to bring and use, and of course what to record in the first place.
One caveat to all of this is that if you perfectly execute a set of recordings towards a flawed goal then you'll still fail. Along those lines, developing an appropriate recording goal requires two things: a well defined personal aesthetic and a clear context in which the work will exist.
So with that in mind, this first post will be about developing aesthetic, because so much of the answer to the above question is also the answer to "what do I like?"
Over on SSD Shaun Farley asked a question about what you do to develop your aesthetic. My answer was generally to both do art in other disciplines and to observe fully realized works within your own. I stand by that as a foundation, but I'd like to expand on that here.
First off, I do strongly believe that working art in other disciplines does wonders for sharpening one's aesthetic. The main reason is because all art requires creativity and technique and the process of learning and executing new technique can be very revealing as to one's personal aesthetic because you find out very quickly what is and what is not worth learning new skills and techniques to execute.
As an illustration, I've personally found that I thoroughly enjoy shooting both timelapses and super slow mo video in the photographic realm. I've spend a relatively thick amount of hours learning and experimenting with both, and what that's revealed to me in my audio work is that (like with visuals) I have a deep appreciation for the ability to drastically manipulate time in all of these mediums.
Secondly, as I stated in the SSD thread, I think its very important to both observe and discuss the works of others with trusted and knowledgeable people. The reason is because these type of discussion force a person to articulate a position and then to defend that position, the result of which is a more consciously defined sense of what goes into the thing that a person likes vs what that person doesn't like. If you can't articulate to me what you like about that show you love then you've done yourself no favors with regards to creating your own work.
---------
The process of shaping and developing one's aesthetic is a personal and ongoing one. It must be actively pursued and nurtured throughout the time that one intends on creating and appreciating art.
Having a well defined personal aesthetic is an important context in which to make any thoughtful recording decision.
What I decided upon was the thoughtful decision making process that goes into recording something.
The recording process involves dozens of decisions, some of which can be have answers that are fairly obvious and some of which can be downright baffling. Half of the process is pragmatic and the other half is artistic. Too often, people earnestly seeking perspective from more experienced recordists receive the answer "it depends" with no further illumination.
My purpose in this series of posts will be to explore the answers to "It depends on what!? And then once I've defined what it depends on how do I execute it?" in as much detail as I can to as many aspects of recording as I can. This will include things like how many channels to record, which mics to choose, where to place those mics, what devices to record to, what other gear to bring and use, and of course what to record in the first place.
One caveat to all of this is that if you perfectly execute a set of recordings towards a flawed goal then you'll still fail. Along those lines, developing an appropriate recording goal requires two things: a well defined personal aesthetic and a clear context in which the work will exist.
So with that in mind, this first post will be about developing aesthetic, because so much of the answer to the above question is also the answer to "what do I like?"
Over on SSD Shaun Farley asked a question about what you do to develop your aesthetic. My answer was generally to both do art in other disciplines and to observe fully realized works within your own. I stand by that as a foundation, but I'd like to expand on that here.
First off, I do strongly believe that working art in other disciplines does wonders for sharpening one's aesthetic. The main reason is because all art requires creativity and technique and the process of learning and executing new technique can be very revealing as to one's personal aesthetic because you find out very quickly what is and what is not worth learning new skills and techniques to execute.
As an illustration, I've personally found that I thoroughly enjoy shooting both timelapses and super slow mo video in the photographic realm. I've spend a relatively thick amount of hours learning and experimenting with both, and what that's revealed to me in my audio work is that (like with visuals) I have a deep appreciation for the ability to drastically manipulate time in all of these mediums.
Secondly, as I stated in the SSD thread, I think its very important to both observe and discuss the works of others with trusted and knowledgeable people. The reason is because these type of discussion force a person to articulate a position and then to defend that position, the result of which is a more consciously defined sense of what goes into the thing that a person likes vs what that person doesn't like. If you can't articulate to me what you like about that show you love then you've done yourself no favors with regards to creating your own work.
---------
The process of shaping and developing one's aesthetic is a personal and ongoing one. It must be actively pursued and nurtured throughout the time that one intends on creating and appreciating art.
Having a well defined personal aesthetic is an important context in which to make any thoughtful recording decision.
Thursday, August 18
truck record - this time not rained out!
First a little backstory: I needed to find a 50s model Ford F150 to match what we see on screen in the film we're working on, so my brother in law suggest a car show north of town to scout. It was a pretty small show, but lo and behold I ran into a really cool guy named Doug who just happened to be driving the exact car I needed to record. We exchanged info and two weeks later we set the date for a Saturday morning.
Of course, it rained and we moved the date to Monday after work.
By moving to a weekday we heavily compressed my recording schedule though, so I was sure to be as prepared as I could get before heading out there. Prep included:
- putting every frame of the film that included the truck on a quicktime that could be played on my ipad on location
- pre-wrapping my onboard mics with terrycloth towel for wind protection
- testing and setting up media, batteries, recorder settings, etc.
I showed up at Doug's house at around 6:30, and sunset was going to hit hard at about 8:30, so I had to work fast. I mounted the undercarriage mics with bungee cords and gaff tape, secured the boom from the back of the tailgate, and mounted the engine mic. A quick level test and we were off to find a suitable street to roll with.
No I had not scouted a street in that part of the world, but Doug knew exactly where to take us: a little gravel road with a short turn around where he could do bys and stops with little traffic intervention.
We covered the basic things we needed (mostly slow bys on gravel, slow bys on clean pavement, and some gravely tire work) and we were already starting to lose light. We did some stop n go driving so that I could catch interiors with the VP-88, and headed back.
When we arrived back at the house I pulled and re-set all of the mics for foley. The bungee cords really made that work go quickly though, because a couple of yanks and all of my mics were loose and free.
Door foley setup was VP-88 inside, Schoeps outside near, and mkh60 outside far.
We also did some glove compartment moves, and by that time we were completely dark outside and working by flashlight. Also, in summertime in Texas the cicadas come out around dusk. Out in the country the coyotes decided to announce their presence as well. I pressed on, getting what I could get and knowing that I'd have to edit a fair amount later on.
When I got back into the studio on Tuesday I opened it all up and found myself very happy with the results. The truck got just over 3 minutes of total screen time in the film and I had the entire thing cut in and sounding good by the end of the day, which was just a joy to get done.
Here's what I learned:
--Proper drafing makes all the difference in the world--
Each time I record a vehicle I get better at finding good drafting spots quickly, and this record really worked out well with regards to wind noise. Axels are great spots for mounting and drafting, but just hanging the blimp from the tailgate in the jetstream really worked out well too. I'm sure it didn't hurt that we really didn't get above 40mph, but this was truly my first vehicle record where wind noise was a complete nonfactor in all mics.
--put your best mic on the exhaust--
I made a conscious decision to get that schoeps mic in the best spot I could find for the exhaust note and it paid off in spades. I took a risk by using an unknown miking technique (at least to me) by hanging it in the blimp, but in my mixed onboard sound that mic is almost all of what I went with. man that thing sounds good.
--brighter and less true mics work well as detail spots for engine and tires--
NT5 on the tire for the gravel sound worked out really well. I wasn't relying on that mic for my exhaust note, so I was free to put it in a spot where I could get some nice crispyness from the gravel with that spot. Ditto the SM81 in the engine. While the engine does have some interesting midrange stuff going on, its mostly a much brighter sound than the exhaust and the 81 choice and placement ended up working out very well in that application.
--it doesn't take 100 mics to get a good sound--
I knew that I'd be running this record solo, so instead of bringing the 788t and a giant collection of mics to mount onto the truck, I ran the 744t and just the 4 mics. in the end, I'm more happy with the sound I got from this setup than from some others where I put much more effort and many more mics onboard. Each record teaches me more and more, and the biggest thing I learned in this one is that I really need to have those "money" mics locked down and rocking, then I'm good.
So, without further adieu here are some results and samples. enjoy!
truck onboard mix sample by Rcoronado
truck doors by Rcoronado
Thursday, June 9
west texas gun recording pt 3-post and lessons learned
In part 1 of this series I talked about prepro and prep for our little gun shoot. Part 2 went through the craziness that happened on the day of the shoot. Now lets get into the post process and lessons learned.
Post on these sounds was actually pretty straightforward.
In a 24bit 96k session I opened all of the files, named them according to my voice slates, and then lined them up in time. It should be noted here that I did not align them hyper-exactly, as I wanted the explosions to spread out a bit and take up some space.
With everything lined up I started soloing out tracks and setting up signal chains per.
Things that surprised me:
- 421 gave me very little. I hadn't recorded guns with that mic before, but didn't get as much punch as I was hoping for.
- Schoeps CMC6 was hitting the limiter a little too hard even with the pre all the way down, which was ruining the moments after the attack. I'm confident I can get a way better recording out of this mic than I did that day.
- AT4050s were amazing. I had a good feeling about what I would get from those mics, but I was really blown away by how much low end and transient response made it out to that position. Having them 100 yards up range was still barely far enough away. Putting them in omni was absolutely the right decision.
-some of the ricochets were amazing. The guys shot down a tree during the process, and some of the shrapnel and debris was really pretty sweet.
- I discovered that my H4n wasn't set to the internal mics on the day, so that's another set of mics I didn't have going.
Things that didn't surprise me:
-416 sounded great
-COS11 was amazing
-NT5 gave me something worthwhile
-with me running all of these mics and having to monitor everything on a one hour timeframe I ended up missing some technical details in the field
--------------
Signal chains on each channel reflected my initial concept of miking for punch, mech, and verb.
Punch mics went through the H-comp and got thier heads lopped off.
Mech mics went through a little low end rolloff and a less sever H comp
verb mics went through a c4 set to multiband expansion with a superfast attack and a very slow release that coincided with the decay
Mono mics were all panned slightly off center in order to clear up room there.
Everything summed through another H comp set to give me a little analog feel and some punch, and an L2007 limiter.
Settings were tweaked per gun and printed, but plugs were generally not swapped out or anything.
I output 4 layers per gun - Full mix, distant, mech, and foley
Here's a little sample of what I came up with:
West texas guns by Rcoronado
and here's what my final output and metadata ended up looking like:
----------------
So here's a quick list of things I'd do differently:
1) have more time
the time crunch before sunset really put a damper on my ability to test and react to technical issues. I didn't feel free to fix my NT5 that wasn't giving me signal, I ran the H4n and didn't record anything on it, and I have to attribute some of my results with the AT4050s to pure dumb luck because I wasn't able to monitor them as we were shooting.
2) have more help
Even though there were four of us on the shoot, I was the only one not firing and loading weapons. This meant I was responsible for setting up, monitoring, and troubleshooting every channel which added to my time pressures and forced mistakes I didn't have to make.
3) pad that Schoeps CMC6
Much of my disappointment in the sounds I got from the Schoeps were due not to the mic but to the limiter in the 788t. I hadn't set it to go superfast, and the action on the limiter hurt what I had going. In the end I should just pad that mic anyway.
4) shoot the 416 from the right instead of over the shoulder
As a mech mic I put that one in entirely the wrong spot. I liked what I got from it, but I think I left the shell ejects a little uncovered, and I think moving the position of the 416 would remedy that.
5) more verb mics!
NT5s in ORTF should probably be even further away and probably aimed 180 degrees away. more omni mics and further away. roll a D50 out somewhere. verb verb verb!
6) impact and debris mics
I would have loved to have a couple of mics on the tree that the guys were targeting for impact and debris sounds. That will happen next time for sure.
-----------------
Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. Lots of lessons learned, still got some pretty good recordings, and now I'm amped up for the next one.
Post on these sounds was actually pretty straightforward.
In a 24bit 96k session I opened all of the files, named them according to my voice slates, and then lined them up in time. It should be noted here that I did not align them hyper-exactly, as I wanted the explosions to spread out a bit and take up some space.
With everything lined up I started soloing out tracks and setting up signal chains per.
Things that surprised me:
- 421 gave me very little. I hadn't recorded guns with that mic before, but didn't get as much punch as I was hoping for.
- Schoeps CMC6 was hitting the limiter a little too hard even with the pre all the way down, which was ruining the moments after the attack. I'm confident I can get a way better recording out of this mic than I did that day.
- AT4050s were amazing. I had a good feeling about what I would get from those mics, but I was really blown away by how much low end and transient response made it out to that position. Having them 100 yards up range was still barely far enough away. Putting them in omni was absolutely the right decision.
-some of the ricochets were amazing. The guys shot down a tree during the process, and some of the shrapnel and debris was really pretty sweet.
- I discovered that my H4n wasn't set to the internal mics on the day, so that's another set of mics I didn't have going.
Things that didn't surprise me:
-416 sounded great
-COS11 was amazing
-NT5 gave me something worthwhile
-with me running all of these mics and having to monitor everything on a one hour timeframe I ended up missing some technical details in the field
--------------
Signal chains on each channel reflected my initial concept of miking for punch, mech, and verb.
Punch mics went through the H-comp and got thier heads lopped off.
Mech mics went through a little low end rolloff and a less sever H comp
verb mics went through a c4 set to multiband expansion with a superfast attack and a very slow release that coincided with the decay
Mono mics were all panned slightly off center in order to clear up room there.
Everything summed through another H comp set to give me a little analog feel and some punch, and an L2007 limiter.
Settings were tweaked per gun and printed, but plugs were generally not swapped out or anything.
I output 4 layers per gun - Full mix, distant, mech, and foley
Here's a little sample of what I came up with:
West texas guns by Rcoronado
and here's what my final output and metadata ended up looking like:
----------------
So here's a quick list of things I'd do differently:
1) have more time
the time crunch before sunset really put a damper on my ability to test and react to technical issues. I didn't feel free to fix my NT5 that wasn't giving me signal, I ran the H4n and didn't record anything on it, and I have to attribute some of my results with the AT4050s to pure dumb luck because I wasn't able to monitor them as we were shooting.
2) have more help
Even though there were four of us on the shoot, I was the only one not firing and loading weapons. This meant I was responsible for setting up, monitoring, and troubleshooting every channel which added to my time pressures and forced mistakes I didn't have to make.
3) pad that Schoeps CMC6
Much of my disappointment in the sounds I got from the Schoeps were due not to the mic but to the limiter in the 788t. I hadn't set it to go superfast, and the action on the limiter hurt what I had going. In the end I should just pad that mic anyway.
4) shoot the 416 from the right instead of over the shoulder
As a mech mic I put that one in entirely the wrong spot. I liked what I got from it, but I think I left the shell ejects a little uncovered, and I think moving the position of the 416 would remedy that.
5) more verb mics!
NT5s in ORTF should probably be even further away and probably aimed 180 degrees away. more omni mics and further away. roll a D50 out somewhere. verb verb verb!
6) impact and debris mics
I would have loved to have a couple of mics on the tree that the guys were targeting for impact and debris sounds. That will happen next time for sure.
-----------------
Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. Lots of lessons learned, still got some pretty good recordings, and now I'm amped up for the next one.
Tuesday, April 26
Conducting shootouts-part 2 mic shootouts
In my previous post I talked about the overriding philosophies I employ when doing gear shootouts. In this post I'd like to address microphone shootouts specifically.
Not all mics are the same and not all mic shootouts should be the same, but what I'm going to do here is outline some specific guidelines that I'll employ in a future shootout and that others can use to do their own shootout and listening tests.
------
I'd like to lead off by offering what is probably going to be the most controversial recommendation I'll make here - to prefer the exact same performance over the exact same signal path.
What I mean by this is that if you have multiple channels on a mixer that are all rated within tight tolerances of one another (as in a sound devices 442 or 552) then the difference between cables and preamps will not add up to a greater difference than if you run multiple performances in front of the mics through the exact same cable and pre. This is especially true with tests that involve the human voice, and less true with mechanical or speaker produced sounds.
So given that I'm going to recommend (and use) a methodology that uses multiple cables and preamps simultaneously in order to capture the exact same performance in front of the mics.
The other possibly controversial thing I'm going to advocate is calibration of the mics based on output level and not input level. This would have the effect of not measuring mic sensitivity against one another for the purposes of better evaluation of tone. As most audio people know, the way we hear tonality varies pretty dramatically depending on the spl we're listening to, so the question is this: is it more important to hear the differences in tone or sensitivity between mics? My answer is tone, and that's how I'm setting up my tests.
My evaluations will look to pit mics against one another in the following areas:
- price
- features
- self noise
- transient response
- off axis respnose
- on axis human voice
- on axis sfx
----------
Lets begin with setup:
Whether you're testing one mic or several, you'll want to keep the signal path as short and stable as possible. This will be my setup for some upcoming tests:
- bypass all switches in the mics. Highpasses and pads specifically should be disengaged
- place the mics as close to each other as possible, and at the point of an equilateral triangle relating to the speakers in your room.
- run the shortest reasonable cables to consecutive channels on a sound devices mixer
- bypass all signal changes on the mixer. Highpasses, pads,limiters, stereo links, etc all disengaged
- set faders to unity
- run direct out prefader to the recorder (a 744t or 788t)
- bypass all signal changers on the recorder. Again, highpasses, pads, eqs, limiters, all disengaged.
- set recorder to 24 bits 96kHz
In some cases I may skip the mixer entirely and just run straight into the recorder. The 788t has 4 xlr inputs, so if I'm testing 4 or fewer mics and have that recorder available to me at the time I'll run the tests directly to it. In all other cases I'll be using the mixer almost purely as a preamp and nothing else.
This is pretty similar to most industry standard setups for field recording and production recording, so I think the end results should translate very cleanly into the real world.
-----------
On to calibration of the mics:
The most simplistic way to calibrate a mic input is to simply mark a level on a preamp and roll with that. I prefer to to with a slightly more complex route - pink noise and dbspl.
When choosing level to calibrate to, one must consider what's going to be tested, and in the case of many microphones you're talking about the human voice, musical instruments, and sfx recordings. The level chosen will dictate both headroom and noise floor, so doing this too wrong can mess up the tests pretty badly.
For my tests I'm going to calibrate to 90db SPL = -12dbfs.
The primary reason for this is to give myself ample headroom for transient response tests (I should be able to get to 102dbspl before clipping the A/D) and to better utilize the full 24bits of headroom.
Steps to calibration should go as follows:
- send pink noise through the speakers
- measure the volume that measures 90dbspl C weighted at the microphone position with an spl meter
- adjust the preamps until the recorder's digital meters show consistent peaks at -12db spl
---------
setting it all up and calibrating it can often take as long or longer than actually running the tests. double checking to make sure it's all perfect is key to not running tests that will be at best misleading and and worst completely useless.
---------
With the mics calibrated and positioned, it's time to run some tests.
First I'll just roll on the calibrated pink noise.
next I'll turn everything off and run very quiet room tone.
third I'll speak into the mics. I'll tend to just describe what I'm doing and what the setup is as a test. This leaves me at a natural speaking voice and cadence. All voice tests will be done about 2 feet from the mics.
The fourth test is to move to 45 degrees off axis and speak again. here I'll just say that I'm speaking 45 degrees off axis.
Next is perpendicular, using the same language and distance.
with voice done I'll move on to transient and harmonic response. I have a set of small tingsha bells that I'll use, but generally you can use any type of ringy metal to do a similar test. First, from about 2 feet away I'll strike the bell on axis and let it ring out.
next I"ll do a rotation where I strike the bell 90 degrees off axis, and while its ringing I'll slowly move it to on axis. Once the bell is on axis I'll strike it again, then slowly move it to 90 degrees off axis on the other side of the mics. Once in position I'll strike it one last time and let it ring out in that position.
Next is a guitar chord (I like G) Guitar chords show off how the mics handle midrage frequencies amongst other things. This one is just done on axis.
last test is to grab a bag and record some foley. Bags are fun because they have a fair amount of complex cloth and clasp sounds that can cover a lot of frequency and dynamic range in a pleasing and complex way.
--------
With the recordings done, I prep the presentation. Presentation consists putting a chart together comparing all of the pertinent info: price, switches, other features. Mics are pretty straightforward, so this chart isn't usually too much of a burden.
I'll then edit all of the audio at native resolution in a way that best pits the mics against one another. 2 to 5 seconds clips of each mic test in a consistent order placed back to back to back in a single file - one file per test. This will yield about 9 files. Spectrograms of the pink noise can also be useful.
That's a pretty thorough test. Even more can be done though, (like testing handling noise and proximity effect) but really too many tests can cause analysis paralysis. This is probably plenty.
Not all mics are the same and not all mic shootouts should be the same, but what I'm going to do here is outline some specific guidelines that I'll employ in a future shootout and that others can use to do their own shootout and listening tests.
------
I'd like to lead off by offering what is probably going to be the most controversial recommendation I'll make here - to prefer the exact same performance over the exact same signal path.
What I mean by this is that if you have multiple channels on a mixer that are all rated within tight tolerances of one another (as in a sound devices 442 or 552) then the difference between cables and preamps will not add up to a greater difference than if you run multiple performances in front of the mics through the exact same cable and pre. This is especially true with tests that involve the human voice, and less true with mechanical or speaker produced sounds.
So given that I'm going to recommend (and use) a methodology that uses multiple cables and preamps simultaneously in order to capture the exact same performance in front of the mics.
The other possibly controversial thing I'm going to advocate is calibration of the mics based on output level and not input level. This would have the effect of not measuring mic sensitivity against one another for the purposes of better evaluation of tone. As most audio people know, the way we hear tonality varies pretty dramatically depending on the spl we're listening to, so the question is this: is it more important to hear the differences in tone or sensitivity between mics? My answer is tone, and that's how I'm setting up my tests.
My evaluations will look to pit mics against one another in the following areas:
- price
- features
- self noise
- transient response
- off axis respnose
- on axis human voice
- on axis sfx
----------
Lets begin with setup:
Whether you're testing one mic or several, you'll want to keep the signal path as short and stable as possible. This will be my setup for some upcoming tests:
- bypass all switches in the mics. Highpasses and pads specifically should be disengaged
- place the mics as close to each other as possible, and at the point of an equilateral triangle relating to the speakers in your room.
- run the shortest reasonable cables to consecutive channels on a sound devices mixer
- bypass all signal changes on the mixer. Highpasses, pads,limiters, stereo links, etc all disengaged
- set faders to unity
- run direct out prefader to the recorder (a 744t or 788t)
- bypass all signal changers on the recorder. Again, highpasses, pads, eqs, limiters, all disengaged.
- set recorder to 24 bits 96kHz
In some cases I may skip the mixer entirely and just run straight into the recorder. The 788t has 4 xlr inputs, so if I'm testing 4 or fewer mics and have that recorder available to me at the time I'll run the tests directly to it. In all other cases I'll be using the mixer almost purely as a preamp and nothing else.
This is pretty similar to most industry standard setups for field recording and production recording, so I think the end results should translate very cleanly into the real world.
-----------
On to calibration of the mics:
The most simplistic way to calibrate a mic input is to simply mark a level on a preamp and roll with that. I prefer to to with a slightly more complex route - pink noise and dbspl.
When choosing level to calibrate to, one must consider what's going to be tested, and in the case of many microphones you're talking about the human voice, musical instruments, and sfx recordings. The level chosen will dictate both headroom and noise floor, so doing this too wrong can mess up the tests pretty badly.
For my tests I'm going to calibrate to 90db SPL = -12dbfs.
The primary reason for this is to give myself ample headroom for transient response tests (I should be able to get to 102dbspl before clipping the A/D) and to better utilize the full 24bits of headroom.
Steps to calibration should go as follows:
- send pink noise through the speakers
- measure the volume that measures 90dbspl C weighted at the microphone position with an spl meter
- adjust the preamps until the recorder's digital meters show consistent peaks at -12db spl
---------
setting it all up and calibrating it can often take as long or longer than actually running the tests. double checking to make sure it's all perfect is key to not running tests that will be at best misleading and and worst completely useless.
---------
With the mics calibrated and positioned, it's time to run some tests.
First I'll just roll on the calibrated pink noise.
next I'll turn everything off and run very quiet room tone.
third I'll speak into the mics. I'll tend to just describe what I'm doing and what the setup is as a test. This leaves me at a natural speaking voice and cadence. All voice tests will be done about 2 feet from the mics.
The fourth test is to move to 45 degrees off axis and speak again. here I'll just say that I'm speaking 45 degrees off axis.
Next is perpendicular, using the same language and distance.
with voice done I'll move on to transient and harmonic response. I have a set of small tingsha bells that I'll use, but generally you can use any type of ringy metal to do a similar test. First, from about 2 feet away I'll strike the bell on axis and let it ring out.
next I"ll do a rotation where I strike the bell 90 degrees off axis, and while its ringing I'll slowly move it to on axis. Once the bell is on axis I'll strike it again, then slowly move it to 90 degrees off axis on the other side of the mics. Once in position I'll strike it one last time and let it ring out in that position.
Next is a guitar chord (I like G) Guitar chords show off how the mics handle midrage frequencies amongst other things. This one is just done on axis.
last test is to grab a bag and record some foley. Bags are fun because they have a fair amount of complex cloth and clasp sounds that can cover a lot of frequency and dynamic range in a pleasing and complex way.
--------
With the recordings done, I prep the presentation. Presentation consists putting a chart together comparing all of the pertinent info: price, switches, other features. Mics are pretty straightforward, so this chart isn't usually too much of a burden.
I'll then edit all of the audio at native resolution in a way that best pits the mics against one another. 2 to 5 seconds clips of each mic test in a consistent order placed back to back to back in a single file - one file per test. This will yield about 9 files. Spectrograms of the pink noise can also be useful.
That's a pretty thorough test. Even more can be done though, (like testing handling noise and proximity effect) but really too many tests can cause analysis paralysis. This is probably plenty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)