Bruce Watson
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jason Schoenfeld] “No matter where I am or what I do, I can always hear soft noise in the background (which we don’t get with the Sony microphone).”
Interesting. How does the gain setting on the camera differ between the two?
I’m asking because if you have to use more gain in the camera for the Sennheiser G3, the noise might well be coming from the camera mic preamps. The “cure” for this is to turn up the receiver gain level (I think Sennheiser has some jargon for that, but I forget what they call it) so that the receiver is giving the camera a higher level. Now you can turn down the gain in the camera. Try that and see if it fixes your problem.
-
[Ty Ford] “We record the conversations over SKYPE at the highest level possible with Call Recorder. The files are sent to me for editing mixing and NR. I rely HEAVILY on RX3 noise reduction as well as EQ, compression and limiting to make the person on the other end of the phone sound as good as possible. Sometimes it’s stunningly OK, other times it’s a PITA.”
I understand more or less what you have to do on your end. Some of what you’ve written about this is why I’m asking my question: I’m just trying to make your job easier.
I was sort of hoping that there might be some way to coax better audio out of an iPhone. Something like a better app that would record a larger frequency range, less compression, etc. coupled with a decent head-worn mic maybe. Heck, I’ll mount a TLM170 on a desk stand with a pop shield if that’ll help.
But if I can’t get better audio out of a smartphone, would Skype take advantage of the better mic coming into the computer on a USB interface? Worth doing, or am I just wasting my time?
-
[Peter Groom] “Google IpDTL. This would sit on your broadband connection and give high quality audio that the stations would love you for.”
This is a possibility. $15/month, use it or not, is somewhat steep. At that level there’s not a lot to be gained by loosing the land line. Hmmmm….
And it requires the other end to also be running IpDTL. So is this like a standard? IOW, is it relatively common that radio and TV stations are using IpDTL?
This is an odd thing for me to get my head around since I’ve never done any broadcast engineering. I’ve always been on the outside, not the inside. And I’m trying to make it easier on the guy on the inside, who’s job I’ve never done. So I want to help, just don’t know how. Sigh…
-
Cell reception here is pretty good. Nearest tower is maybe half a mile away and reasonably tall. No rooms are better than any other really. I’ll look at the Logitech H800 for her cellphone.
She can use Skype and/or VOIP from her computer also. But the question is still how to make it “broadcast friendly”. Maybe a nice LDC into a USB interface? Is there any VOIP software that might be considered something of a standard for broadcast use? I’ve seen people using Skype for some of this. Anything get wider acceptance? Better quality? Or is Skype used simply because of lowest common denominator?
-
[clyde villegas] “I know that the size of a microphone’s diaphram affects the quality of the sound.”
Do you now? Interesting. You might want to study that topic some more. In my experience diaphragm size is just an engineer’s design choice. It has as much, or as little, to do with sound quality as the design engineer wants. Some of the best sounding mics for dialog and indeed, for music, have very small diaphragms.
[clyde villegas] “Is it possible to improve the sound quality or possibly increase the dynamic range of a low cost system (like the Azden 105) by replacing the included lapel mic with a better one?”
Possibly you can improve sound quality some with a better mic, like the Oscar SoundTech mics. But dynamic range and frequency response are limited by that Azden radio, which also introduces artifacts from signal processing (companding, etc.) IOW, the limit is the wireless radio system, not the mic itself.
Of course if you really want it to sound good, you’ll drop the wireless in favor of a good XLR cable. No wireless radio, no matter how expensive, can sound as good as a $20 cable.
-
[Per Scaffidi] “Hi all — working on a production in a remote location assisting a cameraman with filming wildlife and interviews with scientists in the field. I’m looking for a cost-effective field mixer, and possibly some sort of wireless solution to get into the camera. Any recommendations?”
I’ll second Mr. Reynolds comments. All good.
I’ll add that in my experience, wireless is not a first resort. Wireless only gets used when you can’t find another way. The most expensive wireless does not sound quite as good as a $20 XLR cable. It can’t. That same wireless can’t be as reliable in operation, can’t be anything like as immune to RFI as that cable, etc. If you’re in a “one and done” situation, work hard to find a way to use a wire. Really.
That said, if you insist on wireless, you should know that legal frequencies vary all over the place around the world. There is no such thing as a “universal wireless” radio. You should also know that governments are quite cavalier about reallocating frequencies — look at what the USA is doing, first taking away the 700 mHz block, with the 600 mHz block gone in the next couple of years. Creating lots of “surplus” equipment that’s illegal to operate — but it’s not their money, right? Sigh… I’m just saying that if you’re going to many remote locations, that have differing frequency and power requirements, I strongly suggest that you consider renting at the location.
Then, if you haven’t used wireless before, don’t think that wireless is a plug-‘n-play scenario. The more congested the airways are, the more work you’ll have to do to find a clean spot to use for your signal. So read the manuals, figure out how to do the frequency scans, figure out how to do proper gain staging, etc. Because when you need to do it, you’ll find that everyone is sitting around waiting on you.
Finally, I vigorously suggest that you vigorously resist supplying a feed to camera. Camera makers spend as little as possible on audio, often less than 0.1% of the cost of the camera is audio. And… it sounds it. In your case, the high noise floors on most camera audio is going to hurt you filming wildlife — you’ll hear it in the final. So… don’t go there.
If you give them a feed, they will almost certainly use it in the final, even if they agree “in principle” not to. Easy for them (they are going over budget everywhere else, this is one corner they can cut), and it’s guaranteed to be always in sync. But the sound quality will always come back on you. This song has already been played hundreds of thousands of times. Just sayin’.
So, I suggest researching mixer/recorders. On the entry-level side, Tascam has some interesting ones, like the new-ish DR-70d. On the pro side, Sound Devices sort of rules the dialog sound mixer market in Hollywood. There are of course a bunch of other companies, but I have no idea what you budget is, so… That and a selection of SD memory cards, a good set of closed back headphones, etc… Oh, and a good old fashioned clapper board of some kind for sync. Just like Hollywood has been doing since the 1920s.
Use a system like this (aks “second system” sound) regardless of whether or not you get forced into providing a camera feed. Because you can monitor the sound you’re recording and therefore have assurance you’re recording the right stuff. And you must monitor. Everything. No excuses. An audio guy not monitoring is even worse than a camera op not using a viewfinder.
-
[Ty Ford] “and please know that the word is damp, not dampen.”
Just using the OP’s terminology, in an effort to communicate. But yes, it’s “damp” and not “dampen” in this case. Must be one of your pet peeves? I’ve got a few of those…
-
[clyde villegas] “I can hear the vibrations of my hand as I work the boom pole. I thought the shock mount will dampen vibrations from the hands, but it doesn’t.”
Actually, it probably does. Dampen doesn’t mean eliminate.
There are a number of ways mechanical noise can enter your mic. One is through your handling of the pole. Another is through the cable. Yet another is through the air. If you do this enough, you learn to be careful of all these, and more.
The thing to remember with booming is soft hands. You don’t handle a boom pole like you would a baseball bat. And booming is often more about your feet than your hands. It’s also more about your wrists and your elbows and shoulders. Once the take starts, you don’t change hand positions; if you need to get closer / further away, use your feet. If you need to rotate the mic for better aim, use your wrists / elbows.
How do you know how to position your hands on the pole so you can do the above seamlessly? Experience. Just sayin’.
-
For film, always mono — it’s going to be played back on the center channel (dialog).
[Adam Rosenberg] “After I completed the edit, I re-recorded using a Sennheiser lav mic from a sound booth and edited together multiple takes until it sounded just right.”
Two reasons it perhaps “doesn’t sound right”. First, you’re using a lav. Lavalier mics, by nature of their standard placement, generally have a particular sound. They can be somewhat “nasally” because they look right up into the nose. Also they tend to be placed right on the body, which basically turns them into boundary mics. Neither of these sound like what we are used to since when we listen to someone talk in person, our ears are typically above or nearly inline with their nose, and we hear the room all around us, and not just the 180 degree half-sphere that a boundary mic hears. Some post EQ will at least help any nasally sound problems however.
Second, by “Sennheiser lav mic” you probably mean the Sennheiser ME2. Not many people will place this mic in their top 5. A considerably better choice would be the Oscar SoundTech mics, the Tram TR-50, etc.
Rather than a lav mic, I’d suggest a mic made for voice work, like the Electro-Voice RE20. But favorite mics for voice over work become a religious debate. Whichever mic you choose, place it well and use a pop filter to ward off the plosives and you should end up with a very pleasing and natural sound.
-
[Dan Regembo] “would this system output a file which contains 6 discrete channels or does the recorder mix everything down into a two channel stereo audio file?”
IIRC, the DR-680 will do either, even both, depending on how you set it up.
[Dan Regembo] “Ideally, I would like the ability to lower or mute one channel (of the six) in post to correct for a situation where you have two people talking at the same time. I would like to lower or mute one of the voices in post to create clearer audio.”
It takes a really talented field mixer to ride levels in real time. Since you won’t have that person available, post is your friend. Any good audio editor or DAW will let you raise and lower levels for each individual channel at will.
One of the interesting things about recording dialog is how people tend to start out louder than they finish (they run out of air). This too you can correct in post.