[Richard Crowley]

Few recordings of sound effects, ambient “nats”, or Foley are actually done in stereo.
The stereo (or 5.x or whatever) “soundstage” is created in the post-production editing process.
The final sound track is a synthesis of a bunch of different sounds.
If each of them carried their own stereo “ambiance” you would end up with a jumbled mess of sound when you mix it together. That is why we try to capture each sound as isolated and pristine as possible, so that any ambiance, stereo-staging, etc is produced in a controlled environment of the post-production mix-down.

To be sure, SOME sounds like the general background ambiance of a location are appropriate to record in stereo so that it sounds like you are actually there. But individual sounds like footsteps, teacups, newspaper, door knob, and even any dialog, are usually recorded on monaural. Once you start mixing down the sound track, you will understand why.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

[Adriano Castaldini] “1. When does the difference between S/N 100dB (D100) vs 78dB (AT) become crucial? (Is it a secondary detail, or is it important in “little” sounds recordings?)”
I’m afraid that what you are seeing is marketing types playing with the specifications for marketing purposes. Even Sony is apparently not immune from this (IMHO) dishonorable practice.
[Adriano Castaldini] “2. Considering that I’d use the MixPre3 with an AT4053b (not with a super-silent-schoeps! but a mic with its own 16dB noise-floor), so the question: is the difference between the two noise-floor levels (D100 vs MixPre3+AT4053b) so crucial for “tiny” sounds recording?”
You are correct that all those factors are important for quality recording of quiet sounds. However a proper “SDC” (small-diameter condenser) microphone, and especially a premium product like the AT4053B, will have a inherently lower noise-floor than any tiny electret condenser mic capsule as used in the Sony recorder. Also, no matter how good the microphones in the Sony recorder are, a separate microphone is ALWAYS more versatile than any built-in microphone(s). Not to mention that you have you choice of specific microphones for specific purposes vs. using the one built-in to the recorder.
[Adriano Castaldini] “1. Are you sure that the sum of BP4025+MixPre3 noise-floors beats the noise floor of the Sony D100?
2. If yes, is this a “day vs night” difference for field recording?”
I would wager that a truly professional microphone like the AT4053B along with a premium mixer like anything from Sound Devices will beat the socks off any little consumer handy-recorder. Despite what the advertising specifications seem to say. If I had my choice between an AT4053B/Sound Devices mixer and a little consumer voice recorder, I could make that decision is a heartbeat. Of course the AT/SD combination costs considerably more $$$$, so that should come as no great surprise.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

I think everyone would agree that the Audio Technica AT4053B and SoundDevices MixPre3 would have a much more reliably better signal-to-noise ratio than any single-piece recorder with built-in mics. Not even a horse-race.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

IMHO, the AudioTechnica AT4053B or the Audix SCX1-HC would be good ambient-recording microphones. And good “indoor” boom mics as well. A lower-cost option would be something from Røde.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

[Adriano Castaldini] “Anyway, someone of you have experience about booming or handling AT4053B vs SCX1hc vs modified MK012? Anyone can say which is the less problematic in moving situation?”

What does “modified MK012” mean? The Oktava MK012 has a reputation of having above-average handling noise AND above-average self-noise. Its main feature is its budget price. But if you can properly shock-mount it AND you have ABOVE-average, very quiet microphone inputs, it is useful.

The AT4053B is a known quantity and favored by many. But many people also like the Audix SCX1hc

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

[Adriano Castaldini] “I can’t dub my talent’s own steps, movements’ noises, sighs, etc. (because she’s not an actor, but a real woman living her life).”
Please explain why you think you “can’t” use traditional Foley techniques? That is the most incomprehensible part of your question. (At least to me.)

You have eloquently described WHY people do not use camera-mounted microphones for this kind of recording. The biggest problem is that on-camera is not a usable location for the microphone. Even after over 100 years of research, development and incremental improvement, we have never been able to devise a magic microphone that acts like a tele-photo lens. It remains a truism: you simply cannot violate the laws of acoustic physics.

This is a very valuable learning scenario. You will learn WHY professional-quality productions are not made with camera-mounted microphones.

If I were forced at gun-point to make this happen, I would devise some sort of very light-weight “mini-boom” using a thin fiberglass shaft (like a fishing pole, etc.) and a very lightweight, but technically advanced) microphone like one of the Rode “Video-Mic” models. The biggest issue is that you MUST do two things:
1) Get the microphone AWAY from the camera. For the most obvious reasons you have described.
2) Get the microphone CLOSER to the source of the sound you are trying to capture. If you are trying to capture footsteps, etc, then stick the boom off the bottom of the camera at an angle as close to lens-axis as you can get away with at the max zoom angle you will be using.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

Sounds to me like typical artifacts from the recording device being unable to keep up with the audio sampling rate and recording to a file, etc. etc. Are you recording on the SAME machine that you are playing the game? What is the % CPU usage? The more CPU is used to generate all those video frames for your game, the less time it has to properly sample the audio and organize it into a file.

I would closely examine the computer to shut down all the non-essential processes that drain cycles from the CPU. It is also possible that recent updates to your computer could leave it less capable of handling both running the game and simultaneously recording the video and audio streams. OS and application “updates” are a major hazard to any software-based recording scheme. It seems possible that your computer is now simply too wimpy to handle smooth game play at high frame rates PLUS recording video and audio.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

[Bethan Jepson] “I’d love a reliable lapel mic for interviews”
IMHO, the best value in a pro-quality lav mic is the Oscar Sound Technologies OST-801 (or 802) I have two of them and I like them a lot. Other people here will probably share their favorites also.

[Bethan Jepson] “and then a decent shotgun mic for backup on interviews and ambient sound.”
Note that for use “indoors” (or where there are close reflections from walls, ceiling, etc.) a “shotgun” mic is not the best choice. Because a “shotgun” mic relies on the sound from off-axis arriving at its “natural” angle. If the sound is reflected from a nearby surface, it “confuses” the shotgun mic and produces possibly worse sound. Hyper-cardioids (which operate on a different principle) are prefered for indoor use. While the Oktava MK-012 (with hyper capsule) is a popular budget hyper mic, it has a reputation for worse-than-average handling noise and self-noise. And Oktava is produced in a region not noted for high-quality and consistent production. If I needed a hyper microphone, I would first consider an American brand: Audix SCX1‑HC. But at $500 it might be an expensive “backup”. I would rather have a second OST lav mic.

[Bethan Jepson] “Am I thinking along the right lines?”
Yes. But you must consider the cost of decent microphones and make your own cost/benefit decisions based on your budget.

[Bethan Jepson] “problems with the Zoom? On my last two shoots, we’ve encountered terrible problems, on one we had terrible feedback”
I don’t see how any recorder can produce “feedback”? Perhaps you should post a sample so we can hear what you are talking about. It would be good to describe in exact detail how everything was connected, etc.

[Bethan Jepson] “we’ve had communication problems”
Please explain. What does that have to do with your recorder?

[Bethan Jepson] “we got an error message on the Zoom during an interview and even though it said it was recording audio, it did not.”
It may just be broken (or intermittent). Those little plastic “shaver” recorders are not noted for ruggedness or longevity.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

[Ty Ford] “What are those four things sticking up out of the center of the table?”
Those are stacks of toy magnets in odd shapes. They are rather hyper types and they like having a few “toys” on the table to fiddle with. They even use some of them on occasion as an impromptu prop to illustrate a point.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

The “Table Talk” show (at least that first season) used a couple of OST 801, an MXL lav, and a Rode Lav.
I posted about this a few years ago with a “guess the mic contest”. https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/30/871143
And more info here: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/30/872709

The “room” was a giant warehouse, so the only near reflection was from the table top. But the warehouse was big enough that even 2 or 3 guys talking on top of each other didn’t start loading the ambient. The overlap of guys talking over each other, and the 3:1 rule were the major issues with mixing the audio.

The entire show was shot completely iso video and iso audio and video switched and audio mixed in post-production editing. The camera operators were given general instructions and the “director” pretty much sat back and ensured that we had at least a couple of decent shots at all times. There were perhaps a half-dozen times during a 1 hour show when the director would tell a camera to get a different shot.

The producer edited the show himself and hand-tweaked the audio mix. Because the “crosstalk” from adjacent guys was so high, conventional “auto-mix” methods fail miserably. In a couple of cases he actually used an adjacent mic where the “primary” mic audio couldn’t be used for some reason. We spent a lot of time getting the mic position and fastening just right to prevent movement noise. In some cases, we gaff-taped a mic to the chest (vs. inside the shirt collar).

On the most recent season, we used a Zoom F8 recorder with four channels on the four guys, and the other four channels at 10dB down for protection. (Which is a very convenient built-in function of the F8).

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.