[Stephen Muir]

If the venue has a sound reinforcement mixer, see if they can send you unmixed feeds of the individual channels (eg. via unused sends or multitrack tape outputs). Of course, even with a nice feed from the sound-reinforcement board, you’ll still want at least a stereo pair to add ambience and presence to the mix.

If you need to keep your micing low-profile and out of frame, you may want to try contact transducers on some of the instruments. I’ve used “C-Ducer”s on cellos, violins and pianos and found that they worked well enough and were virtually invisible to the camera. However, they are extremely dry sounding (which could be an asset if the recording venue is accoustically unflattering or noisey). They’re also a bit pricey for so specialised a device.

As for the hiss, you’ll find that signal-to-noise ratio typically increases along with the price. Condenser mics and high quality dynamic mics will require less gain, which will further decrease your overall noise floor.

ART makes a groovy little stereo tube preamp that is a welcome addition to those boards that lack decent preamps, at a price point comparable to the Alesis “solution box” style products.

[Stephen Muir]

The kit that I like to always have within reach is a Sennheiser MKH416 and MKH30 recording matrixed M-S to a Fostex FR-2. Its not ideal for all situations, but its an excellent all-round kit for a wide variety of conditions. An X-Y pair of MKH416’s or MKH50’s would be a close second, although they lack the easy portability of an M-S kit squeezed into a single Rycote.

Beyond general-purpose mic kits, much of your equipment choice will depend on the effects in question. For example, a kick-drum mic is a lousey general-purpose effects mic, but an AKG d112 can add a groovy sub-bass element to explosions or jet aircraft. Also, be aware of the effects portability and the environment have on your equipemnt choices. If you’re wanting to record distant thunder, then plan for getting caught in the rain.

A good book to get you started would be “The Practical Art of Motion Picture Sound” by David L. Yewdall.

[Stephen Muir]

If you think it might help, go ahead and put it in the FAQ.

I used to always bounce the tracks individually, which is a whole lot of fun when you’re faced with multiple language versions of the same program (4 x stem tracks, M&E mix, english mix, farsi dub, etc.) A few years ago I sat in on a short film mix where all the tracks were being premixed through Aux’s and then recorded to stem tracks, which blew my mind. The practice takes some getting used to, but it’s saved me countless hours of bouncing.

Also, whenever I bounce a track, I always felt anxious about shipping it without first checking it back. By recording the mix to a track group within the mix itself, I can verify the integrity of the new file as I go.

[Stephen Muir]

If the audio’s clipped, then its clipped. Once you run out of ones and zeros, there’s no going back. All you can do is try to minimize the damage.

Rolling off some of the highs with an EQ can soften the edginess a bit, but not much.

Talk to the sound reinforcement mixer from the concert. If you’re really lucky, they may have recorded the board output to a DAT or CD.

[Stephen Muir]

Hi, Seanjayy.

The answer to your question is that bouncing takes as long as it takes. Different mixers have different methods of achieving the final mix, and skipping steps is a pretty risky action. After all, the time it takes to double check a track is really insurance against running into problems once you leave the mixing theater. Discuss possible time-saving techniques with your mixer, but trust their judgement on the matter.

That said, here’s what I do to save time.

I record sub-mixes of the elements as I go, that way at the end of a mixing pass I already have my stem mix files. My mix sessions basicall look like this (with 8 tracks of Dialogue, 4 tracks of ADR, 2 tracks of narration and voiceover, 8 tracks of effects, 8 tracks of atmospheric effects, 16 tracks of foley, 8 tracks of music):

DIAL 1..8 [INPUT=none / OUTPUT=bus 1-2]
ADR 1..4 [INPUT=none / OUTPUT=bus 1-2]
VO 1..2 [INPUT=none / OUTPUT=bus 1-2]
EFX 1..8 [INPUT=none / OUTPUT=bus 3-4]
ATMOS 1..8 [INPUT=none / OUTPUT=out 3-4]
FOLEY 1..16 [INPUT=none / OUTPUT=bus 3-4]
MUSIC 1..8 [INPUT=none / OUTPUT=bus 5-6]
DIAL PREMIX (stereo aux) [INPUT=bus 1-2 / OUTPUT=bus 7-8]
EFX PREMIX (stereo aux) [INPUT=bus 3-4 / OUTPUT=bus 9-10]
MUSIC PREMIX (stereo aux) [INPUT=bus 5-6 / OUTPUT=bus 11-12]
DIAL STEM (stereo) [INPUT=bus 7-8 / OUTPUT=out 1-2]
EFX STEM (stereo) [INPUT=bus 9-10 / OUTPUT=out 1-2]
MUSIC STEM (stereo) [INPUT=bus 11-12 / OUTPUT=out 1-2]

The Premix tracks are stereo aux tracks. These are where you’ll put global effects (eg. reverb, compression) or fader adjustments that you want to affect the entire premix. The Stem tracks are just record-enabled stereo tracks. Rather than just playing the film as you mix, punch into record and record your mix changes as you go. Watch where you punch in, because you can inadvertantly clip off reverb tails if you’re not careful (use quickpunch and preroll a few seconds before punching into record). That way, at the end of the pass you’ll already have your stem mixes ready to go. Next, disable and hide all tracks except the Stems, and create a new track for the final mix. After you change the inpute and outputs for the Stems, the mix will now look like this:

DIAL STEM (stereo) [INPUT=none / OUTPUT=bus 13-14]
EFX STEM (stereo) [INPUT=none / OUTPUT=bus 13-14]
MUSIC STEM (stereo) [INPUT=none / OUTPUT=bus 13-14]
MIX (stereo) [INPUT=bus 13-14 / OUTPUT=out 1-2]

Make sure that the stems are no longer record-enabled, and record-enable the MIX track. Now, sit back and enjoy your final double-checking mix pass. At the end of this pass, consolidate all the regions in your stems, and relable the new regions as appropriate. Go into your Audio Files folder and locate the final stem audio files and the mix audio files, and your ready to rock.

If you use this procedure, you’ll shave 92 minutes off of your studio time. However, the first time you give this a shot, double-check the elements against your picture: this arrangement can get pretty confusing pretty quickly, and its awfully easy to misassign an output.

[Stephen Muir]

You’ll probably have to go the custom route for that, or else just repair the existing case.

I doubt you’ll be able to easily find a generic mic case that’ll fit an `815, because its so far from a generic mic. Maybe you could pull the lining out of a musical instrument case and cut in some foam.

[Stephen Muir]

If you just want a hard-sided protective case for the mic itself, you can make a simple case out of ABS pipe. Line a length of pipe with foam pipe insulation, cement a cap to one end and a screw-plug to the other. Pad the cap and screw plug with additional foarm and you have yourself a compact water-proof mic tube. Cheap, and pretty durable. It won’t take the abuse of a pelican case, but it’s light and convenient.

If you’re storing it in a full Rycote basket (which I would reccomend), then you’ll need something bigger. Unfortunately, the smallest suitable pelican case is truly a monster, and expensive to boot. If you don’t need something vacuum-resistant and bear-proof, get yourself a nice heavy-duty tool-box and pad it with foam. I’ve had mine in a big old steel tool box for a few years now, and have been quite satisfied. Such a case is certainly not waterproof, so keep it out of the damp.

You could also have a custom road-case made by any of a number of companies that specialise in equipment cases for live music performance and recording gear. Although these are potentially very expensive, you can have one built to your exact specifications, holding not just your `815 but all your other various and sundry mics.

[Stephen Muir]

Whoa, there! That “t” does not mean “phantom power needed,” it means “T power needed.” T-powering and phantom powering are two different methods of powering a condensor mic, and are not directly compatable. If your mixer doesn’t provide T-power, you’ll either need a batter-powered T-power supply (https://www.professionalsound.com/Catalog/mp12t.htm) or a P48-to-T12 transformer (https://www.professionalsound.com/Catalog/adap.htm).

Better yet, contact a pro-audio dealer who has experience with T12 and AB powered mics. They’ll also be able to hook you up with the jumper cable you need. T12 powering is rarely encountered outside of film production sound, and even then there are many younger production sound mixer’s who’ve never encountered it.

[Stephen Muir]

The `815 and the `816 are rather like the `415 and `416, but with much longer interference tubes. The longer tube will give you even more side rejection, especially in the lower frequencies. Just be careful where you aim it, because the off-axis response is very thin. In other words, you’re going to have to be right on-target for dialogue. The longer shotguns are also much more prone to sibilance.

Although I haven’t used the `815, the `816 pairs very well with a `416 and is very handy for those wide shots in noisey exteriors. I’ve also had great success using an `816 to mic “man on the street” style interviews from just below the frame-line.

You may want to look at a heavier boom pole for this mic, though, since it tends to bend and flex the carbon-fibre poles quite a bit. The mic’s a monster, and not much fun on a 16′ boom. Still, it can get you through a number of shooting situations that would otherwise require wireless mics.

[Stephen Muir]

Hi, Peter.

I used the MKH418 on a handful of occasions several years ago, and I found the side capsule to be rather noisey (especially when compared to the MKH416-based mid capsule). If memory serves, the side capsule is actually a back-electret condensor, which goes a long way towards explaining it’s higher self-noise. Personally, I’ve been quite happy with an MKH416/MKH30 M-S combination for stereo effects work.

If you’re planning on mounting your stereo kit on a boom, the MKH418 does have the advantage of being almost half the weight of most M-S mic combinations. However, since you’re planning on recording rather subtle natural phenomena you’re better off opting for a lower overall noise floor (ie. the `416/`30 kit). That kit will also prove more resistant to environmental extremes such as dust and humidity.

As far as dialogue goes, I’d strongly reccomend keeping it mono. I’ve only ever had occasion to record stereo dialogue when the director demanded it (for whatever reason). In those cases, matrix M-S recording was a sound choice since the picture editor wound up outputting a mono dialogue track anyway (with matrixed M-S, she was able to simply discard the side track).

BTW, if its strange-sounding sand formations you’re after, you should check out the booming/singing sands up in Ontario’s Bruce Peninsula