Olympus VN8100 $30 audio recorder and Rycote covers
- Thread starter Psynema
- Start date
I never advocate using voice memo recorders. They record in nothing more than highly-compressed audio. That may be okay for audio that is going straight through the pipe from acquisition to distribution, but compressed audio that has to go through post-production must first be, as you demonstrate, converted to uncompressed WAV or AIFF. You won't get back any of the bits that were lost in data compression during recording, so the moment the audio is pushed in post with plug-ins like EQ and compression, it will fall apart and start to artifact. At that, bumping this video up to 1080p on YouTube, I hear the tell-tale swirling sound of compressed audio artifacts. That may or may not be from YouTube, hard to know without the raw source, but YT's 1080 upload generally doesn't create that kind of artifact.
In your demo, you recommend switching from MP3 mode to WMA. Why? WMA is a Windows-proprietary format and often uses lower bitrate than MP3. The HQ option of WMA with this recorder is more compressed, and with a worse frequency response, than the highest MP3 setting. If you absolutely have to use a device like this, use the highest quality setting available. (See manufacturer's specs HERE.)
Last, I'm a bit confused by the repeated use of "H1 lav." The Zoom H1 is a recorder, not a lav. Still not my favorite device by a long shot, but at $50 less than the new price of the Olympus it offers level controls and uncompressed WAV recording as well as a much more palpable headphone amp for monitoring.
And again, recording in highly-compressed MP3 files (and worse, WMA), is a major sacrifice when it comes to production sound. Avoid it if you can.
In your demo, you recommend switching from MP3 mode to WMA. Why? WMA is a Windows-proprietary format and often uses lower bitrate than MP3. The HQ option of WMA with this recorder is more compressed, and with a worse frequency response, than the highest MP3 setting. If you absolutely have to use a device like this, use the highest quality setting available. (See manufacturer's specs HERE.)
Last, I'm a bit confused by the repeated use of "H1 lav." The Zoom H1 is a recorder, not a lav. Still not my favorite device by a long shot, but at $50 less than the new price of the Olympus it offers level controls and uncompressed WAV recording as well as a much more palpable headphone amp for monitoring.
And again, recording in highly-compressed MP3 files (and worse, WMA), is a major sacrifice when it comes to production sound. Avoid it if you can.
Last edited:
Psynema
Well-known member
Yes I know the H1 is a recorder, but it's used as a lav system for video in general, so alligators / crocodiles, let's not get pedantic here LOL. Not sure where you're getting it costs more than a Zoom H1, it's a fraction of the cost.
Any particular spot you hear artifacts? I have 3 electric heaters in the background if that's what you're hearing.
WMA does have some controversy as some say it's better at compressed audio vs. MP3 and others disagree. When I originally got this a while back I liked how the WMA sounded better. I do a lot of events and casual promo videos with glass and plates clattering above 13KHZ and don't want to hear that LOL.
This isn't being pedantic. You can call your keyboard a computer if you like, but that doesn't make it a computer. It's an accessory used with a computer, but it is not a computer. There is a point to which maintaining proper terminology is essential to clear communication.
As for the cost, notice I said "$50 less than the new price of the Olympus," which you point out in your video to be around $150. The H1 is $99. Sure, you can find these little recorders, as you did, for $25 used, but it's disposable technology that comes with certain drawbacks.
No, it's not the heaters running in the background (which are a bit distracting). The artifacts are constant throughout; pay attention to the highest frequencies and especially sibilance. I'm not trying to start an argument. Simply, folks need to know what they're getting into when they consider super-cheap gear. A caution about relying on highly-compressed audio is the necessary point here.
I wouldn't recommend using this setup unless you were doing a project for fun and had no money. The audio is loaded with artifacts. You have no way to monitor what is being recorded. Non locking stereo mini connectors are just begging to be pulled or messed with, causing unwanted noise on the recording. There are just too many variables to make this method of recording unreliable, not to mention audio quality. I would have started this video by saying this a nice way to get audio for fun stuff you do with your friends, but is not recommended for broadcast or even youtube.
Here's what really struck me, and I think is endemic of production lately....
The willingness, and even the drive, to cheap out on audio just to save a few bucks. The price was mentioned several times, and even something as cheap as an H1 was referred to as expensive. $100 may seem like a lot, but let's put that in perspective. How much was that DSLR camera? How much are those lights? Shooting on your phone? How much was that phone? You see where I'm going? When you teach and encourage people to cheap out on audio, then they will have a tendency to continue to do that into their professional careers? Don't believe me? I have lots of high end customers that fight budget battles every day.
I also think Alex is right to harp on you about terminology. There is no H1 lav mic. There is the H1 recorder, and there are cheapy lav mics you can plug into them. When I hear "H1 lav mic", my first instinct is to search for an "H1 lav mic" on google, thinking it is a specific lav mic, which in fact you are referring to a method of recording. I know it sounds a little petty to get into that, but a biologist would ride you hard for saying "alligator...crocodile..whatever".
I don't mean to come off as a jerk, or even yelling. Usually I just recommend hiring an audio professional, or in this case someone who knows a little more than you do. Cheaping out on money during production will only cost you more money and headache later.
Here's what really struck me, and I think is endemic of production lately....
The willingness, and even the drive, to cheap out on audio just to save a few bucks. The price was mentioned several times, and even something as cheap as an H1 was referred to as expensive. $100 may seem like a lot, but let's put that in perspective. How much was that DSLR camera? How much are those lights? Shooting on your phone? How much was that phone? You see where I'm going? When you teach and encourage people to cheap out on audio, then they will have a tendency to continue to do that into their professional careers? Don't believe me? I have lots of high end customers that fight budget battles every day.
I also think Alex is right to harp on you about terminology. There is no H1 lav mic. There is the H1 recorder, and there are cheapy lav mics you can plug into them. When I hear "H1 lav mic", my first instinct is to search for an "H1 lav mic" on google, thinking it is a specific lav mic, which in fact you are referring to a method of recording. I know it sounds a little petty to get into that, but a biologist would ride you hard for saying "alligator...crocodile..whatever".
I don't mean to come off as a jerk, or even yelling. Usually I just recommend hiring an audio professional, or in this case someone who knows a little more than you do. Cheaping out on money during production will only cost you more money and headache later.
Well, in defense of psynema, the quoted text above applies just as much to the Zoom H1 as to the recorder he reviewed. If you're sticking a lav into the H1, there is no lock to keep it in - same as in the Olympus recorder. And if you're using a lav + H1 combo, there is no way to monitor the recording, just as much as there is no way to monitor recording with the lav + Olympus combo.
Re: cheaping out on audio. The two issues mentioned above apply to all wired lavs at this time (if the recorder stays with the talent). Tascam is inching closer to solving that issue with the DR-22WL and DR-44WL recorders should they do a firmware update that enables real-time wi-fi monitoring (for now, it's only possible after the recording), and maybe JuicedLink with the new revised DarLing recorders can solve both issues, but it remains to be seen. For now, as of January 2015, all wired lavs share these problems - if the recorder stays with the talent. Therefore, the only way to solve it at this time is to spring for a wireless system. If you are going to do wireless, then by general agreement, the Sennheiser G3 is the cheapest acceptable quality wireless system - and you still need to get better lavs than the trash they provide; now, what if you need to mic 4 people? The cost quickly becomes prohibitive. There are the options of the Audio Technica System 10, and the new Rode that's just come out using the roughly wi-fi spectrum, but that's also a pretty penny once you go up to 4 people.
When your only choice not to "cheap out" is in the thousands of dollars range, people are going to go ahead an cheap out. That's just the reality of indie filmmaking on a zero budget. One of the posters here wisely observes in his signature that recording without monitoring is like filming without looking - and he's 100% right. But look at it from the other side. If an audio budget in the thousands for wireless lavs is simply not an option, period, and your only option is something like lav + recorder on talent, or else NOTHING, people are going to take the lav + H1 rather than nothing. Maybe not pretty, but desperate times call for desperate measures. And I think it is in that spirit that psynema did his review - he's addressing himself to no-budget indies. I'm sure he's aware of the fact that (a) hiring a professional(s) is always going to be the superior to doing it yourself or having a friend do it, and that using professional equipment is always going to be superior to desperate hail mary passes like using a lav + H1. But sometimes the superior is not an option. You might say at that point "it isn't worth it", but I personally disagree with that - I keep hearing the same said over and over again about all aspects of filmmaking "if you don't have the budget, don't do the film, don't buy the gear, don't try to market, don't bother even starting unless you have the $$$", and frankly, that's pretty elitist. We're not idiots. We know it's always better to have the money. The disagreement is at the point of saying "better do nothing" - if that were true, tons and tons of filmmakers would have never gotten a start, because they used jerry-rigged contraptions and crazy measures and zero budgets... none of them had Hollywood budgets.
Full disclosure: I cannot at this time afford a professional wireless system. I therefore have 4 H1 recorders and 4 cheap lavs (AspenMics). I have used them on a short I've made with friends and it worked out fine. I understand that this is not "professional", but it was either NOT DO THE AUDIO AT ALL - and therefore no short - or do the short using desperate measures such as the Zoom H1 + AspenMic lavs. I chose to do it. YMMV.
Psynema
Well-known member
Pretty much my reply, though not to cause a conflict, I do think Dave and Alex make solid points, thought the "sound not being fit enough for youtube" IMO is a stretch.
But when I made this video it comes from watching low-no budget people starting out and the option isn't cheap $25 vs. a more expensive one, they are choosing NOT to mic someone and pretty much buy one decent item then relying on a single lav recorder to pick up other people's audio. Or they'll put a windscreen on a single zoom h1 and use that as a single shotgun mic. There's that third option that isn't getting mentioned - High end vs. Low end. vs NO MIC at all, the last of which is one reason I made this video.
I do a lot of weddings and people just starting out and even higher budgeted wedding videographers will stick a high end on the groom, but have no mics for the 10 other people in the room, even though the best man/ father of the groom may have some nice audio. Working and asking questions to some of them as to why they don't want to mic more people the answer is "I only have 3 zoom H1s and the rest are H4ns (1 goes on the groom, 1 on the pastor, 1 on the podium). Ditto for Bridal prep where there's no one laved at all even though the father of the bride is a nice option. The Oly is better than nothing, which was my intent to say "hey here's an option vs. no mic at all and even if you don't like the Oly, it's still a serviceable back up that won't get you sued".
If you go on my site, the work I get paid to make gets BOOMED and H4Ned...I'm not stupid
. The Oly's are relegated to the bullpen or if I really want to mic someone just in case. I do a lot of casual video shoots for charity and will sometimes offer freebies to networking groups and I don't want to lug heavy and expensive gear with me all the time so for those I whip out the Oly's and simple lens kit to get me by, as I don't want to lose a few hundred dollars worth of audio gear for a casual shoot vs. a $30 dollar one (and yes I've had people drop Tascams/Zooms on me...they're fragile). As for monitoring, Wireless sytems are prone to interference. It's great to monitor in a CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT. In AN UNCONTROLLED environment, you don't get the luxury of stopping people to fix their mic. If you're filming a wedding or a speech or presentation, you can't stop the vows because you hear static in the groom's mic. And churches are very prone to wireless interference as they have their own sound system going (which yes gets plugged in with an H4N or something similar as well). Popping a zoom h1 lav on a groom has a flawless track record from my personal experience and haven't heard a botched audio job with it. On the other hand back in the day when wireless was the norm for weddings, SIGNAL INTERFERENCE/FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE happened 2-3 times a year. Using Sennheisers. And some venues BAN WIRELESS. So long as you test your gear out, you know it won't clip at a certain point if you've been using it for 5 years and the Zoom h1s are safer unmonitored in wild situations on top of wireless often not being an option for certain shoots. It's a culture difference between wild vs. controlled shooters I'd say.
Last edited:
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I wasn't going to weigh in on this because I find these threads kind of a waste. Basically it's saying I know you have put your quality low befor but here is a way to get it even lower!
The video sounds actually really bad, sorry. It has a crackly nasty quality to the voice. Can't say if it's the mic or the recorder but if that is what the OP considers good then what is there to say?
BTW A "lav" is short for Lavalier microphone. It is NOT a recorder or a Wireless system. The H1 is NOT a "lav system", the later term makes no sense at all.
Maybe I'm grumpy since I have spent the last two weeks cleaning up some really bad production recordings in a variety of projects.
But if you are going to put your bar really low own it. An H4n is NOT a high end recorder. It's actually a barely decent recorder if set up properly.
I am a big fan of low cost high quality gear and you can avoid the really pricey gear and still have good quality. But don't kid yourself, below the top level you are making compromises.
If you are recording to a compressed format the question is not IF you will have problems but WHEN you will. I have used my share of compressed format recorders and you can get decent sound in a compressed format if you give the compressor enough to chew on. But the compression engine on all of them can get fooled and go insane on you. Doppler car by's will make most if not all freak out, as will bagpipes. Slide whistles are probably a problem but I haven't checked. So if the music at the ceremony happens to have pitch changes that the compressor doesn't like you will end up with something that sounds like a horror move score.
Doing SFX and such you can usually redo things and you generally know what you are recording so sticking a MiniDisk recorder in that very dodgy location may be a good solution. Recording one shot events where you don't know what is coming, really bad idea.
As for using a small recorder to serve as a wireless substitute... If that is what your budget allows and you understand the risks well maybe. I personally would not do it for anything I really needed, so as long as I have something I can depend on then why not stick a system on everyone that might get something interesting? Other than piling up tracks someone has to go through I don't see a downside. But all those little recorders are noisy, so I'm recording at 48/24 WAV, or at least at 48/16 WAV.
I also get a bit irritated by the "I'm entitled" tones that come up at various times in threads. It's the "I want to", but "I don't want to spend the time or money to do it right". Once upon a time you actually had to earn the privilege to play with the good toys. That had downsides, like if you were not in a few select locations you didn't really have a way to earn the privilege, and things cost a lot more. But it had one huge upside, and that is that most of the people actually learned something about the craft before they started selling their services.
The bar for quality in low budget films has taken a big dive in the last few years. There are of course exceptions and I have worked on a fair number, but the rest is kind of like looking at that theoretical experiment where if you had enough monkeys pounding on typewriters you eventually get a Shakespeare play. I have cleaned up a lot of monkey recordings but have yet to see any approaching the Bard.
At first cheap editing systems for picture and sound really improved micro budget films. But filmmakers had kind of worked their way up. But now that pretty much anyone can afford to shoot on something everyone seems to be "making films". But after judging a few festivals it is truly shocking what people submit. Maybe it's YouTube and people watching endless amounts of "cute pet/kid/?" home videos??? But story... out the window, acting... who needs it, camera work... don't get me started, sound... often the worst part, and then cheesey and not so cheesey visual FX, often fairly decent.
Maybe there was always this percentage of really bad (I hesitate to say) "work" and I just missed it?
Anyway IF you are doing your low budget epic and you can't afford something that is important, like sound, a real camera man, or acting then you are NOT READY to start shooting, period. You don't start a long road trip with no wallet and an empty tank. If you can afford the gas, you need to wait or find a way to make some money.
I make a major exception to all of the above if you are doing this just for fun. In that case do whatever floats your boat. But please don't submit it to festivals and start calling yourself a filmmaker.
The video sounds actually really bad, sorry. It has a crackly nasty quality to the voice. Can't say if it's the mic or the recorder but if that is what the OP considers good then what is there to say?
BTW A "lav" is short for Lavalier microphone. It is NOT a recorder or a Wireless system. The H1 is NOT a "lav system", the later term makes no sense at all.
Maybe I'm grumpy since I have spent the last two weeks cleaning up some really bad production recordings in a variety of projects.
But if you are going to put your bar really low own it. An H4n is NOT a high end recorder. It's actually a barely decent recorder if set up properly.
I am a big fan of low cost high quality gear and you can avoid the really pricey gear and still have good quality. But don't kid yourself, below the top level you are making compromises.
If you are recording to a compressed format the question is not IF you will have problems but WHEN you will. I have used my share of compressed format recorders and you can get decent sound in a compressed format if you give the compressor enough to chew on. But the compression engine on all of them can get fooled and go insane on you. Doppler car by's will make most if not all freak out, as will bagpipes. Slide whistles are probably a problem but I haven't checked. So if the music at the ceremony happens to have pitch changes that the compressor doesn't like you will end up with something that sounds like a horror move score.
Doing SFX and such you can usually redo things and you generally know what you are recording so sticking a MiniDisk recorder in that very dodgy location may be a good solution. Recording one shot events where you don't know what is coming, really bad idea.
As for using a small recorder to serve as a wireless substitute... If that is what your budget allows and you understand the risks well maybe. I personally would not do it for anything I really needed, so as long as I have something I can depend on then why not stick a system on everyone that might get something interesting? Other than piling up tracks someone has to go through I don't see a downside. But all those little recorders are noisy, so I'm recording at 48/24 WAV, or at least at 48/16 WAV.
I also get a bit irritated by the "I'm entitled" tones that come up at various times in threads. It's the "I want to", but "I don't want to spend the time or money to do it right". Once upon a time you actually had to earn the privilege to play with the good toys. That had downsides, like if you were not in a few select locations you didn't really have a way to earn the privilege, and things cost a lot more. But it had one huge upside, and that is that most of the people actually learned something about the craft before they started selling their services.
The bar for quality in low budget films has taken a big dive in the last few years. There are of course exceptions and I have worked on a fair number, but the rest is kind of like looking at that theoretical experiment where if you had enough monkeys pounding on typewriters you eventually get a Shakespeare play. I have cleaned up a lot of monkey recordings but have yet to see any approaching the Bard.
At first cheap editing systems for picture and sound really improved micro budget films. But filmmakers had kind of worked their way up. But now that pretty much anyone can afford to shoot on something everyone seems to be "making films". But after judging a few festivals it is truly shocking what people submit. Maybe it's YouTube and people watching endless amounts of "cute pet/kid/?" home videos??? But story... out the window, acting... who needs it, camera work... don't get me started, sound... often the worst part, and then cheesey and not so cheesey visual FX, often fairly decent.
Maybe there was always this percentage of really bad (I hesitate to say) "work" and I just missed it?
Anyway IF you are doing your low budget epic and you can't afford something that is important, like sound, a real camera man, or acting then you are NOT READY to start shooting, period. You don't start a long road trip with no wallet and an empty tank. If you can afford the gas, you need to wait or find a way to make some money.
I make a major exception to all of the above if you are doing this just for fun. In that case do whatever floats your boat. But please don't submit it to festivals and start calling yourself a filmmaker.
Psynema
Well-known member
Can't say anything more than I already said...I boom and use WAV on paid projects. This comes in when the alternative is to "let existing mics that are 5 feet away pic it up" in a doc/wild environment. Not sure why everyone is afraid of extra tracks...people make different types of videos with different workflows but Pluraleyes 3.5 is very quick with 10 + hrs of audio and video ingested into it.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I don't think anyone is afraid of tracks. What they are afraid of is the producer not wanting to pay them to deal with those tracks. As a post person I will take one good track over twenty tracks of junk anyday. Almost every low budget shoot I have gotten a lot of tracks of production on have been dodgy at best. Somehow folks figure if you have a lot of tracks your bound to get what you need and don't seem to pay much attention to what is actually being recorded.
You are talking weddings though and so it's probably not as big a deal. You are going to mostly be looking at only a few of the tracks at any given time because of the nature of the shoot. Lots of tracks on a narrative film are often a time waste because you end up listening to each one, at least partially, to pick the one you want to use.
I'm not sure what you are charging so? But if you are charging what most of the mid level and above wedding videographers are charging then the alternative is more correctly one of you not wanting to spend the money to get what you should to do the job. But then you imply that the wedding gigs are not "paid gigs" for you. In that case spending more is probably not a real option.
----
One clarification based on what you quoted. By that point in my post I was not referring to your post specifically, but to a trend I have noticed. The "you" in that sentence is the universal "you" of the folks I was talking about and not "you" personally. I thought that was obvious since you were talking about wedding videos and I was not, but apparently not as obvious as I thought.
You are talking weddings though and so it's probably not as big a deal. You are going to mostly be looking at only a few of the tracks at any given time because of the nature of the shoot. Lots of tracks on a narrative film are often a time waste because you end up listening to each one, at least partially, to pick the one you want to use.
I'm not sure what you are charging so? But if you are charging what most of the mid level and above wedding videographers are charging then the alternative is more correctly one of you not wanting to spend the money to get what you should to do the job. But then you imply that the wedding gigs are not "paid gigs" for you. In that case spending more is probably not a real option.
----
One clarification based on what you quoted. By that point in my post I was not referring to your post specifically, but to a trend I have noticed. The "you" in that sentence is the universal "you" of the folks I was talking about and not "you" personally. I thought that was obvious since you were talking about wedding videos and I was not, but apparently not as obvious as I thought.
While recording devices, both audio and video have changed from analogue to digital in the last decade, the light waves and sound waves remain the same. And good video and audio require care at all times in the process to get something decent at the end. If you start with something bad or mediocre in the beginning, it will chase you through the entire project. And in the case of audio for video, the most Important thing is to record tracks that are accurate, without a bunch of flaws, and have enough bit depth to edit as needed. If a project matters, and time is going to be invested to produce more than a home movie, I can't imagine taking a chance with my audio with this type of gear. Even if it worked this time, or some of the time, eventually a bad result will occur. If I'm working on a project for money, I can't afford the risk. Using a cheapo and unmonitored device might give you something to use in addition to the main tracks, bit it is a fools errand to depend on them. Regardless of the quality of the devices, what matters more is monitoring, control and security. Pristine sound is awesome, but getting the basic stuff done is most important no matter what level of gear you use. In this case, would you go on a paid gig and say to the producer, "this is how I roll, don't worry bout a thing".
Grant
Grant
I fear that we're losing this argument (in general, not restricted to the current thread), not because it is invalid but because people will do what they will do regardless of known best practices.
It boils down to luck. Once a few folks realized that a cheap recorder in the pocket, fed by a cheap lav, could get passable results more often than not despite tempting fate, the natural progression was to wonder why in the world not to use this much cheaper process all the time instead of a proper radio mic system. After all, it's worked for me so far, right? Why waste money on better gear?
You know, and I know, that just because one can does not mean one should. A reliable radio system that has been properly set up on a clean channel will have a very high success rate with the added benefit of one knowing immediately during recording if there's a problem. Pocketed recorders leave everything to luck, and there's no way to know what one did or did not record until it has been reviewed completely. The system will fail at some point, and it will be much more disastrous than an RF hit.
I do a lot of pro-bono work (happily, for some good organizations), but I do take the same audio kit on those shoots as with paying clients. The way I see it, putting my best quality forward on the free stuff can do nothing less than earn me more paying clients based on reputation and word of mouth.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but this is just nuts. I don't know a single person who believes that, and I know quite a few zero budget filmmakers. Nobody likes to half-@SS it and leave things to chance. They do it because they have no choice. If I have the budget, believe me, the first thing I do is hire a professional sound crew and let them pick their equipment. Only an insane person would decide that that even though they have the budget, they'd rather stick with jerry-rigged solutions that put their entire project in jeopardy. That's like saying "gee, I have the budget to get an A list actor - who can open my movie - but I'd rather get the no-name shmo from a cattle call audition so I can "save" the money I already have for the name actor". An actor is the linchpin - next to story - of the entire project; the reason so many amateur films are so dreadful is because they employ marginal actors... and they are painfully aware of that weakness, but have simply no money to hire a name actor. Same with sound. Everyone is painfully aware that bad sound dooms your production much worse than poor lighting or directing. The only reason to get that marginal actor, or marginal sound, is because there literally is no other choice. No sane person does so voluntarily if they have any means at all to avoid it. Again - we're talking desperate measures here - hack off your arm so the bear doesn't eat you.
Hey Old Corpse,
How many times have you heard the question posed on this forum: I just spent most of my budget on this awesome new cam that makes such pretty pictures and now I have $200 left for audio. Please advise me on how to get super high quality sound. Really it happens. So while I fully understand the "I need to do this on a shoestring issue" business decisions are made and the results are lived with.
It's one thing to make amateur film and live with the results. It's an entirely different thing to hire out professionally and risk your reputation on not just cheap equipment, but equipment that will not produce a professional result ever even under the best of circumstances. I'm not saying that to get professional results you need really expensive gear. I've recorderd audio on many projects to midrange camcorders that have phantom power as a minimum @ 16/48. This allowed monitoring, limiters at a minimum and for interview audio, it works good enough. I am fortunate to have other and better options now, but for simple stuff, I might still choose this option because it is good enough for many projects.
So what is good enough for low budget pro work? I'm no equipment bigot, I just know that there is a lower limit.
How many times have you heard the question posed on this forum: I just spent most of my budget on this awesome new cam that makes such pretty pictures and now I have $200 left for audio. Please advise me on how to get super high quality sound. Really it happens. So while I fully understand the "I need to do this on a shoestring issue" business decisions are made and the results are lived with.
It's one thing to make amateur film and live with the results. It's an entirely different thing to hire out professionally and risk your reputation on not just cheap equipment, but equipment that will not produce a professional result ever even under the best of circumstances. I'm not saying that to get professional results you need really expensive gear. I've recorderd audio on many projects to midrange camcorders that have phantom power as a minimum @ 16/48. This allowed monitoring, limiters at a minimum and for interview audio, it works good enough. I am fortunate to have other and better options now, but for simple stuff, I might still choose this option because it is good enough for many projects.
So what is good enough for low budget pro work? I'm no equipment bigot, I just know that there is a lower limit.
If you look at JWSound this is a real issue happening right now. People will spend all their money on a camera and glass, and then look for a sound mixer with $100K worth of gear (they'll actually list it out) and only offer a couple of hundred bucks a day for a two person crew WITH gear. When asked why they have budget so low for sound they say "we've never budgeted more for sound". Job boards are full of people looking for "experience sound professional with gear for $100/day" or no money at all. They figure they shot their stuff on a $50 recorder and that was fine for their project, why would their "real" project need anything else...never realizing that the $50 recorder didn't sound good and a real dialogue editor and re-recording mixer would have been frustrated beyond all belief with that. It's a big problem that's only avoided on union gigs.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I actually will disagree with the old dead one, I have run into far too many folks who do cheap out on sound when they are being paid or have a budget because they want to spend it someplace else.
I also disagree with the idea that it's OK because" I didn't have a choice". Expand that out to it's logical conclusion and you have the excuse of most criminals. You always have a choice. Folks always pose this by making up a false option. "It was a cheap recorder or no sound at all". There are hundreds of options in almost all situations. News gathering and some doc's can get pretty limiting but on a narrative film there are a world of options. Films for decades were shot with weak microphones that had to be quite close to the talent and recorded to noisy pretty low quality recorders, posted with only the ability to cut to the 1/4 frame and had Very few tracks and were mixed to the very limiting Academy curve in mono and they almost universally sound leagues better than 99% of no/low budget films today. And wireless microphones were never used until fairly recently (in the history of filmmaking).
How? They made choices so that they got the most out of what they had to work with.
The main issue is not the sound folks, who would probably play with better toys if given the option, but the directors and producers who are making BAD choices. They don't shoot so that the sound they can afford can get the sound that they need. And a lot of them are either too dense to realize how bad their sound is or just don't care. I'm really not sure which. I have talked to more than one director about their sound tracks that had serious problems, that have said essentially, "I know it has a few problems but that's OK". The "few problems" were things like volume jumping from inaudible to speaker distorting loud and full level static bursts. When you see people in the audience clapping hands over their ears or just leaving it's not a small problem.
So you always have a choice. If you are not getting paid you have the choice to tell the director that you are not going to do work that is going to make you look like someone who doesn't know better. I have actually turned down paying shows where I would have been embarrassed to have my name connected. I have also taken some. Not saying I always made the right choice, but I always had one.
If you are directing you have the choice to make smart decisions. You can frame shots so that the sound equipment you can afford can do a decent job. You can spend some time and energy making sure your sound person, even if they are not a professional, knows that getting decent sound is a priority and that they monitor and do quality checks. You can reshoot a scene because there was a sound problem. You can shoot so that your in car driving scenes don't involve actually recording sound while the car is actually running.
In short you can CHOOSE to do a good job on sound. Far too many directors, producers, filmmakers CHOOSE to not do a good job on sound and choose to use money as an excuse. Almost none of the choices to get better sound involve more money, and none of the ones that will let you get decent sound on cheap gear involve more money. The up side is that most of the choices that will get you better sound will also make other parts of the film easier/ cheaper/ better. Master and reverses shooting makes for a better editing flow and also lets you get in and close. Going OMB, Master and reverses means you can be close enough to run that wired lav into your camera and monitor when you shoot.
If anyone thinks shooting smart will ruin their auteur standing, remember I didn't have a choice.
I also disagree with the idea that it's OK because" I didn't have a choice". Expand that out to it's logical conclusion and you have the excuse of most criminals. You always have a choice. Folks always pose this by making up a false option. "It was a cheap recorder or no sound at all". There are hundreds of options in almost all situations. News gathering and some doc's can get pretty limiting but on a narrative film there are a world of options. Films for decades were shot with weak microphones that had to be quite close to the talent and recorded to noisy pretty low quality recorders, posted with only the ability to cut to the 1/4 frame and had Very few tracks and were mixed to the very limiting Academy curve in mono and they almost universally sound leagues better than 99% of no/low budget films today. And wireless microphones were never used until fairly recently (in the history of filmmaking).
How? They made choices so that they got the most out of what they had to work with.
The main issue is not the sound folks, who would probably play with better toys if given the option, but the directors and producers who are making BAD choices. They don't shoot so that the sound they can afford can get the sound that they need. And a lot of them are either too dense to realize how bad their sound is or just don't care. I'm really not sure which. I have talked to more than one director about their sound tracks that had serious problems, that have said essentially, "I know it has a few problems but that's OK". The "few problems" were things like volume jumping from inaudible to speaker distorting loud and full level static bursts. When you see people in the audience clapping hands over their ears or just leaving it's not a small problem.
So you always have a choice. If you are not getting paid you have the choice to tell the director that you are not going to do work that is going to make you look like someone who doesn't know better. I have actually turned down paying shows where I would have been embarrassed to have my name connected. I have also taken some. Not saying I always made the right choice, but I always had one.
If you are directing you have the choice to make smart decisions. You can frame shots so that the sound equipment you can afford can do a decent job. You can spend some time and energy making sure your sound person, even if they are not a professional, knows that getting decent sound is a priority and that they monitor and do quality checks. You can reshoot a scene because there was a sound problem. You can shoot so that your in car driving scenes don't involve actually recording sound while the car is actually running.
In short you can CHOOSE to do a good job on sound. Far too many directors, producers, filmmakers CHOOSE to not do a good job on sound and choose to use money as an excuse. Almost none of the choices to get better sound involve more money, and none of the ones that will let you get decent sound on cheap gear involve more money. The up side is that most of the choices that will get you better sound will also make other parts of the film easier/ cheaper/ better. Master and reverses shooting makes for a better editing flow and also lets you get in and close. Going OMB, Master and reverses means you can be close enough to run that wired lav into your camera and monitor when you shoot.
If anyone thinks shooting smart will ruin their auteur standing, remember I didn't have a choice.
Last edited: