One-man-band audio solutions

L

lennard

New member
As the title says, i'm hoping for tips on how to achieve the best audio in the following situation:

I'm making a documentary about a group of musicians who i spent a lot of time with gaining their trust. therefor i (and only i) am allowed to film them, they will simply shut up when someone else comes in. so an extra soundguy is unfortunatly no option.

The scenes i need to get for the documentary is mostly how they behave and interact with eachother, sometimes just 2 or 3 of them, sometimes 7, all in the same enviroment (in&outdoors). Mic-ing each one of them with a wireless lav is not really practical, and i'm guessing an oncamara shotgun mic will be too tight when 2 or 3 are talking. And oh yeah, they move a lot too.

Any ideas on what the 'best' solution is? I know i'm screwed nonetheless for getting good audio, but maybe there are some users on this board who've have experience in these kinds of operations.

cheers!
 
Oh, I thought this thread was about something like this :D

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2xOw-VXe_g
 
lennard said:
... therefor i (and only i) am allowed to film them, they will simply shut up when someone else comes in. so an extra soundguy is unfortunatly no option....

... Mic-ing each one of them with a wireless lav is not really practical,..
Click to expand...

So you don't want a sound guy and you don't want to put mic's on them.
Unless you plan on attaching a boom pole to your head you pretty much
answered your own question.


Personally i think the reasons you mention are pretty weak for not
using a sound person.
I've been (as im sure a lot of people here have been) on WAY more sensitive
shoots where you still have a sound person.

It comes down to explaining to these people that there really is no point
in wasting everyones time when in the final product you'll barely be able
to make out what they are saying in parts.
 
I have to agree with you. You are screwed. You might as well not even attempt this as you are likely to get very little usable audio. Your (and their) expectations are completely unrealistic. It is too bad more people don't get to see what is on the other side of the cameras for all those "reality" shows. It would significantly reduce their apparent belief in magic.
 
lennard said:
Mic-ing each one of them with a wireless lav is not really practical,
Click to expand...



Mic-ing each one of them with a wireless lav is not really in my budget. There I fixed that one for you. It is extremely practical, it is probably not in your budget, but it is the most practical way to do it if you are alone.
 
I suppose you could use an omni and get in close, or stick a boundary mic on the table, but i have to go with the others. Assuming they WANT the video, and are not doing it as a favour for you, do they actually want to be heard or not? You canna change the laws of physics Captain, as Mr Scott often said.
 
In the hopes of being constructive, the problem is that, especially with a documentary, you need to convey a lot of information through sound - add to that live music performances (possibly in horrible-sounding jam spaces) and it becomes such a large responsibility that trying to manage both the visuals and the wide, dynamic world of documentary audio it's not so much that it couldn't be done, but as those above have mentioned, you would most likely get very stressed focusing on a lot of tiny technical issues and not making your film - your product would suffer.

Imagine, even if you could mic up everyone with wireless lavs, that some days you'd have to find a way to monitor at least 4 wireless signals not to mention keep an eye on any RF issues that might crop up when you're somewhere completely uncontrolled. Then there's all that equipment, batteries, wires, and moving about. Carrying a camera and an over-the shoulder rig that could record 4 wireless lavs with recievers. It all ads up - physical (from carrying everything) and mental (from trying to keep an eye on everything) fatigue can be your worst enemy.

Perhaps the answer is admitting you can't do it alone, hiring someone you know and trust - after sitting down the with band, speaking to them about the necessity of quality audio, and perhaps letting them get to know the location recordist.

It's not what you want to hear - but it would make your life so much easier in the long run. It seems also the band, if they won't allow a location recordist, is being unreasonable and doesn't really want a documentary made - at least not anything that all but their most serious fans would watch.

And, even harder to swallow, sometimes you just need to turn a project down as wonderful and exciting as it may be.

On the other hand, there's no reason you can't try to do it all yourself and prove us all wrong. I say that in all honestly. There's is some great art out there made by single, highly talented and motivated individuals; while they are the exception, there's no reason it can't be you. Love what you do and you'll be fine, no matter what.
 
Last edited:
lennard said:
...
The scenes i need to get for the documentary is mostly how they behave and interact with eachother, sometimes just 2 or 3 of them, sometimes 7, all in the same enviroment (in&outdoors). Mic-ing each one of them with a wireless lav is not really practical, and i'm guessing an oncamara shotgun mic will be too tight when 2 or 3 are talking. And oh yeah, they move a lot too.

...
Click to expand...

The an on-camer shotgun will sound lousy 98% of the time. Physics is physics and you can't get around it ... short shotguns, the only sort that's practical to mount on a camera, work best on speech when they're about 22 to 24 inches from the subject and aimed directly at his throat. That's not going to be the right distance to have the camera nor a very interesting place to point it if you want attractive images.
 
Well maybe my reasons sound a little thin in the openingpost, but i don't want to discuss my project, i'm hoping to find some tips or technical advise on how to make the most of it. :)
 
oh and suddenly there are another bunch of replies, thanks for those.

@ paulears: can you specify any mics that are available on the market for the ones you say; omni and boundary?
 
You are getting advice on how to make the most of it.

If you keep a mic on your camera only, your sound will be sub-par. The restrictions you've put on the project will keep it from being watchable. If they really trust you they will allow you to do it right, with a boom op. Is the reason really that you don't want to pay someone to run boom? It doesn't matter if the band is important or famous or nobodies. If it sounds like crap the doc won't go anywhere.

It's not that we are trying to discourage you from doing your thing. It's just physics. It's because we care that we encourage you to do it right, so your short chance to be around these people will pay off. Just have a conversation with them if they trust you so much. They most likely haven't been molested by a boom op, so they might just understand.

Otherwise try a hyper mic like the AT4053b when inside. It will pick up what's in front of it, not what's on the side. That mic comes with switchable capsules. You can get an additional "cardioid" or "Omni" capsule for situations where you are surrounded. But remember to keep the people talking within 3 feet of the mic, whatever mic you use. Really the subject should be between 1 and 2 feet from the mic.
 
Rippie said:
So you don't want a sound guy and you don't want to put mic's on them.
Unless you plan on attaching a boom pole to your head you pretty much
answered your own question.


Personally i think the reasons you mention are pretty weak for not
using a sound person.
I've been (as im sure a lot of people here have been) on WAY more sensitive
shoots where you still have a sound person.

It comes down to explaining to these people that there really is no point
in wasting everyones time when in the final product you'll barely be able
to make out what they are saying in parts.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
As a post person I have to agree with everyone else. If all you want is to SEE them interacting and have a sense of the sound in the space that's one thing and go ahead and stick a Hyper on the camera. But if you want to actually be able to understand what they are saying it's very close to a lost cause. Your going to be in echoey rooms with bad acoustics and out doors with LOTS of other sound. I've done a lot of doc.s on bands and all had a sound person or two on the shoot. The "name" value on those range from 80's punk bands to major label draws, tiny budget to decent. If your doing talking heads sitting down you can squeak by,maybe. But what your describing is a recipe for unusable sound. And it is NOT fixable in post. A doc on a band that has a really bad sound track doesn't do anybody any good.
sorry.
 
To be blunt, do these musicians actually want you to make/distribute this doc or is this more "this guy with the camera won't stop following us around. Maybe if we ignore him, he'll eventually go away"?

It really doesn't sound like they're into the project, and they don't trust you enough to bring in a sound guy? Musicians (at least the sort that play in more places than their parents' basements) work with "sound people" all the time. If you having a sound person would be a deal breaker, you should find a different project.
 
JordanBlock said:
To be blunt, do these musicians actually want you to make/distribute this doc or is this more "this guy with the camera won't stop following us around. Maybe if we ignore him, he'll eventually go away"?

It really doesn't sound like they're into the project, and they don't trust you enough to bring in a sound guy? Musicians (at least the sort that play in more places than their parents' basements) work with "sound people" all the time. If you having a sound person would be a deal breaker, you should find a different project.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you have thier trust and they want to do the project they know how important sound is. They are in the music business, "audio" "sound". Get it. They will go for it. If not then put that on the back burner and let it simmer for a while.

But if you don't have the money for a sound guy you really won't have the money for the equipment you will need to pull this off anyway. This sounds to me an indie type of project and nothing a production company is willing to fund.

Now for equipment you could try are boundary mics. Depending on how large or small the room is will determine how many you will need. You will have to then have a mixer to plug them into, not to mention the various cables. Because if these guys are somewhat rowdy with one another, like many close knit guys can be, you have to worry about them tripping over all of your cablage. You could also use C-stands and boom mics, but these things take up space as well. You get where we are coming from, because we know where you're headed with this production.

Get a sound person or leave the project alone til they want to do the project right.
 
lennard said:
Well maybe my reasons sound a little thin in the openingpost, but i don't want to discuss my project, i'm hoping to find some tips or technical advise on how to make the most of it. :)
Click to expand...

You're not hearing them because there AREN'T any. Mic's that do for sound what telephoto lenses do for picture simply do not exist ... they CAN'T exist because of the way sound propagates and sound transducers work. Your options are to work out something other than a camera mounted mic or to live with amateurish sounding results. I know you see shotguns on every ENG camera in the field but they ARE NOT used to capture dialog and interviews - they're for ambience and atmosphere. A mic on the camera is too far away and aimed in the wrong direction to properly capture speech from ONE person, much less from a whole group - yes, you'll get sound but unless a miracle occurs it will sound like cr*p. Handheld omnis need to be about 6 inches from the subjects' mouth and can only pick up one voice at a time decently plus they need someone holding them, boom mics require a boom operator to keep them positioned properly and aimed as the subject moves and to redirect them from one subject to the other as the conversation flows, and wireless requires a mic and transmitter on each person speaking plus a receiver channel for each and you say it's out of your budget. If you're the only person they allow to work with them, you're going to be busy'er than a one-armed paper hanger just working the camera and getting quality images. There's not much left to work with. It actually requires more moment to moment attention to get high-quality sound than it does high-quality picture.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top