Recording ambient sound in the landscape

D

DaveWyatt

New member
Hi guys, this is my first first on DVX but I have been reading through a lot of the past posts and picked up some useful information. I am in need of some advice on what kind of gear I need for an extended project that forms part of my Ph.D. I am a photographer by trade specialising in what could loosely be termed documentary landscape. Recently I have started incorporating video into my practice in the form of short (1 to 3 minute) video versions of my landscape photographs.

I have an old Zoom H2 that I have been using along with my Nikon D800 but am not entirely happy with the quality of the results. I am recording ambient sound from within mostly forested landscapes. From reading around it seems a good option will be two short shotgun mics aimed at roughly 60 degrees from one another to approximately replicate the field of vision I am photographing, within the sound.

I am thinking of upgrading my recorder to a Marantz PMD661 but am a little clueless on the mics. It seems 416's are the go to choice but not sure if I can afford two of them right now so maybe one plus something else that can be upgraded later? I don't have a budget laid out and would prefer to start by seeing what I actually need to get, then work out how to fund it.

The final output will be both web based multimedia and installation based exhibition.

Any help/advice will be greatly appreciated

Dave
 
DaveWyatt said:
I am recording ambient sound from within mostly forested landscapes. From reading around it seems a good option will be two short shotgun mics aimed at roughly 60 degrees from one another to approximately replicate the field of vision I am photographing, within the sound.
Click to expand...

Really? Never heard that one before. If what you want is stereo, there are several "normal" options. The one's that pop to the front of my mind are XY, ORTF, and M/S. None of these use shotgun mics in any configuration I've heard of. Mostly they use matched pairs of cardiod mics, or omnis, and M/S requires a figure 8. But much depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

DaveWyatt said:
I am thinking of upgrading my recorder to a Marantz PMD661 but am a little clueless on the mics. It seems 416's are the go to choice but not sure if I can afford two of them right now so maybe one plus something else that can be upgraded later?
Click to expand...

The Sennheiser 416s are diaglog mics. There are almost certainly better choices for recording ambient in the field. Hopefully someone with more experience at it than I will make some suggestions.
 
What exactly leads you to say "not entirely happy with the quality of the results"? Absent any detail, it is impossible to suggest different techniques and/or different equipment.

People who record natural sounds have a preference for certain models of microphones that have good sensitivity and LOW self-noise, and for electronics (mic preamps, recorders, etc.) with good signal-to-noise ratio.
There are several online resources for people who record nature/ambient/bird sounds. I suspect they would have a good body of information and expert advice for this specialized activity. For example:
http://www.naturesounds.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/naturerecordists/info
http://www.wildlife-sound.org/equipment/newcomersguide/
https://soundcloud.com/groups/nature-recordists-group
and many others. Google will reveal more than you can handle in a month.

I suspect it is pretty rare (if it even happens at all) that you see landscape/nature video with real, genuine SYNC sound. I mean sound that was recorded at the same time as the video was shot.
Sound tracks (especially for "nature videos" tend to be created in the editing process, maybe with actual sound from the location, but often with libraries of ambient sounds, and a surprising amount of Foley.
There are Foley artists who specialize in nature videos. They have tricks and techniques they use for all sorts of animal and nature sounds.
Much would depend on what you are trying to achieve and who the audience is.
If you are you shooting legal-document, forensic video to introduce as evidence in a court THEN genuine sync sound may be required.
The sound right AT the camera location is typically not suitable for many reasons. So separate excursions into the area are made to "collect" sounds to be used to create the desired "soundscape".
 
DaveWyatt said:
Hi guys, this is my first first on DVX but I have been reading through a lot of the past posts and picked up some useful information. I am in need of some advice on what kind of gear I need for an extended project that forms part of my Ph.D. I am a photographer by trade specialising in what could loosely be termed documentary landscape. Recently I have started incorporating video into my practice in the form of short (1 to 3 minute) video versions of my landscape photographs.

The final output will be both web based multimedia and installation based exhibition.

Any help/advice will be greatly appreciated

Dave
Click to expand...

From the presentation point of view, imo you're barking up the wrong tree with 'documentary landscape' videos with just location sound effects
and no music or narration to help illustrate your work .. especially with 'installation based exhibitions'.

We've done hundreds of those over the years at Expos etc, and at the very least, suitable music tracks work better because ambient sound
just drowns out sound effects.

Cheers.
 
Thanks for the help. The initial thoughts of 2 short shotgun mics came from here: http://www.listeningearth.com/pages/Andrew_Skeoch.htm

The problem I have been having is with a lack of volume and a distracting level of hiss. It is important to the work that the sound of the wind in the trees, the planes going over head and the nearby roads are genuine, as well as the sounds of the shotguns from pheasant shoots, are the sounds from the sites photographed. Whether or not they are collected at the moment of exposure is a question I have yet to answer, but as much as possible I would prefer it if the video clips represented what occurred at that moment and place. None of these sounds are terribly loud as it is -the videos are a response to being in the landscape at these specific sites.

I will spend some time with those links and no doubt be back when I have done more research.
 
That is the problem with trying to take "holistic" audio snapshots of quiet ambient situations.
Your ears can hear and distinguish sounds that are nearly impossible to do with ANY kind of microphones in the same location/time.
But trying to record very quiet sounds is difficult even with premium studio equipment.
There have been very elaborate measures to try to take very quiet microphones out of the studio environment and use them in the field.

And that is why it is more typical to go out and collect SPECIFIC and ISOLATED "clean catch" sound effects ("SFX") of wind, trees, birds, shotguns, air and vehicle traffic, etc.
And then weave the SFX clips artfully into a representative (or ideal) "soundscape" to go with the visual (still or video).

Note also that there are some kinds of sounds that are practically impossible to actually pick on a microphone and record.
Wind sounds are quite often created artificially because we typically try to keep wind away from delicate microphones.
And it is remarkably difficult to really capture the deep sounds of crashing surf at the ocean.
Experts claim that is because the sound "source" is so broad that it is difficult to capture with typical microphones, especially when typically accompanied by wind.

PS: It is typically beneficial to complete your user profile to at least reveal a general idea of where you are located.
"Neighbors" in this (and similar) forums have been known to mentor, collaborate, lend equipment, etc.
 
DaveWyatt said:
Thanks for the help. The initial thoughts of 2 short shotgun mics came from here: http://www.listeningearth.com/pages/Andrew_Skeoch.htm

The problem I have been having is with a lack of volume and a distracting level of hiss. It is important to the work that the sound of the wind in the trees, the planes going over head and the nearby roads are genuine, as well as the sounds of the shotguns from pheasant shoots, are the sounds from the sites photographed. Whether or not they are collected at the moment of exposure is a question I have yet to answer, but as much as possible I would prefer it if the video clips represented what occurred at that moment and place. None of these sounds are terribly loud as it is -the videos are a response to being in the landscape at these specific sites.
Click to expand...

A few things, shotguns are not a good choice. The Zoom is a pretty noisy box. I would probably go with a Tascam DR40 and just use it's built in mics for what you are doing. If you are going to spend some money then I would gat a pair of nice cardioid mics a Sound Devices MixPreD and a relatively cheap bit bucket (and recorder that will take a digital in).

You will also need shock mounts and wind protection for any of the above, though you could just set them up on a stand and you won't need shock mounts but you will need wind protection.

As to "real sounds" that is a requirement you are creating. I know there is this big divide in the journalism/ documentary world over using anything that was not actually "there" but it's really a contrivance. You are taking a photograph, it's not reality. It's a representation of a reality altered by you and the camera and the printer etc. The video is also not "real". So the idea that the sounds have to be THE sounds is a construct.

I'm not saying don't do it but do it because it's your "concept" don't do it because it's more "authentic" because it's not really. And the sounds are not "real" anyway they are what microphones hear not what people hear. Your brain is a very active filter on what you "hear". If it wasn't you would go crazy with all the sounds that bombard you all the time. It filters out stuff it doesn't think are important and hones in on ones it does think are important.
Microphones "hear" whatever comes at them. When you hear recordings you do not hear what you would have at the time because your brain is filtering based on where you are now and not where the recording was made AND it's not getting most of the clues it would in the wild.

Plus unless you make everyone listen on headphones you are totally distorting the perspective of the recordings.

So recordings even if done at exactly the same moment the shot was taken will not give the user the experience they would have had had they been there. To get to that experience you need to design your sound scape so it reflects how your brain works.

For instance that plane overhead will probably catch your attention early because it's new in the natural sound scape, but your brain will almost completely ignore it once it knows what it is and where it is. But in the recording it does the opposite, it gets louder and harder to ignore because the mic has no filters and not being able to see it and hearing it in an artificial space you have no idea what it's going to do so your brain doesn't ignore it.

You know there are hunters around so the gun shot is just a small surprise, but not unexpected. Looking at a landscape with no clue that there are hunters around will produce a completely different impression. A lot of people will probably not think hunters, they will think psycho killer.

it's the irony of film sound. Using the "real" sounds gives an "unreal" experience, using "unreal" sounds can give you a "real" experience.

Anyway only putting that out there because if what is important to you is to give the experience of being there then recording the "real" sound is not going to get you there. Actually it might get YOU there because you were actually there and can remember it but it won't get a viewer "there".
 
Bruce Watson said:
Really? Never heard that one before. If what you want is stereo, there are several "normal" options. The one's that pop to the front of my mind are XY, ORTF, and M/S. None of these use shotgun mics in any configuration I've heard of. Mostly they use matched pairs of cardiod mics, or omnis, and M/S requires a figure 8. But much depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

MS with a shotgun mid is often used by broadcast sound recordists.



Bruce Watson said:
The Sennheiser 416s are diaglog mics. There are almost certainly better choices for recording ambient in the field. Hopefully someone with more experience at it than I will make some suggestions.
Click to expand...

The MKH 416 are very popular with wildlife recordists who want a bomg-proof mic. that will work anywhere in all weathers.

An MS rig with a 416 (or, better, the new 8060) with an MKH 30 would be a very good choice for what the OP wants to do.
 
If you need to use a shotgun then I would suggest the MKH60 over the 416. It's even more rugged and quieter than the 416. I strongly recommend renting some equipment to test out your strategy. I've used a 60 with a SoundDevices 744T recorder to record what would normally be done using an SFX library. And I have to say that I liked the results of location recording much more in the majority of cases. IMHO, Sennheiser is the WTG if you want low noise. But realize that a shotgun is going to give you a rather directional recording, which can be good or bad. E.g., if you want to record footsteps on leaves, then a shotgun will muffle out general environmental sounds better (but nowhere near perfectly) than would a cardioid or omni. But I think your overall concept has merit. It would be neigh impossible to get realistic, subtle and moving sounds unless you had an incredibly extensive SFX library. For what you are doing, you are going to have to record a lot of the sounds yourself and then get good at manipulating them in post. But I think trying to accomplish your goal by finding the appropriate SFX recordings is going to be a nightmare. BTW, your best friend when trying all this out is going to be an *accurate* (not to be confused with nice sounding) pair of headphones for monitoring. This way you'll be to tell in the field what your recording is going to sound like. Good Luck!! And all the best to you. :)
 
Reading the OPs enquiry. For a newbie one man band, recording M/S sync sound while running camera is too tough a call for him.

Cheers.
 
Why do you say this? I don't understand how recording M/S any different than recording two tracks both separately and mixing them? As long as you don't clip either, I don't see how there is a problem?
 
While I'm not sure I totally agree with Allan, M/S is a bigger pain.
The difference is unless you have a decoder with you you can't listen to your recording accurately. In post you are going to have to decode it to play for anybody and while you can do it with some creative bussing you generally want to use a plugin. If you store the raw files as M/S you will need a decoder to play them back, and if you don't store them as M/S there wasn't much point in recording them that way in the first place.

IF your set up for M/S and that is what your workflow is centered around then you probably have the decoding all worked out and it's not a big deal. That however is not our OP so it will probably be a pain for him.

The sole advantage to M/S is that you can get a wide stereo setup in a smaller package. But since M/S and X/Y are convertible to each other you could widen that field in post just as you could with a M/S recording.

But for what he intends to do the best solution IMHO is to just use a DR40 and put the mics in the wide position. Assuming he feels the need to stick with the "it has to be just the sounds that happen there". If he's constructing the track (highly recommended) then he is probably going to want the flexibility of separate mics and recorder.

I don't have a particular problem with M/S. I can decode easily and my library program can decode on the fly so I can even search with out having to muck about with decoding. But I don't see any advantage and there is the nuisance factor.
 
Years ago I saw the rush when multi-screen audio visuals started and all the pro still photographers fell over themselves getting into moving pictures. They were used to printed captions under each still shot and a soundtrack was as foreign as another language.

No offence to the OP, but a pro stills guy asking about sound is following the well worn path ...

>>>
DaveWyatt said:
The final output will be both web based multimedia and installation based exhibition.
Click to expand...

It's the 'installation for the exhibition' that's a worry. Every installation will be different and the problems will be, the attraction of the program, the size and resolution of the screen, the ambient light falling on the screen, the duration of the program so you don't block the passing audience ... and the playback sound level, so it's clearly heard above the volume of the ambient sound at the exhibition.

And that will be different at every exhibition, so he needs a well produced and recorded soundtrack which compliments the video.

A pro stills photographer has a valuable reputation to protect and his first videos with student sounding audio tracks, should be avoided like the plague.

As a newbie, that's why I'd recommend basic XY to begin with, or maybe a suitable music track ... and concentrate on running his camera and editing the videos.

Cheers.
 
The thing with outdoor recording that is going to be used as a 'feature' is that realism, and accurate stereo field may not be what you actually want. Two shotguns at a fairly spread angle as discussed has the forward direction poorly covered, but hopefully the things each one records are different enough to sound 'good'. The owl screeching to the left, is absent from the right, while the bee that buzzes to your right sounds very obvious because it's missing from the left. The breeze through the trees is similar in both, so the result is a BIGGER sound, but not a realistic one. So perhaps best though of as 2 track, rather than stereo. It sounds even better with wildy spaced mics, but that's perhaps not very practical. M/S works well because of the good left to right coverage of the fig-8 mic. So much depends on what you want. I'm never 100% happy with the continual negative comments on the noise performance of some portable recorders, because many of these comments are based on the preamps having to work too hard due to less than ideal mic technique, but for outside ambient noise recording, I have to agree with the others - you do need plenty of gain, and quiet pre-amps for this one. Don't forget that you are able to build soundscapes from multiple recordings - so a wild track where nothing much happens apart from sounding real can have other recordings from different locations blended with it, and this works very well.
 
Hi Dave, Adding to Richard's list of nature recording websites, which were evidently of interest to you, are a couple that I've found of particular interest for my own ambient recordings.

For using Rode NT1a mics in the field (i.e. cheap and low noise LDC mics) see https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/www/audio-reports/Rode_NT1-A_Mics/NT1-A_index.htm: there's no denying, however, that rigs such as this are fairly hefty (especially with windjammers).

More practically and conveniently, for spaced omni capsules as in SASS and other barrier-arrays (that is what the nature recordist you linked to now uses) websites such as http://www.trackseventeen.com/mic_rigs.html might inspire you. I made a variation of the top arrangement on the last webpage that neatly fits in an unmodified Rode blimp to great effect, and which I now use for any ambient recordings I need: if you are at all DIY and experiment minded (you say it is for your Phd) I would heartily recommend starting off by playing around with some of the incredibly affordable Primo EM172 Omni capsules (here's a bit about them - http://www.zachpoff.com/diy-resources/low-noise-binaural-mics-primo-em172/), rather than spending a fortune straight off, although you will benefit from recording with something better than your old Zoom H2 (which has a particularly noisy mic input).

Cheers,

Roland
 
Last edited:
BobbyMurcerFan said:
BTW, the 418 is a M/S 416.
Click to expand...

Yes - The 418S is basically a 416 with a side capsule made from back-to-back cardioids - I don't like it very much, it's a bit noisy; great for sports, though.


BobbyMurcerFan said:
I believe the newer 8000 series has a M/S mic as well.
Click to expand...

Not that I know of. So far, Sennheiser have refused to do an 8000 series fig.8 - though I think that one may be in development.

In the meantime, use an MKH 8000 series mid with A Neumann 121 side or an Ambient EMESSER as a side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top