Senheiser MKH 8050 vs Audix for a horrible sound environment.

[hotchkiss]

I shoot a monthly corporate segment with an executive. The only available location is a meeting/training room that is a nightmarish sound environment. It has a server closet or room at the rear end of it. It might also be a wind tunnel facility by the sound of it... arghh. Or maybe there's ten landscapers with leaf blowers trapped in the room? I dunno.

I treat the room with pads on the floor under the talent, smaller pads on each side of talent, and one more kinda blocking off the alcove leading from the server/ wind tunnel/ landscapers with blowers room. The 6x9 floppy green screen to the rear of the talent helps a tiny bit as well. On top of this, the floor in the space is vinyl tile. No carpet to be found.

I've suggested to the producer that some additional sound mitigation modification to the server room would be very beneficial. So far, no dice. One of the challenges is that I currently have to bring a lot of extra kit and spend a lot of time to setup this environment. I can spend even more time to mitigate the noise but it's a pita and there are diminishing returns given the nature of its short comings.

For sound, I hang an Audix HCX1 on a pole over the talent (at present, I'm not using a lav). I record directly into a DVX200 ( yep, not the greatest pre-amps). I'm a fan of the Audix, although it's output level is on the lower side of the spectrum. In a better sound environment its sensitivity is just fine. On the next shoot I'll try my Mixpre 3 II to get a hotter signal, but I suspect that the extraneous sound will still be the primary issue. FWIW, I've been recording here successfully, but using copious amount of NR in post- bordering on too much at times. I'm at the edge more than I would like. The client is pleased and has never complained, but I notice and I'd like a lot more margin and less compression in the finished audio.

My question: I'm wondering if switching up to a MKH8080 (or similar) might help minimize the ambient sound level as compared to my Audix? I've been around the block for decades, but I'm not a pro soundy. I'd appreciate any input for those who would know if a mic change might be worth it given the situation.

For now, I'm going to try my mixpre 3, try a lav (again). If those things don't work I'll bring even more grip/ sound mitigation kit than I currently do. I do use a Countryman B3 with another executive shoot, but that sound environment is dreamy by comparison. In general, I've enjoyed moving to boom only for these kinds of shoots, but I'm open.

Your input is welcome and appreciated.

 

[Peter C.]

I have a similar situation hard floors, walls and high ceiling. Can you imagine how bad the acoustics are? I should bring sound blankets the client doesn't care.

In my mind the more expensive condenser isn't going help with your situation. You'd be better off with filming tighter and getting mic in closer or use a cardioid pattern lav. I don't like cardioid lavs because if the subject turns his head you get off axis drop off. But if the subject remains relatively still looking directly into the camera that's going to do more for you to isolate from the background noise.

Here's a video comparing an omni vs a cardioid lav. But even so the overall difference can still be subtle. The client also won't be listening to a back to back comparison so they most like not notice.

Then again maybe all you need is just getting you current mic closer. Not sure if I read right if you have a proper boom and using optimal technique. It might sound foolish but record yourself in an untreated room play around with positioning so you can determine how close you need to be to reduce the room noise.

 

[hotchkiss]

I have a similar situation hard floors, walls and high ceiling. Can you imagine how bad the acoustics are? I should bring sound blankets the client doesn't care.

In my mind the more expensive condenser isn't going help with your situation. You'd be better off with filming tighter and getting mic in closer or use a cardioid pattern lav. I don't like cardioid lavs because if the subject turns his head you get off axis drop off. But if the subject remains relatively still looking directly into the camera that's going to do more for you to isolate from the background noise.

I suspect the same regarding the higher $$$ condenser. I can't claim to be an expert on boom positioning, but I think I'm about as tight as I can reasonably go and mic placement is pretty good. The shot is a fairly loose medium to wide shot, head to waist. I can't really change the shot, nor do I want to. It's the "look" we are after. In post I change from MCU's to the wider shot and everywhere in between. The subject is just standing, facing the camera with occasional mild hand gestures, I could get away with a cardioid lav if it that solution would make a difference.

Then again maybe all you need is just getting you current mic closer. Not sure if I read right if you have a proper boom and using optimal technique. It might sound foolish but record yourself in an untreated room play around with positioning so you can determine how close you need to be to reduce the room noise.

Still open to additional feedback, but I guess my next steps will be including a lav for the next shoot, beefing up the sound treatment a bit more and hooking up my Mixpre 3 II. Some of the soft-talking subjects are stretching the limits of the Audix and the DVX200 pre-amps.

The frustrating thing is that this room is essentially a part time studio and the organization is placing an increasing value on video for leadership messaging. I shoot in the space a lot, potentially I may be shooting even more. The sound mitigation efforts wouldn't cost too much but could make a heck of difference. I'm going to keep putting a bug in the ear of the organization.

 

[Andy9]

If the problem is the noisy room I doubt that a better mic / better preamps will help, only reducing distance to subject. Not a soundie either, a few thoughts though:

- If it's a locked-off shot, you can film a plate without the boom mic (or subject), drop the mic into the shot and then easily remove it in post.
- Angling the mic down to point at the upper chest rather than the mouth can reduce room noise, especially reverb.
- A lav will go inside the knot of a tie or under the collar of a shirt, sometimes those few inches closer will make a difference. Not good if they move their head around a lot though.
- This free NR tool from Adobe is amazing but way too aggressive. You could mix the processed signal with the raw one in post. https://podcast.adobe.com/enhance

 

[Peter C.]

The truth is external factors outside of your control have larger impact than the gear you use. Quiet talking subjects makes it difficult background noise gets proportionally louder. If the client is happy sometimes is wise to scale back your expectations.

 

[Rick R]

Try a Sony ECM-55 lavaliere, it is omni directional, but isolates the wearer from extraneous noise and room reflections well. Unfortunately it is large compared to most lavs these days. The only time I use cardioid lavs is when feedback is an issue in conjunction with a live sound system.

 

[CharlesPapert]

This isn't a miking answer, but maybe it will help. After making a short at a bar with refrigerated units that we weren't allowed to shut off, I was faced with some pretty dire sounding tracks. Ahead of the sound mix, I started researching and experimenting and came across this resource: audostudio.com. It's an AI based online service and the results were pretty stunning. My post sound editor was resistant at first but after comparing it to what he was able to do with his suite of legacy tools, we ended up processing all the tracks through audo studio. The relevance to your situation is that he also does location sound recording, and told me recently that he has shifted his approach now to where he will worry less on location about a certain threshold of background noise, knowing that he can clean it up via audostudio.

I recently tested it against the new AI tool in resolve that does the same thing, and they were relatively close, but audo studio managed to work just a little deeper.

Here was the preliminary test I did that convinced me:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c22hdd03aq6zkt2/bar none audio test 2.mov?dl=0

 

[Bruce Watson]

My question: I'm wondering if switching up to a MKH8080 (or similar) might help minimize the ambient sound level as compared to my Audix?

Probably not. From your description of the problem, it seems to me to be a signal-to-noise-ratio problem. Specifically, you need more of the speakers voice, and less of the room noise. The laws of physics are pretty clear in this case -- move the mic closer to the signal source (speaker's mouth). Changing to a new microphone will do very little to change anything, but moving your old mic closer can improve things markedly.

Unfortunately, you can only go so close booming. Next closer is a lav mic (right on the sternum -- I tend to avoid mounting higher because of the "chin shadow" which sounds weird to me). Unless you're willing to train the talent on how to use a cardioid lav, stick with omnis. The problem with cardioid lavs is that the speaker's head can move relative to the lav letting the speaker weave in and out of pattern, and creating problems with variable proximity effect, leaving you with painful headaches in post. You only need to do that once and you'll never own another cardioid lav, just sayin'.

If switching to lavs isn't enough, move to ear-set mics. Ear-sets work fine with cardioids because they become part of the head -- the speaker can not turn and move and get out of pattern if the mic goes wherever the head goes. And at a couple of cm from the mouth, this is about as good as you can do to maximize signal-to-noise ratio. This is why Broadway shows use dozens and dozens of ear-set mics.

The other thing to do that no one has brought up yet, is to use your low cuts. If the Audix has a low cut (typically around 80-100) Hz use it. This is significantly over the 60Hz noise you'll get a lot of from the computers. You can also use the low cut on your MixPre. The two low cuts will add, giving you a steeper roll off.

Another thing you can do is walk the room without the people in it, listening to the noise as you slowly move your head around where the speaker is going to be standing. What you're trying to find are room modes. That is, peaks and nulls caused by wall and ceiling reflections of the mostly low frequency noise from the computers. When you find a null, go side-to-side and front-to-back to find the center and mark the floor with tape ("x" marks the spot) and have the speaker stand on the "x" to give his/her spiel. Doing this is like using yet another low cut filter.

If you do all this, your post work should be considerably easier / quicker. Some EQ (mostly because of the talent, not the room), some levels work because most people are louder when they start a sentence and get quieter as they talk, running out of breath. That kind of stuff.

Good luck with it. Noisy rooms suck. Small noisy rooms suck more. But this is our lot in life sometimes ;-).