Sound for budget films

[hscully]

Yeah. Getting good sound people is a problem for me to - on low budget projects. It's easier to rent good gear for cheap than it is to geth good sound operators that will invest their energy on the cheap. I agree with you. A good sound producer will bump the production value 10x more than any pro sound gear. I think this is obvious.

I didn't mean to be facetious stating the obvious so sorry if that came off crappy. What I try to do on the budget deals (web series, actor reels, theater promos) is find a good enough person, in one case a musician, and work with them on wiring lavs and mixing and boom operating, and hire for what I can get, when they're available. So we're all becoming more experienced and better.

I'd love to be able to hire a real sound person for the budget stuff but they always come with their great gear and their day rate reflects that, which is fair and good (also obvious . I can't say "hey Man, I have six days of a web series to shoot, can you drop your day rate to 1/3 or worse and struggle with my budget gear? Ain't gonna happen. I wish I could. The entry point is just too high for these projects.

I try to have someone in the group who can throw down and is willing to show up again and again. It's not just sound, AC is another struggle on these.

What's obvious is that I need to get some higher budget projects!

 

[KINOKS]

I didn't mean to be facetious stating the obvious so sorry if that came off crappy.

I was writing that on my cell in a hurry. Sorry, didn't meant to be negative.

What's obvious is that I need to get some higher budget projects!

Hahahahahha +1 to this

Getting back to gear... I just found out that we have 8 wireless systems! lol So I guess the MKH50 is back on the list. Nice

 

[Jema]

The reason being: "buy once, cry once" No but seriously I rather see us getting a good mic that will last than an adequate mic that we will want to upgrade in the future. I chose the Sanken CS3e because it can also be used indoors for some instances where the short reach of the mkh50 or at4053b won't be good enough because of the shoot characteristics (wide shoot, etc.). What do you think? Is my rationale sound?

I think that advice and reasoning is absolutely right, and you won't be disappointed. The CS3e is a good choice for an "all-round" shotgun. If you get an MKH hyper/supercardioid then you also have a solid indoor mic, or for when the tighter pattern of the CS3e isn't what you want. It's also quieter and better for humid or extreme environments.

What are all these wireless systems you've suddenly gotten access to?

The list doesn't look bad. The most important things missing is a good bag for the R4 and wireless, an external battery system for the R4. Judging from the lack of a mixer or headphone amplifier, are you going to split the headphone output of the R4 to the boom-op? I just remembered a considerable downside to that - The are both forced to listen to the same thing. The recordist often needs to solo in on some channels, or listen to all at once, which is often not what the boom-op wants. This is reason alone to go with another solution in my opinion. I would get an MM-1 or mixpre, even if that means switching the MKH50 for a cheaper mic.

I also like having a simple mic stand for putting a plant mic just out of frame (could also good for interviews), and some form of magic arm or other flexible small mic stand is also good for setting up plants.
Then there's also the damping material, but it probably won't cost much.

 

[KINOKS]

What are all these wireless systems you've suddenly gotten access to?

they have been there from the get-go. If you look at my first post... Anyway things just got better as I just found that we have 8 wireless systems lol
So that means 8 lavs and 8 trans/receiver combos. This alleviates my budget a little bit. So it probably means we will be able to squeeze a mixer in as the thing you just wrote:

I just remembered a considerable downside to that - The are both forced to listen to the same thing.

is a really big downside! Thx for think of it! The only thing about buying a mixer is that I have second thoughts about buying a 2 channel mixer...
Anything besides Sound Devices that won't break the bank and has 4-5 channels and has pre-amps on the same level as R4 that you know of maybe?

I also like having a simple mic stand for putting a plant mic just out of frame (could also good for interviews), and some form of magic arm or other flexible small mic stand is also good for setting up plants.

We have those, offcourse. Maybe, actually I don't know I'll have to check it out!

 

[hscully]

Keep an eye peeled for used Sound Devices Mixers. I see them often. I think there was a 552 here for around $2K. They're tanks and you can count on the previous owner to have taken care of it. I think you will want a mixer. It makes the whole thing so much more flexible and managable.

 

[Jema]

is a really big downside! Thx for think of it! The only thing about buying a mixer is that I have second thoughts about buying a 2 channel mixer...
Anything besides Sound Devices that won't break the bank and has 4-5 channels and has pre-amps on the same level as R4 that you know of maybe?

Can you elaborate as to why you would prefer a larger mixer with more channels, and not the ones suggested? Nothing wrong with wanting more, but they get quite expensive, and you only need 1-2 channels for the boom-op.

 

[KINOKS]

I don't know. I was thinking that I would put a lav on every actor besides using a boom. We would mix the sound from the boom and the lavs in post. As I understand it this is usually done on feature films? So for this we would need more channels right?

 

[Jema]

Ok, I understand, but that's two different problems. You have four separate channels to record on with the R4, so that means one boom and then a mixture of up to three lavs or two lavs and a plant mic/second boom. If you often have more people than this with lines in one scene, then yes, you would need a mixer (unless you don't upgrade to a recorder with more channels), but regardless, that is something operated by the recordist, and doesn't solve the need for the boom-op's monitoring in a good way. (I suppose you could give the boom-op monitoring through the mixer while the recordist listens through the R4, but that would depend on the controls of the mixer and would not give the boom-op the option of adjusting his/her own levels).

 

[KINOKS]

but regardless, that is something operated by the recordist, and doesn't solve the need for the boom-op's monitoring in a good way.

Yeees, you are right! The boom op doesn't need to monitor the lavs! Doh! So a MixpreeD should be more than enough.

 

[Jema]

Exactly. Now some boom-ops actually do want to hear the lavs, but my impression is that most doesn't. If they do, their monitoring must still be separate from the recordists, so they need to be given a tailored monitoring signal from an output of the recorder. For this you would need to either use a cable and some form of headphone amp, or a wireless system into the same or a mixer. Unless the boom-op is very specific about hearing all the lavs too, I would say it's more trouble than it's worth (besides, the R4 doesn't have many options when it comes to it's outputs).

A mixpre would definitely cover it, and unless you see a need for two channels in the future, you might save some money with an MM-1 (it's cheaper to maintain too as it doesn't need as many batteries, and it has the option of mixing in a second monitoring signal for talking to the boom-op through a walkies-talkie or similar). A used mixpre might be in the same price range though...

 

[Steve House]

I don't know. I was thinking that I would put a lav on every actor besides using a boom. We would mix the sound from the boom and the lavs in post. As I understand it this is usually done on feature films? So for this we would need more channels right?

Yes you would need more recording channels, one for each boom and one for each lav. Note this is RECORDER channels, not MIXER channels. You want to record each mic to its own iso track, not mixed with anything else. A multichannel mixer may have any number of inputs but it mixes them together into a 2-channel output.

No you DO NOT mix boom and lavs together, either on set or in post. The sound arrives at the boom much later than it arrives at the lav. Mixing them leads to phasing artifacts that can really mess it up. You record boom and lavs independently and in post decide which one of them you're going to use based on which sounds better. But it's a choice of one or the other, never both mixed together.

 

[Jema]

I agree with Mr. House that one recording channel for each mic is the easiest and safest way to record, and that you should avoid mixing together active channels unless you are doing a mix track. For those reading that are new to location sound, it's not the only way though - you can use a mixer to expand on the number of mic inputs, and then ride the levels so that some mics share the same recording track, but not necessarily at the same time. It's one of the basics of mixing on location.

A simple example:
Say that you have a two-channel recorder, and usually use channel 1 for the boom and then channel 2 for a wireless. Now say you want to record a dialogue between two actors, and want to have a lav on both of them - you would need a third channel. You have at your disposal a two-channel mixer, like the mixpre. You then put the boom on channel 1, and the two wireless in the mixer, that in turn go into channel 2 on the recorder. When the first person speaks, the gain/level of the second (silent) actor is turned down, leaving only the speakers lav being recorded, and when the second actor is about to speak, you turn up the level on him/her and turn down the first.
This way, you are recording three mics onto two channels, and more or less separately. The downsides is that you need to be careful so you aren't too early or late when shifting between them (there's a lot of room for mistakes here, especially if the scene isn't well-rehearsed or the actors like to do variations), and also that it might limit the amount of "air" or room tone between lines (though this usually isn't much of an issue for lavs, since the boom takes the dominant part in that).

It's very simple in concept, but it's a skill that takes a long time to get good at. This is of course only an option if you have a dedicated recordist - a lone sound technician cannot be expected to mix between several channels while booming at the same time.

 

[hscully]

Yeah, that's what we do; lavs mixed on the right and boom on the left. We ride all levels but don't drop out one lav or another and it's still pretty good. It sounds like it would be hard to get that right, as you say. It allows me to mix boom and lav matching the waveforms in Adobe Audition and getting them in phase. I'll tell you though, the lavs with the Country Man mics have bailed me out plenty of times.

 

[KINOKS]

It allows me to mix boom and lav matching the waveforms in Adobe Audition and getting them in phase.

Yeah, I don't get it. Isn't this kinda easy to do? Am I missing something? You just have to match the sample plots... The editor does it on a frame level (which is not that precise) and you do it then on much preciser scale in you DAW. When it's synced you're good to go. Is there something else that I don't know of?

 

[hscully]

yeah, if sample plots means the zoomed in picture of the waveform.. yeah. I manually slide the clip to match them up like you were lining up with a slate. It's pretty amazing how all that "honk" comes out when you get them lined up in phase. What's nice is then you can actually eq them then mix them. For me it's usually predominantly one or the other for a particular scene.

 

[KINOKS]

Yes, we have mixed lavs and boomed mics many times on our projects. And nobody said that it was a problem... Jema, Steve?

 

[Jema]

Yeah, I don't get it. Isn't this kinda easy to do? Am I missing something? You just have to match the sample plots... The editor does it on a frame level (which is not that precise) and you do it then on much preciser scale in you DAW. When it's synced you're good to go. Is there something else that I don't know of?

Yes, I'm afraid it's not that simple. As Mr. House said mixing several mics together often creates phasing artifacts (some frequencies enhance eachother while others cancel out), and it requires very little difference for it to arise (I seem to remember that John Purcell takes this up in his book about dialogue editing, and that it's noticeable below 1/4 of a frame). You can match the phase by careful nudging and listening, but it will only be in phase as long as the distance between the boom and the lav relative to the speaker is exactly the same, and since both the boom and the speaker often moves about, the phase will constantly change.

Some doesn't think this is much of a problem, and often use it to enhance the intelligibility, while others think it sounds dreadful. It's quite common though to mix a boom and a lav but one of them is much lower than the other, so the phasing is not very pronounced. A little lav to a boom can give some bottom to it, and a little boom to lavs gives some "air". In many cases though, a single mic sounds best.

In the end, you do what you have to do to make the dialogue easy to understand while not being distracting.

 

[KINOKS]

Okey so this can be a problem. So the lavs are there mostly for security I guess, right?

 

[Jema]

Often they are used as backups, so yes, but there are many specialized situations in which booming or plant mics are not good options (like noisy locations, small and difficult spaces, or when there are many people and no written lines).

Many sound technicians and productions choose to have everybody laved from the beginning as a mere principle, as they function as backups to the boom, and when the lavs are needed then everyone is already wired up and ready. Some sound technicians doesn't work this way, and puts a lav on someone when they see a need for it (mostly these are seasoned professionals, working on very controlled sets).

 

[Michael Carter]

Back to mics - every time I start editing, I'm more and more impressed with the 4053 hyper. Really a fantastic mic - I use it indoors and out (in a blimp). Great sound and really seems to suck the voice in and reject everything else. It can sound very rich from 16" and in a fur-covered blimp.

I found one on eBAy for $150 (the guy had two, if I'd known what they were worth I'd have bought both!)