Stereo Mic question

scorsesefan

scorsesefan

Veteran
All of my experience has been in the world of mono sound. However, I am considering a doc involving nature (birds, other animals, water, etc.) where I would like to have an immersive sound experience for the audience...

Can anyone

a). recommend a stereo mic (on camera or otherwise) for around $300 or less

b). Gives some quick insights on how to mix the mono (dialog) with the stereo (atmospheric) stuff? I know volumes can be written on this subject, but some broad brush stroke suggestions would be great...

Any other thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks
 
I'm trying to think if there is a mono mic I would recommend under $300...
I actually use a pair of Oktava mics but you can't even get that for under $300. There are the little overhead drum mics from CAD that are OK and go for something like $60/ pair. I have a sennheiser stereo mic but that was over your price point and a Sony that has a 1/8 connector.

What might be a better choice though is something like a DR40. You could feed a camera with the output but it's a great little SFX gatherer and it's in your price range.

As to mixing. Stereo in stereo, dialog centered. The levels depend on the situation.

And just incase you were thinking about mixing both into the camera, don't. Add the stereo stuff in post, keep the dialog as clean as possible.
 
My old first generation Zoom H2 could record four channels L/R, front and rear. The DR-40 can also record four channels, two from the on-board mics and two from the external inputs. Some of the old Audio Technica X/Y stereo mics were decent, but had low sensitivity and probably would not be much good for low SPL environments.
 
If you have a stereo recorder like the zoom it will record atmos in stereo, however expect to be underwhewlmed. You will get stereo but unless you want real reality, you could be better off doing what the broadcasters have always done. Fake it to make it sound like the reality we imagine.

If you have water running, we know the sound it makes in that pretty idyllic river. Trouble is real rivers don't actually make a noise, but vehicles annoying birds and aircraft do. So you take a sound effect of water which can be recorded by you and transplant it and enhance it. If you find some disturbed water and record it in close, twice, then you can pan one hard left and the other hard right and then just blend them slightly to produce a wonderful sound that is instantly river, but never existed in real life. Adding birds, and those chirpy insects and it comes alive but is a cheat. Wild tracks in real stereo are useful as a basis to built on. Do not record on the camera though because when the camera pans so does the soundscape which is very strange, especially in headphones. Coping with moving background makes editing a nightmare. That nightingale in the tree suddenly jumps position when you edit. Tiny but it annoys your brain. A zoom stereo on a stand does a decent job, but don't expect it to sound good without you and a six library enhancing it.

When I worked as a lowly sound assistant on a UK internationally known nature series, my job was to create the sound of eagles taking off. The video sot at adistance was silent. It was done with a pair of leather, old fashioned huge motorcycle gloves. These flapped together, made what we knew was eagle wings. Bowls of water splashed with the hands made the noise of them grabbing a fish, and crunching egg shells made the crunchy noise of them eating creatures. Nothing remotely real. Nature outside needs recreating rather than rcording acutely. If you want that owl to make people look left and the horse snorting to make them look for it right, you need to add them to a gentle but uneventful background which is what your stereo mic will record.
 
O' wait there is a name for that...
.
now what was it?...
.
.
Sound post.


It's also how every narrative film with a budget you have ever seen is made.
 
Thanks, Paul. Some great tips. In fact, I have no problem augmenting "reality" or breaking the fourth wall (of sound). Baudrillard and his theories on simulation are the starting point for this project... In any case the location recording will be the starting point or reference to build upon. I think re-reading Walter Murch may be helpful, too...
 
scorsesefan said:
I think re-reading Walter Murch may be helpful...
Click to expand...

You might like The Responsive Chord by Tony Schwartz. Fascinating book by an interesting guy.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1115397.The_Responsive_Chord

Also, depending on what you're doing and for how many days you'll be filming, maybe consider renting a Mid-Side mic (or Ambient Emmesser for your directional mic), or perhaps even renting some sort of ambisonic mic. Maybe Gotham Sound can help? https://www.gothamsound.com/rental

Also also, if you haven't google up some nature sound blogs and forums. Gosh; I haven't hung in that world in a long time so I'm not sure where to point you. Some really thoughtful people are making great recordings with all sorts of inexpensive to superexpensive equipment.
 
Nature sound society is one of the big nature recording groups. There are lots of specific places to find stuff. Princeton (I think) has a lot of bird recordings and you can ask here or on the DUC (post sound section) for specifics you might want. I have thousands of hours of SFX recordings for instance. It's always helpful if you have stuff to trade but I have had really good luck finding hard to get sounds just by asking. The advantage over say poking around on sound cloud is that the quality of recordings are generally going to be higher because of who's making the recordings. SC has some gems but there are also a bunch of klunkers.

A plus you have is that NYC recordings are always in demand. I was twice flown in for a week just to walk around recording the town.

Some of what Paul was talking about was actually Foley. There are nature sounds that are near impossible to actually record or don't sound like what you think they do. The river is a pretty good example. Rivers do make sounds, they just don't generally make the sounds the audience expects them to be making. Kind of like wind. Wind is silent, it's wind passing over and through stuff that makes sound. So when going out to record wind you really need to know what kind of "wind" sounds you are looking for and then find structures that will produce them.

Wing flaps and some shy animal sounds are also almost impossible to capture in nature. You can get a bird taking off, if your lucky, but that shot of them flying... Shy animals just shut up if you are close enough to get a decent recording. Even silly things like frogs and cicada's will shut up if they sense danger. I was in a place that had fantastic frogs and in setting up I made too much noise and they all went silent. I tried waiting them out but gave up after 40 min. After I was all packed away they started again...
 
"Anyone have any experience with Rode SVM Pro?"
- I have no experience with Rode mics but the SVM is an unbalanced mic, plus the sensitivity specs (12mV) are kind of low for most low SPL nature recording... especially with inherently noisy unbalanced gear.
 
Yes, I have bush on my block that's usually completely filled with chirping birds... That is until you approach the bush and they go almoat completely silent...
 
I think it important not to over think recording soundscapes. I quite clearly remember sticking one SM57 out in the garden and turning up the gain on a Ferrograph reel to reel, using unbalanced jacks and being amazed at what the world really sounded like. The only thing I really hate is stereo mics on a moving camera. Try it and with ear bud type in ear monitoring the result can be worthy of a Hitchcock movie. In fact the worst result is where the camera moves at one speed, but the audio moves at a different one. This can be quite horrible, yet people you show it to just can't put their finger on what is wrong. Worst case is theatrical sound effects that they try to place with the pain loudspeaker systems. Location precision never really works - but hiding just a few real speakers on a set does!
 
Jim Feeley said:
SK, instead of Princeton, are you maybe thinking of the (really fantastic) Cornell Lab of Ornithology? They're pretty good about giving away information, IIRC. For example:
https://www.macaulaylibrary.org/how-to/recording-techniques/

YEARS, nay decades ago, I was involved in nature (and sfx) recording. But that was in the tape days. Kinda miss that work...
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry about the mistake it's been years since we got sounds from them.
 
Worst case is theatrical sound effects that they try to place with the pain loudspeaker systems. Location precision never really works - but hiding just a few real speakers on a set does!
Click to expand...

Very true. Wind and ambience can work but any sound that should come from stage level sucks big time.
 
Back in the 90s, I used a (now discontinued) AT-825 a few times and it sounded decent, but the sound source was modality high SPL. I'm sure the AT-2022 is decent as well. According to the AT specs, the AT2022 has a 8mV sensitivity, twice the output of the AT-825.. but still too low for recording pro quality nature sounds IMO.
It is unbalanced however so recording to two XLR mic inputs and would require a custom built unbalanced 'Y' type cable. A single standard 3 pin XLR cable could possibly be used for mono recording, but phase would be an issue, and at best, would produce comb filtering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top