Why my sound is flat?

samhendi

samhendi

Member
Hi, im in need of some help with sound... and understanding what i could do to fix my problems...

I have an example here of a piece of work of mine which you can hear the sound problems i have:

Trunk

For some reason i have noticed that when i make a film, my sound is quite flat.

I am wondering whether this depends on the mic or my camera? I use my camera mic (Sony HVR-V1E) on a boom shock pole and even though i use the mic close to my actors, it still doesnt have depth and the sound comes out quite flat.

Could anybody tell me if the problem is with recording through the camera? Maybe i could connect the mic i have to some sort of mixer that could help?

Thanks
 
Without even listening to the clip, I would say your problem is related to your microphone. Most microphones that come with cameras are not of sufficient quality to capture anything other than home movies (I'm including both internal and external mics that come with cameras in this assessment). You're going to want to upgrade your microphone in order to improve your audio quality.

Check the stickies at the top for some low budget starter mics that will give you tremendous improvement over the mic you have now.

Phil
 
You're going to want to upgrade your microphone in order to improve your audio quality.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. So i will have to buy a new mic.

Ive looked into these mics. Could you tell me which one would be better?

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/pro...om&utm_medium=comparison&utm_campaign=1020160

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rode-NTG1-sho...14&_trkparms=72:1301|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318

So if i connected one of these mics into the xlr cable and replaced my old mic and connected this to my camera, i would get much more depth in the sound? and better quality?

Thanks
 
Well, it also depends on how well you handle the mic, but yes, I think either of those mics would work well to give you the next level of improvement. As you move up the chain to better audio, the cost of the microphones also goes up. The industry "standard" is the Sennheiser 416, which goes for about US$1200 - used for about $450.

As to which of the Rode's to get, it depends on whether your camera can provide phantom power. The primary difference between those two models is that one has a battery option (the -2) and the other does not, so it requires phantom power from the camera or another device, such as a mixer.

Phil
 
In addition to a better mic you could try boosting the 2.5k and or 6.5k range by a couple dbs to bring up the "presence" and sibilance. Listen and trust your ears.

Off topic but imho , I feel your ambient fx (crickets) are awfully loud in the mix at points.
 
MontrealAudio said:
In addition to a better mic you could try boosting the 2.5k and or 6.5k range by a couple dbs to bring up the "presence" and sibilance. Listen and trust your ears.

Off topic but imho , I feel your ambient fx (crickets) are awfully loud in the mix at points.
Click to expand...

YouTube compression notwithstanding? I'd say that's what killed the dynamic range right there.

But yeah... EQ can fix some but not all audio problems. There's a law of diminishing returns here, and the audio signal chain can be only as good as, and no better than, the mic that feeds it. Every circuit that passes the signal (pre-amp, mixer, etc.) adds it's own small bit of color (ideally, as little as possible), and potentially noise if the circuits are cheap. But if the mic isn't good on the front end, nothing downstream can fix that.
 
Thanks for the help guys. I really appreciate it.

So if i went with the Rode NTG2 mic, will i get impressive results?

The price seems quite good and im just wondering if there will be a big quality difference from my camera mic to the Rode NTG2?

Also, would i be able to use this with the Rode NTG2 mic:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Shotgun-Micro...hash=item350123316047&_trksid=p3286.m63.l1177

I purchased this boom pole last month and its quite pleasing.

YouTube compression notwithstanding? I'd say that's what killed the dynamic range right there.
Click to expand...

I think your right, when i play the original file the sound level seems to be fine but i think the youtube compression makes the FX louder than it actually is.
 
samhendi said:
Thanks for the help guys. I really appreciate it.

So if i went with the Rode NTG2 mic, will i get impressive results?

The price seems quite good and im just wondering if there will be a big quality difference from my camera mic to the Rode NTG2?
Click to expand...

Well, "impressive" is subjective to a point. But yes, the NTG-2 will work well for you. The catch is you need to study shotguns and off-axis rejection, and learn how to use the shotgun properly for best results.

The factory-issue mic for most cameras is pure trash. Even the Panasonic-made mic for the DVX is not really that good. It's one of those "last resort" things for run-and-gun, mostly for news, where you have to shoot b-roll and want to make sure that you record something of the audio. But it is not meant to be, nor would I recommend it to be, used as a pole-mounted dialog mic. The NTG-2 is miles above what you're using now.

samhendi said:
Also, would i be able to use this with the Rode NTG2 mic:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Shotgun-Micro...hash=item350123316047&_trksid=p3286.m63.l1177

I purchased this boom pole last month and its quite pleasing.
Click to expand...

I don't recommend that "boom pole" at all. It's nothing but a stage-model mic stand with the cast-iron base removed. That handy articulated arm is going to be a source of frustration after a while... yeah, you can tighten the tension there, but it loosens and is very noisy when it does.

You'd be much better off with an aluminum fishpole from K-Tek or Lightwave. They start under $150.
 
Well, "impressive" is subjective to a point. But yes, the NTG-2 will work well for you. The catch is you need to study shotguns and off-axis rejection, and learn how to use the shotgun properly for best results.
Click to expand...

Do you know any specific sites that could help? I think i am going to purchase the NTG-2 this weekend :) ...

Thanks so much for the help...
 
OK so I'm going to take a different track here. Your bigest problem is lack of audio post. The BIG score sound is all over the place but the core of the FX are either missing or just sort of slathered on and you didn't do a real dialog edit. Judging by the noise you probably should upgrade the mic but that isn't going to transform the mix. First you need to do a real dialog edit. The BG should not jump around shot to shot. Get some noise reduction on the tracks and smooth it out, crossfade across cuts etc. This is a lot easier for someone set up to do sound but you can get by in most NLE's. If your on FCP I would do a "send to" STP if your doing it yourself. Second cover the visible FX. Mute all the music and score and go through the film and if you see something that makes sound make sure it has sound. You are missing footsteps and int. door opens, general movement, it's a very empty FX track. Third the Crix you are using now could work but they are way too hot everywhere. I know your using them to smooth out some of the dialog issues but you will have fixed that mostly in #1. Personally I would like a bit more variety, also you can use them to build tension if they aren't so high. If they were not so hot you could ease them out just before the big surprise ending and give yourself a bit more punch. Fourth, too much "score". This isn't "Aliens 25". It would kind of work if you were doing a comedy but it SO over the top all the time. Do some picking and choosing, the score should not overpower the actual film. And lastly you need to mix it all. I know that sounds simple but actually it's hard and needs to be very thought out. You need to go moment to moment and pick what you want the audience to hear, and loose the rest. If there is BIG score at one point the BG's and FX need to take a back seat. You have so much dialog that you can't really go huge on the score too often or you will be fighting the dialog. The shifting of focus in the sound track is what will give you the depth that your talking about. But you can't really do that until you have the basics in place so you can move there. You could lighten the load by basically spotting through the film and pre pick where your going to be score and where FX will dominate. Then you don't need to do much coverage on the BIG score moments. But having the whole film be a BIG score moment gives you a very un dynamic track. And it's not that the score isn't dynamic enough, I would use a lot less but that's me, it's that while we all call it score that is really short for underscore. As mixed you have more of an overscore. You need to let the actors have the stage and not have them stepped on by the score.

Otherwise well done. It kept me interested. I pretty much figured the ending but it was still interesting to see how you got there. The edit has a pretty good pace, not too fast and not too slow. You just need a sound polish and I think you will be very surprised by the improvement.
 
In addition to what Noiz2 said, I think you need to watch your levels better when you are recording. It seems like you were recording too hot! Every time they raised their voice you could hear distortion... No matter how good your mic is, if you don't have a proper level setting your sound will be damaged. If it's a scene where the actors are whispering and all of a sudden they are screaming, you can try setting one channel higher than the other if you are only using one mic.
 
Sam,

Flat? What's that mean?

Can you be more specific?

Regards,

Ty Ford
 
Last edited:
To my ear, yes, the sound has a different presence than most flicks --- a sound that I can only describe as . . . well, it's as if you recorded the whole thing inside a car. Oh, wait --- nevermind.

Seriously, though, I doubt simply upgrading your microphone will address whatever it is you are hearing (or not hearing). I think the best post here so far is #11, by Noiz2. So I'll just add my two cents:

In my experience, one of the best changes that happens to my audio is when I apply compression to it. In Final Cut Pro, I drag the Compressor filter to the track. In its settings, I set the ratio to 2, maybe sometimes 3 (higher number, less compression). I set the threshold (the lowest level for the compression to kick in) to around -20 dB.

It's akin to what your video camera does --- and what movie film does even better --- to the picture. In real life, the brightness of a scene varies by 10,000:1. Film, and the rest of the image-making pipeline, all the way to your TV screen --- compresses that to more like 100:1. (TVs claim a contrast ratio of like 100,000:1, but that is by weird tests. Google it.) You want it to be less than real life, because, what if they pointed the camera at the sun? Do you want your TV to shine in your eyes as bright as the sun? And then when they cut to a night scene, do you really want it to be as dark as it really is at night, so that it takes your eyes 10 minutes to adjust to the dark? No.

The same with audio. Except you have to do it yourself because, if left to themselves, the contrast ratio of the sound levels are naturally preserved by the microphone and speakers more than the image is by the camera and TV.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTEOK so I'm going to take a different track here... ][/QUOTE]

Thanks Noiz2, that really helped me for my future works, ill be sure to take a note of the stuff you said.

As for my mic, im going to be purchasing the Rode NTG2 next week.

If it's a scene where the actors are whispering and all of a sudden they are screaming, you can try setting one channel higher than the other if you are only using one mic.
Click to expand...

Would i need two mics for that??

Flat? What's that mean?

Can you be more specific?
Click to expand...

tyreeford, by saying flat i mean there is no depth or bass in the sound or the sound has no sort of 3D to it.
 
I second noise2´s comment. Its more an audio postpro issue than the microphone alone. A well not overcompressed mix would still sound better on youtube. somewhere along the line overcompression of the final track must have happened before it went into youtubes;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top