Will a "safety" dialogue track via XLR cable splitter degrade audio quality?

[Ariaelf]

Will a "safety" dialogue track via XLR cable splitter degrade audio quality?

Hello everyone,

I've been reading the forum a long time, and it's great to finally make my first post!

Here's my situation: I'm a film maker creating a 'no-budget' indie feature in Grays Harbor, WA for under 10k. It's an all-volunteer production with local community support, but since there are no film gear rental houses within several hours drive, and very few people with relevant experience, I'm planning out how we will capture clean on-location sound (to avoid ADR at all costs!) myself.

Our budget is mostly going towards purchasing the necessary equipment for the film.

We'll need to capture the actors dialogue both indoors and outdoors, and there is a fair amount of wind out here near the ocean. Here is the plan so far:

Tascam 680 recorder, two Rode NTG-3 shotgun microphones for exteriors with windcutters (a boom mic for each actor in a scene) and two Sennheiser G3 wireless systems with Rode lavalieres stitched into the costumes to capture a usable "back-up" audio track at all times just in case. I hope we don't have to go as far as expensive full blimp systems for the mics, won't know for sure without doing some tests.

On interiors, we'll either continue to use the shotguns being careful with placement in case of echoes, treat the location for echoes, or switch to a pair of AKG C 391 B cardioid microphones which I was able to borrow, but I notice that while they sound good, have a flat response curve and are very sensitive, the handling noise is crazy! The second you even lightly touch the mic cable on these microphones you hear it picked up on the track, so I'd rather avoid them if possible.

HERE'S MY QUESTION: There was a neat "audio trick" I read about in the forums here, and I'd like to clarify. The suggestion, from what I remember, was to use an XLR cable splitter in order to turn each actors dialogue/mic track into two inputs on the recorder, to have one be the main track, and one the "safety track" set at 6db or 10db lower. I was excited about this idea, until a friend pointed out that splitting the signal with a simple cable splitter would unfortunately degrade the quality of the audio.

Is it true a splitter cable will degrade the audio quality? Is there another way to do the same thing without degrading the audio quality?

Also if anyone has further suggestions given our audio set up for how to avoid potential problems or improve the 'sound department', I'm all ears and welcome your experience and feedback.

Thank-you,

~Aria

 

[Alex H.]

Welcome, Aria!

I'm assuming you've been through all the yellow stickies by now, and it looks like you've already put a bit of time into researching your audio setup.

The splitter can cause more problems than it can fix. That said, the safety track is a great idea, but is usually accomplished through use of a mixer with rotary pan control and more flexible signal routing. For a multi-mic setup like you're considering, as long as there is someone dedicated to the sound at all times who can control levels during production, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Do you find having two boomed mics running in tandem to be necessary for your production? And do you have two boom ops to run them? Unless you have actors sharing 2-shots at a fair distance apart, a single boom should suffice if your boom op is doing his/her job. Even at that, you have wireless kits in your plan so there is redundancy if you need it there. Most of your wides can probably be handled by a single boom, and all of the close-ups will get dialog focused only on the single actor. Much of what is recorded from alternate takes can be used to "reconstruct" dialog in the edit for wide shots, especially if the actors are consistent in delivery or if one has his/her back to the camera or is otherwise situated so that mouth movement isn't dreadfully obvious. The money you save on buying two of each mic can be used to invest in better suspension mounts and wind protection.

As for your handling noise on the AKG mics, proper suspension and decoupling are in order. Of course, considering the paragraph above regarding two of each mic, you may find some wiggle room to get a better hypercardioid. Either way, the Rycote INV-6 lyre suspension is a great device for your hypercardioid. To decouple the mic, get a shortie cable (6") and connect it to the mic, securing it in the clip at the base of the suspension mount. Then run a longer cable from there down the pole to your mixer/recorder. That should eliminate the majority of handling noise, but it's always a good idea to learn how to handle a boom without creating much extra.

 

[Ariaelf]

Hi Alex!

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Good to be here

Yes, I have read all the stickies, but as I'm new to learning the finer points of audio, it's still quite a learning curve.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "mixer with rotary pan control and flexible signal routing." Is that something the Tascam 680 can do? If not, what are my options for splitting a track in two in order to have a quieter backup?

Yes, I do find that a boom mic per actor is necessary. In my work I encourage improvisation and natural-sounding dialogue, which can have a lot of interruptions, just like real life conversations. In the past when only one boom mic was used, even with an experienced operator, it was impossible to get equal levels on both actors at once when they were moving around, and a nightmare when they started interrupting each other off script and the operator didn't know who's mouth to point the mic at. So now I feel just having a dedicated microphone per actor solves those problems for both the operator, and the quality of the sound, and gives us something to cut with since you never get the exact same delivery of an improvised line or scene twice.

There will be someone dedicated to the sound, but only one of the boom ops will be wearing the recorder and have the ability to adjust levels. Plus keep in mind, it's a lot to expect of volunteers to get those levels right on both mics all the time, and again with improv, you never know when someone is going to suddenly shout or whatever. Having a second duplicate track set to 10db lower would be a great help and peace of mind for me.

Since the cost of two good shotgun mics and a quality recorder is significant, we're aiming to save on boom poles and shock mounts by making/modifying our own. I know there are a wide variety of "DIY" options for these relatively low-tech components, and of course we'll test them out to see how the home made versions perform before "going live". With such a tiny budget we have to cut back somewhere, and I definitely can't make a Tascam 680 or Rode NTG-3 in my garage... ;D

It would be great to be able to buy only one of each microphone, but between the improv style and continuity nightmares (been through all this before!) the higher cost of multiple microphones and multiple camera angles at once on the same scene really pays off once you're in the editing room, especially with actors who have no film experience, only theater experience (and therefore are completely unfamiliar with things like hitting your marks, continuity, eyelines, etc.) My aim is to make it as easy and natural for them as possible to get the best performance, instead of expecting them to learn all these new skills for the first time on my set.

The AKG's are cardioids, not hyper-cardioids. Unfortunately I don't have access to hyper-cardioids for the indoor scenes. Could you explain how getting a shortie cable connected to a longer cable helps "decouple" the mic? Why not just have a full length cable all the way, if it's connected in any case? The Rycote INV-6 looks great, too bad it's over $60 :/

Any suggestions on how to handle the boom without creating handling noise? I was thinking of giving the operators fuzzy gloves and telling them not to move their hands on the pole once recording if at all possible. Any other tips to pass on?

Thanks again,

~Aria

 

[Alex H.]

Decoupling with the shortie cable puts a break point in the run of the cable, effectively helping to keep handling noise from traveling all the way up a single cable to the mic.

Regarding rotary pan control: pan is what controls an input's signal moving out to left or right of the main stereo mix. Some mixers have hard-switched L-C-R (left, center, right) pan control. Other mixers have a rotary pot that allows finite adjustment to any point between hard left and hard right. By connecting a mic to a mixer, and the mixer's two outputs to two record channels, and then setting the mic's pan control to about 9:00, more signal is output to one channel than to the other. This is not something the DR-680 can do.

How is your second boom op going to monitor? It's a bad idea to boom without being able to hear the results. For that, you'll want your second boom op to have a pre-amp that allows monitoring, like the Sound Devices MM-1. That'll send a line-level signal to the recorder, which can also be helpful as it means you won't need the recorder's pre-amp and you won't need the recorder to supply phantom power, which means longer battery life. Also, splitting a balanced line-level signal is a lot less risky than trying to split a mic. And for best results, you'd have three on your sound crew: two boom ops and a mixer. Give each boom op an MM-1 and a pair of headphones, and let your mixer focus on operating the recorder and worrying about the wireless systems.

 

[Richard Crowley]

I would be far more concerned about using an NTG3 outdoors in the wind without a proper blimp and furry cover.
And about bending over backwards to make it easy on the amateur talent at the expense of expecting almost impossible results from amateur crew.
You didn't mention what booms you are using. Some are more tolerant of handling noise than others.
And there may be tricks you can do with gaff tape to make them somewhat quieter (like de-coupling the cable, preventing cable-slap, etc.)
Using an XLR Y- adapter to feed two channels seems insignificant by comparison. Good luck.

 

[Ariaelf]

I would be far more concerned about using an NTG3 outdoors in the wind without a proper blimp and furry cover.
And about bending over backwards to make it easy on the amateur talent at the expense of expecting almost impossible results from amateur crew.
You didn't mention what booms you are using. Some are more tolerant of handling noise than others.
And there may be tricks you can do with gaff tape to make them somewhat quieter (like de-coupling the cable, preventing cable-slap, etc.)
Using an XLR Y- adapter to feed two channels seems insignificant by comparison. Good luck.

Hi Richard,

A blimp system is not my first choice due to cost, but we will try Stormchaser WindCutters first to see what the results will be. I have listened to demos of the system on youtube from customers and was really impressed. They are rated for up to 25mph wind, so hopefully we'll be okay with that, and I plan to test them out before shooting of course. Wind will not be ruining our audio.

http://thewindcutter.com/shop/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=6

Could you please clarify what results you think would be "almost impossible" to get from an amateur crew? One boom operator per actor will go through a sound check, set the proper levels, then point the mic down at a 45 degree angle toward the actors mouth during the scene, while avoiding dropping the boom into frame or creating handling noise on the pole/cable. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem an impossible task for motivated volunteers to learn how to do this.

I did mention that we will be going with DIY booms due to budget reasons. Better to save money on what is essentially a pole, than cut costs on the high tech microphone.

The liberal use of gaff tape has certainly crossed my mind, yes

The XLR splitter/Y adapter question did not seem insignificant to several friends who are into audio (they don't live in the area to give a helping hand, but they've made suggestions) when they warned me I could ruin/weaken my microphone signal by doing something like that, and that essentially the high bit rate of the recorder and high quality of the NTG-3 would be pointless if I tried to split up the signal in an analog way. The only reason I had the idea was from reading about it in these forums, so now I am completely confused. The reason I am really concerned about this is a back-up track recorded at a lower db is another measure of safety against on-location mistakes with levels, and I need some sound technical advice on this idea from those who've either done it, or can explain to me why/why not to do it, or how it should be done.

Thank-you,

~Aria

 

[Ariaelf]

Decoupling with the shortie cable puts a break point in the run of the cable, effectively helping to keep handling noise from traveling all the way up a single cable to the mic.

Okay, I will take your word for it and get some shortie cables. It seems like the vibration would just travel right through the point of connection between the shortie cable and the long cable, but maybe not so easily! In any event, they are inexpensive, so I will give it a shot.

Regarding rotary pan control: pan is what controls an input's signal moving out to left or right of the main stereo mix. Some mixers have hard-switched L-C-R (left, center, right) pan control. Other mixers have a rotary pot that allows finite adjustment to any point between hard left and hard right. By connecting a mic to a mixer, and the mixer's two outputs to two record channels, and then setting the mic's pan control to about 9:00, more signal is output to one channel than to the other. This is not something the DR-680 can do.

I see. But why would I need this rotary pan control if I am recording two actors dialogue tracks individually, with individually set levels on the 680? I don't want these two tracks mixed together during production with or without pan, I want to be able to control and adjust these actors tracks individually in post. Isn't that kinda the point of isolating dialogue from background sounds in the first place?

How is your second boom op going to monitor? It's a bad idea to boom without being able to hear the results. For that, you'll want your second boom op to have a pre-amp that allows monitoring, like the Sound Devices MM-1. That'll send a line-level signal to the recorder, which can also be helpful as it means you won't need the recorder's pre-amp and you won't need the recorder to supply phantom power, which means longer battery life. Also, splitting a balanced line-level signal is a lot less risky than trying to split a mic. And for best results, you'd have three on your sound crew: two boom ops and a mixer. Give each boom op an MM-1 and a pair of headphones, and let your mixer focus on operating the recorder and worrying about the wireless systems.

Well the Tascam 680 was specifically chosen in part because of it's relatively high end pre amps, and ability to supply phantom power and record as many tracks as it does. Otherwise I'd just grab a Zoom H4n like everyone else in no-budget indie... The battery life is not an issue for 85% of our shoot which will be indoors and the Tascam can easily be powered by being plugged into the power in the wall. For days when we shoot outdoors with dialogue, I know I'll need plenty of AA batteries, but I'm stocking up. Buying a $500 pre-amp when the Tascam has great pre-amps already for the sake of monitoring for the second boom operator seems like a waste of money when there should be a way to plug in a second pair of headphones (with an extension cable perhaps) into the 680. I guess I won't know for sure about that until I get my hands on it!

It's not unusual for sound guys to boom and handle the levels on the recorder at the same time (while it's strapped on their body), from what I've seen on other productions I've worked on, or in-the-field style reality-tv/reporting work. But then, I haven't been on any big union gigs, so maybe we're working too hard up here

Thanks again,

~Aria

 

[Steve House]

Okay, I will take your word for it and get some shortie cables. It seems like the vibration would just travel right through the point of connection between the shortie cable and the long cable, but maybe not so easily! In any event, they are inexpensive, so I will give it a shot.

...

~Aria

The proper 'shorty cable' is made from cable that is much more flexible than regular mic cable and thus does not transmit vibration as well. The connector between it and the regular mic cable is clamped to the shockmount where it attaches to the boom so the shorty cable is slack, damping any vibration coming up the cable and keeping it from reaching the mic itself.

 

[Richard Crowley]

Could you please clarify what results you think would be "almost impossible" to get from an amateur crew?

The combination of:

1) Unscripted (=unpredictable)
2) Amateur talent (what do they understand about projection, the limitations of the gear, how well will they be directed?)
3) Unskilled boom operator
4) No headphone monitor for boom operator

just gives me a bad premonition

 

[Noiz2]

Two technical point you need to keep in mind. The splitter is problematic because your mic needs phantom power and you don't want to run two phantom powers together. So the splitter would need one side to have an isolation transformer to block the phantom.

The second is that it's hard to adjust levels and boom at the same time. This get worsened with the 680 since you don't have individual controls. So your boom op/ mixer will have to boom with one hand while going through menu's and adjustments with the other AND watching the screen so they know where they are.

I'm with the others in the eliminate one of the booms. Use your two sound people as a mixer and a boom op. There is really no reason for two booms except as a way to avoid planning your shots. And not planning the shots has a LOT more pitfalls that having to use two booms. With a boom and two wireless you really want someone who can pay attention to what is happening to those signals and not trying to balance that with booming. Also with the money you save you can get a used MixPre and have a life saving limiter that will be a better safety than an extra track, and you can use the MixPre to split the boom track so you can do both.

A boom pole is basically just a "pole", BUT a good one is a flexible quiet and light "pole". I have made them and it is a way to save some $ but it's not as good as the real deal so figure the boom op is going to have to work harder and you may have to do a bunch of experimenting to get it to work decently. The only things I have found that work decently and are fairly long are aluminum painters poles. But they are not very adjustable and they tend to have rattles etc. so lots of tape and they still weigh twice what a nice carbon fiber pole does, so short takes!

You might also look at OscarTech mics instead of the Rode lavs. They get good reviews and are about 1/2 the price.

The part about using the "pan" on a mixer is a way to split the signal in two. You are not recording them panned for placement but so that there are two different levels. Panned center both channels get the same signal, pan to one side and the two channels signals get farther apart. So it's a way to split the signal.

 

[Richard Crowley]

If both of the inputs are the same device (vs. running the "safety" to a different recorder) then having both phantom powers enabled is not really a problem since they will be virtually identical. And phantom power does not "add", the only result will be that more current will be available to the microphone. But the mic will draw only what it needs to operate, so even that is of almost no consequence.

Now, the inability to easily control the independent levels, however, is the "show stopper" IMHO.

+1 on the Oscar Sound Tech mics. Great performance and value.

 

[Noiz2]

In theory I agree with you on the Phantom power. But in practice there are a number of things that could go wrong, especially in amateur hands. Mis wiring or a short could blow the phantom circuit, different lengths of cable on the two legs could get a loop going. You are also essentially creating a ground loop intentionally. It could be fine but there are a number of ways it could go wrong. You are right you are not going to get excessive voltage. And probably they are all getting powered off of one voltage regulator so you are probably not going to be able to back feed the regulator. But I wouldn't put money on it with out going through the schematics.

I might try it but I wouldn't recommend it to inexperienced people because I just think there are too many ways it could go wrong. Now maybe Tascam has lots of circuit protecting built in or maybe not? And if it does create a problem who is going to trouble shoot it?

Maybe I'm just paranoid from getting too many tracks from folks who did some "neat trick" they read about on lie and ended up with serious problems that they expected to "fix in the mix".

As a point of reference for the OP. I don't do a huge amount of production work but when I do I bring lots of spares and duplicates, a big bag of adapters, and iso transformers and a small toolkit with lots of different screwdrivers and a butane soldering iron, meter, wire cutters, plyers etc. I won't always bring all the adapters if I'm all in my own gear but the point is I can rewire and check cables and devices and such in the field and have had to over the years. With inexperienced volunteers you kind of have to make it bullet proof or you are asking for problems. So if you want to try out the Y cable do it well before shoot day so you can deal with anything that needs dealing with.

 

[Rick R]

Like most budget recorders, the 680 has an anemic HP amp and would likely not power two sets of HPs to a an adequate/clean level. A HP splitter cable with two external HP amps should work though. (or a costly IFB system)
BTW, the 680 eats batteries (eight AAs at a time... even faster discharge w/Phantom powered mics), so have plenty of batteries on hand and count on frequent (low battery) shut-downs (which includes current file loss) and other recorder related delays, I would also suggest running it on A/C.. or external 12V battery power... which can be costly. Further, the 680 has a relatively complex menu system and other 'quirks' so putting one in inexperienced hands is asking for trouble.
With inexperienced folk running sound boom op(s) included.. don't expect much. Hiring a pro may save money in the long-run if good quality audio is anticipated. Attempting to salvage poorly recorded audio or resorting to ADR can be very expensive.
FWIW, I would not call the 680's preamps "high end".. decent at best.

 

[Ariaelf]

The proper 'shorty cable' is made from cable that is much more flexible than regular mic cable and thus does not transmit vibration as well. The connector between it and the regular mic cable is clamped to the shockmount where it attaches to the boom so the shorty cable is slack, damping any vibration coming up the cable and keeping it from reaching the mic itself.

That sounds great. Thanks Steve, I will order a pair

 

[Ariaelf]

The combination of:

1) Unscripted (=unpredictable)
2) Amateur talent (what do they understand about projection, the limitations of the gear, how well will they be directed?)
3) Unskilled boom operator
4) No headphone monitor for boom operator

just gives me a bad premonition

Maybe it wasn't clear in my first post, so let me clear up a few things. Going through the points...

1. The film is not "unscripted." Everything is scripted. However, when directing I prefer to have several takes exactly as written, and then give the actors "room to play" and improvise. I find that most often when they are able to improvise, the most natural dialogue and emotional response happens, because they are taking ownership of the words. Then in the editing room, any combination between the "scripted" version and the "improvised" version can be used to create the final scene, which gives a wonderful flexibility and a breath of fresh air into the film. Audiences respond much more to dialogue/interaction that seems fresh and real, because it was actually captured live in the moment. Even a few exchanges of that nature, can really elevate a scene.

2. The talent are not "amateurs". They are gifted theater actors with decades of experience in the theater, but have no previous film experience because it's a small town and films are not shot here. They have no issue with being directed whatsoever, but I know trying to keep continuity straight (such as what position your arm was in the last time you said that line, or how your chair was turned to your body, etc) is not going to be natural to them, and it's far better for the sake of the performance (which is what really matters) that the production set up facilitate their performance, and not the other way around.

Theater actors are the last people in the world to have projection problems, if anything I will spend the whole shoot trying to get them to tone it down and be quieter. And the limitations of the gear should never be the concern of the actors... it's the boom operators job to get that mic within 24" of their mouth and pointed in the right direction.

3. Operating a boom is not a terribly difficult skill to learn. There are only a few basic principles to keep in mind, and the volunteers will be learning them ahead of time, not the day of the shoot.

4. Again, not sure where the idea there would be no headphones for the boom operator came from. Both boom operators will of course have headphones. Even if they can't change the levels themselves, they can raise a hand to indicate a problem.

 

[Ariaelf]

Two technical point you need to keep in mind. The splitter is problematic because your mic needs phantom power and you don't want to run two phantom powers together. So the splitter would need one side to have an isolation transformer to block the phantom.

Thanks SK, that's very helpful. So if I get a couple of isolation transformers to block the second phantom power, and set up the splitter, what will be the state of the signal? Will the quality be degraded?

The second is that it's hard to adjust levels and boom at the same time. This get worsened with the 680 since you don't have individual controls. So your boom op/ mixer will have to boom with one hand while going through menu's and adjustments with the other AND watching the screen so they know where they are.

I've given it some thought, and I agree it would be better to have one person always watching the levels, and the boom ops focusing strictly on where the boom is placed. Less room for mistakes. So I guess that means three people on the sound team.

I'm with the others in the eliminate one of the booms. Use your two sound people as a mixer and a boom op. There is really no reason for two booms except as a way to avoid planning your shots. And not planning the shots has a LOT more pitfalls that having to use two booms. With a boom and two wireless you really want someone who can pay attention to what is happening to those signals and not trying to balance that with booming. Also with the money you save you can get a used MixPre and have a life saving limiter that will be a better safety than an extra track, and you can use the MixPre to split the boom track so you can do both.

I have to respectfully disagree that the "only" reason for two booms is to "avoid planning your shots." First of all, I plan and storyboard every shot in the film personally, and have always done so. I'm not attempting to avoid planning. Try having two people in a passionate scene, like an argument, where the script requires them to interrupt each other constantly, or they are improvising dialogue with natural interruptions, and booming them with a single microphone. I've been through all that before. It will never work. A boom mic only works well when pointed at the mouth of an actor, and you can't point one microphone in two directions.

Unless the actors in the scene are within "kissing distance", or the shots in the film have only one person at a time in them while having a conversation, I wouldn't ever attempt a one-boom type of setup.

A boom pole is basically just a "pole", BUT a good one is a flexible quiet and light "pole". I have made them and it is a way to save some $ but it's not as good as the real deal so figure the boom op is going to have to work harder and you may have to do a bunch of experimenting to get it to work decently. The only things I have found that work decently and are fairly long are aluminum painters poles. But they are not very adjustable and they tend to have rattles etc. so lots of tape and they still weigh twice what a nice carbon fiber pole does, so short takes!

Adjustable aluminum painters poles adapted to be booms are exactly what I'm looking at.

"Nice carbon fiber poles" are nowhere near the ballpark of fitting into a film who's total budget is under $10,000

You might also look at OscarTech mics instead of the Rode lavs. They get good reviews and are about 1/2 the price.

Oh? Very interesting. I will definitely look into them. Watched many lav mic comparisons and haven't heard of this brand.

The part about using the "pan" on a mixer is a way to split the signal in two. You are not recording them panned for placement but so that there are two different levels. Panned center both channels get the same signal, pan to one side and the two channels signals get farther apart. So it's a way to split the signal.

Ah, now that makes sense. Well I imagine it's only available on mixers that cost upwards of 2k, right?

 

[Ariaelf]

If both of the inputs are the same device (vs. running the "safety" to a different recorder) then having both phantom powers enabled is not really a problem since they will be virtually identical. And phantom power does not "add", the only result will be that more current will be available to the microphone. But the mic will draw only what it needs to operate, so even that is of almost no consequence.

Now, the inability to easily control the independent levels, however, is the "show stopper" IMHO.

+1 on the Oscar Sound Tech mics. Great performance and value.

That's good to know about the phantom power points. Thank-you, very helpful.

I'll definitely be checking on those Oscar Sound mics. So you believe they equal the Rode lavs and are a step up from the ME2's that come with the Sennheiser kits??

It would be great to control levels without involving the menu, but there is simply no recorder that can do that in the under 1k price range as far as I know. Possibly not even under 2k. We set the levels with the actors before the scene begins, we keep an eye on them and monitor with headphones during the scene, and if there is a problem start over from that point. With split signals and a second track set to quieter levels, we should be safe in having something usable for the final cut.

It seems like a workable compromise for a no-budget film.

 

[Ariaelf]

Like most budget recorders, the 680 has an anemic HP amp and would likely not power two sets of HPs to a an adequate/clean level. A HP splitter cable with two external HP amps should work though. (or a costly IFB system)

I don't know what "HP" or "IFB system" stands for.

I hope you don't mind spelling things out since I'm not an "audio guy". I appreciate everyone's feedback and advice, but I need to understand what you are talking about

BTW, the 680 eats batteries (eight AAs at a time... even faster discharge w/Phantom powered mics), so have plenty of batteries on hand and count on frequent (low battery) shut-downs (which includes current file loss) and other recorder related delays, I would also suggest running it on A/C.. or external 12V battery power... which can be costly. Further, the 680 has a relatively complex menu system and other 'quirks' so putting one in inexperienced hands is asking for trouble.

Well as I said in a previous post, 85% of the time we will be indoors running the 680 off power in the wall, so the battery thing is not an issue. When we go outside, I will have a stockpile of AA's and a battery tester to make sure they are good to go.

However the menu works, it's still the best field recorder in it's price range and well recommended, so we'll learn and adapt (before the shoot starts).

With inexperienced folk running sound boom op(s) included.. don't expect much. Hiring a pro may save money in the long-run if good quality audio is anticipated. Attempting to salvage poorly recorded audio or resorting to ADR can be very expensive.

It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine as a no-budget film maker, to see people in my situation asking questions online of those with more experience, and the answer basically amounts to "hire me!" Whether it's DP's, sound pros, make-up artists, whatever, "You should hire me!" is the answer to every question.

I get it. But don't you all realize... we would all love to hire one of you guys! It would be amazing to work with pros! But wanting doesn't make it possible, the world isn't perfect, money doesn't grow on trees, and in my particular situation we are shooting this feature film in a small ocean-side lumber town, over 2 hours away from the nearest major city where anyone with any real experience would be located, or film gear could be rented. If you know any "pros" who don't mind commuting 4 hours per day and working for free in WA state, please feel free to send them my way.

Back in the real world, we are doing the best we can with what we have, and are open to suggestions for how to do it better within the bounds of reason and budget.

There is no need to tell me how it can't be fixed in post or ADR is expensive, because I know this full well, and have been through it before. I am here trying to get all the good advice I can precisely because I want to avoid past mistakes.

FWIW, I would not call the 680's preamps "high end".. decent at best.

Well that's fine, but a lot of audio pros that I respect who have done reviews are really impressed with them, so I don't think it's an issue.

It reminds me of a joke I heard once... if camera guys were like sound guys, films would only be shot on Alexa's with 50k worth of glass on the front end.

 

[Rick R]

"Operating a boom is not a terribly difficult skill to learn."
> Thanks, that's good to know and will save me lots of money. Can you enlighten others by posting it over at the JW sound group forum, your wisdom would certainly be appreciated. http://jwsoundgroup.net )

 

[Richard Crowley]

HP = headphone. Marginal headphone amplifiers are common in that class of equipment. They have poor signal-to-noise ratio, and can barely manage to drive one set of headphones adequately.
IFB = "Interruptable Fold Back" which has come to be a generic name for the audio monitoring system used by the crew, typically wireless.

Not all of us are asking to be hired. But people who do this for a living tend to know what they are talking about and likely have rather a bit of experience coming in after the fact and "cleaning up" amateur jobs. I dare say that getting good audio is actually MORE DIFFICULT than shooting good video for amateurs.

Those "audio pros" probably had selected an excellent microphone from their ample locker, and had experienced people putting and keeping it in the right place. You might just be the exception who an pull off a good job under such conditions. Good luck.