If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Audio is giving me fits. Maybe this is a phase I'm going through, because at first it was figuring out all the buttons and whistles on the camera, then it was finding a way to edit my events, then it was burning the final product to a disk. Along the way, though, a nagging problem called Audio kept rearing it's ugly head.

As time went on, I gradually added tools to my audio toolbox in an attempt to deal with problems and each time thought "this will be it." Well, it wasn't. Now I'm heading off on another trek to "solve my audio problems."

Several places it has been quoted that "Two-thirds of good video is good audio," or words to that effect. So, then, why is it that on this video web site there is only one major section dealing with audio?

For what it's worth, this new trek I'm on is for more mics and audio equipment for my toolbox: maybe a lavalier (recently put on hold), a vocal mic (for music), a mic for instruments (piano and accordion), and an audio recorder (started out looking at a Zoom H4n but starting to zero in on the Tascam DR-40).

But it's the main question: Why is there only ONE major section for Audio???
(the others I'll deal as needed in separate posts or by doing more research here.)

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

I suspect that it's because although the 2/3 guide makes sense, audio is rarely given the same depth of study, skill development or practical comment.

Audio is frequently treated as less important by video people, who have produced a number of absolute rules that must never be broken. People have very strong feelings on makes and types of microphones, and equally strong opinion on what must never be used. There is an undercurrent of price = quality, change this at your peril. As a result, audio is rarely a flexible discussion on all video forums.

Oddly, the audio fraternity often have a video section where almost exactly the same thing happens in reverse - spending 90% of their effort on sound, and little on video.

The audio section of video forums rarely has well informed comments - because of the rules.

Certain makes of recorder are terrible. Shotguns must never be used indoors. Indoors needs hypercardioids. Much conversation about how to record from a mixing desk, that never takes into consideration the guy mixing is actually there to concentrate on the live sound, not the video. This seems to be the revolving topics on video forums - rarely anything much else.

How many video editors have sound studios? For most, sound is a single panel with a few faders on the screen. EQ and effects rarely get a mention. How many posts on audio fader automation do we see? None! No questions on anything other than capture in the main. Advice to record the best sound you can, use esoteric/expensive preamps, but no advice on mixing, compression or level matching, let alone sound sweetening. I guess that's why the sound forums are thin!

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

The basics of getting good sound are simpler than getting good video. Use an appropriate microphone and get it close enough to work properly. Then record the audio on something halfway-decent (which includes NO DSLRs and excludes most low-end video camcorders, as well.)

One problem is that there are many lighting and lens and camera and post tricks one can use in video to "bend" the rules. But there are few equivalent short-cuts in audio. The basic laws of acoustic physics continue to apply as they have for millennia. There are NO long or "zoom" microphones as there are with lenses (nor will there ever be). Although that doesn't prevent sleazy vendors from making unsupportable claims to sell cheap plastic gadgets to ignorant consumers.

But videographers (for whom audio is an after-thought) continue to dream that some magic piece of gear (microphone, mixer, recorder, etc.) will make a significant improvement in their pathetic sound track. And the modern proliferation of new audio gadgets and contraptions just add to the general confusion (to some extent, deliberately, on the part of sleazy vendors).

Worse, there are very few post-production repairs available for recovering poorly-recorded audio although people continue to fantasize that there are magic software plug-ins that will fix the problems they caused by ignorance or haste or simple penury.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Very wise words too!!

Despite all the fuss made about getting good audio people STILL get poor audio and do very little to get it better...You really need to concentrate on getting the setup right ....as Richard has already said, it's pretty hard to enhance poor audio so the source needs to be good.

Imagine shooting a wedding with the vows either distorted, low or even missing...even the most pristine video cannot make that any better if the audio is bad.

Audio is usually very simple to do and edit IF you get it right when you are recording...I still cannot fathom out why pro video cameras still have an internal mic!!

Seriously audio can, and always will, either make or break a production so it's worth giving it just a little more attention when you set up your gear.

Chris

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Having grown up in the days of 8mm, super 8 (no audio), 4 x 5, 120, and 35mm, photography is no stranger. Used to buy film in bulk rolls and develop my own color film.

Also, as a former audiophile with top of the line equipment, a high end 10.5 inch reel to reel deck, and having taken electronics and physics courses, electronics and audio isn't a total stranger, either. HOWEVER, audio for video makes me feel humbled.

That isn't to say that the video portion doesn't give me problems, it's mostly, though, with light balance with LED sources being at the top of the list. Other aspects of video such as composition and exposure may not be perfect but aren't deal breakers. Audio, on the other hand, often is. Everything from picking up audio that isn't wanted, like noise not adding to the scene (f.e., jet plane flying overhead) to audio that doesn't come out right (f.e., the sound of a ski on snow).

Since I'm a one-man show I don't have the luxury of a boom man and script writers. I'm it, the whole enchilada. And then I have to try and edit all this stuff.

There is a variety of material I want to capture, everything from musicians, choir, sailboat cruising video (read: lots of wind, moving & tilting deck, and in our area - it's w-e-t, not good for equipment or softies), environmental (need to include sounds of nature), etc. Each of these areas bring their own difficult audio issues.

The video part, while having it's own difficulties (depth of field and room to stand back on a sailboat, for example) are challenges to overcome but I think are doable. Exposure with a white gelcoat deck and sunlight reflections off the water (if I hurry before summer ends), are also doable, or at least not deal breakers. Audio on a sailboat with noise in the rigging (clanging lines on an aluminum mast), water noise, diesel engine noise, wind noise, etc.) will definitely be a challenge.

Below: part of my old 35mm Nikon set and an old 8mm camera I had:

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

It's used for a carrying handle.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Hi John

Perfect example!! My internal stereo mic has a nice flat top to it at the front of the carry handle and it supports the Li-Ion battery very neatly that I use to run my external monitor. Just goes to show that there are uses for a n internal mic after all!!

Audio does get complex sometimes! I have shotgun mics on both cameras, 3 radio mic setups and two boundary mics too....I always have to scratch my head during setup deciding how I'm going to approach the audio issues on this particular shoot.

Chris

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

You don't need a script writer on location but there's nothing to stop you from writing a script and/or creating shot plan before setting out for the shoot so you don't need another person to do that for you.In fract, if you're really smart you will have a written shot breakdown before you head into the field. Documentary does NOT mean unscripted! But if you're shooting dialog and don't want to use lavs you really don't have a choice in the matter of recruiting a boom operator to partner up with. Saying you're going to be a one-man band no matter what and a boom operator is a luxury is like saying a light-balancing filter for your old 35mm camera is a luxury when the truth is if you're going to shoot tungsten film under daylight illumination you just can't do the job properly without it.

Very true, that's why audio is a skilled practice that can't be an afterthought or set on automatic pilot while you give all your attention to the camera.

Have one of those myself, an F with the Photomic finder that I bought in 1969. Finder has developed some exposure inconsistencies that I haven't had a chance to have checked out but the camera itself works like a fine watch and works great with the conventional prism finder and my LunaPro meter. In 1980 I added an F2As to the kit with some new lenses and had the lenses I bought for the F AI'ed at Nikon. Still have it with a half-dozen prime lenses and it's still in near-mint condition. When I finally went digital a couple of years ago I bought a D700 and one of the decision points was that I could use all my old MF lenses with it - even though I own a couple of autofocus lenses - a cheap AF-D 24-85 zoom and the AF-S 50/1.4G prime - I still find I do my best work with my old glass. Most recent lens acquisition and a carry-around favourite is the Voightlander 40mm/2.0 SL-II which is, you guessed it, a MF prime and fits not only the 700 but also the F2 and the F and works perfectly on all of them.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Steve House..."LunaPro" meter? Man, you just brought a tear to my eye. It would have brought me to my knees if you had sad, "Weston Meter". : )

I recently began this journey(you can look-up my thread history), and being the visual guy that I am, getting the camera originally was my primary goal. Wow! What an eye-opener. After several emails to some of the very smart people here on DVInfo, I quickly found that 'video' is the easier part(notice I didn't say, "easy".).

My audio kit started with a Audio-Technica AT4053 Small Diaphragm Hypercardioid Condenser Microphone. Along with my A-T4053 and my Sony OEM on-camera shotgun I was content with my 'audio kit'. What's really funny, I thought I was all set to go. Heh, heh! What a neophyte I was(am).

My audio kit now consists of RODE NTG-3 Shotgun, CF Boom-pole, RODE Blimp, a pair of matched impedance AKG C451 b, matched pair of AKG C414 XLS, Sennheiser EW 100 G3 wireless kit, a Sound-Devices SD-302, and an Oade Bros. modified Marantz PMD-661 digital recorder. This is a "basic" kit. I don't say this is what you have to have, but it answers some of the technical issues I face in the field doing location interviews. I know most folks wouldn't have a need for 'matched stereo pairs' of microphones, but I plan on doing some live 'wooden music' recording.

Now, if you really want to go insane, start thinking about an LED field lighting kit. Heh, heh!

Thanks for playing along.

Regards,

J.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Yep, I had 2 F bodies I bought from the PX in Vietnam, shipped 'em home til I got home. They had 50mm standard lenses. I got a 35mm, 85-135 zoom (iirc-it might have been a 75-135) and the best lens of all time the Nikkor 180mm. A must for sports and news. I loved that lens.
I had both both an old Weston that was hidden away in a box of my grandfathers stuff and a LunaPro meter.Good times back then. Helix camera in Chicago got a lot of my money back then. When I got my GraflexXL 6X7 rangefinder camera and my Mamiya RB76 with all the toys all my cash went to them. My favorite camera of all time...my Leica M2. I aspired to be Eisenstadt or Cartier-Bresson. Obviously as you can tell, that didn't work out. Oh well, I still loved my Nikkor 180! ;-)

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Wow! Flashback city. Started with TLRs (Rollei and Mamiyaflex), Spotmatics, then Nikon F and FTN, and on and on.

But . . . yesterday afternoon I bought a Nikon 55mm f/1.2 MANUAL lens from a young woman off Craigslist. I already had a 50mm f/1.4 autofocus, but couldn't pass up the old lens, in a leather (!) case.

It works great on the D700, and I'll also use it on the Sony NEX FS700.

;)

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

I'm with J.Kuhn on this. Audio is it's own world, that happens to overlap with video at some places, like two overlapping circles. There's only one forum for it because we don't get so wrapped around the axle with individual products, as how to get the results. There just aren't enough tweeks to an SD to have it's own forum, for example. And there's only one forum because not enough shooters really believe that it's 2/3rds of good video (G).

With the rise of cheap HD gear and HDSLRs shooting video, everyone with a camera is now a video producer. However, the complexity of properly micing anything is not remembered until it is. It was better, I believe when we all had to bring on a sound guy to run the Nagra's. I, for one, have insisted on hiring sound guys when clients hire me for music videos. Or else I get my feed off the board. Again, letting a pro do the work. It's really very difficult under a normal shoot to do both well (run the camera and get great sound). The pressure of time is against you. Then add the issue of lighting!

As to your question of gear, I too have gone through the Zoom (never again), and the Tascam HD-P2 (nice for the current price but not quite right). Have also settled on the Marantz PMD-661, a wonderful tool, IMHO. I have no reason to look beyond that, unless I get some kind of job in the middle of nowhere and need to actually get something like the SD. But for my limited needs and budget, this is an excellent unit.
But look at that list, of mine. It would have been better to have just bought a higher priced unit from Edirol or SD in the first place.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Funny you should mention it .. As I mentioned in a previous post, the meter I traded in to buy the Gossen was a Weston Ranger 9

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

See John, there is your answer...after three really good responses look how many mentions of camera/lights/meters creep in for this question about audio. picture picture picture....thats all some people can think about.

For the record, I prefer to be known as an AUDIO person who has the additional ability to produce great pictures. :-)

Audio is one of those things that is easy to learn but a lifetime to master, but most think since it is so easy that it will happen on its own. Not so, audio acquisition must be constantly monitored for good results and you just can't do that while running the camera. I mean, would you EVER consider running a camera without looking through the viewfinder?? Sound without headphones, a brain to listen, and a hand free to adjust is the same thing! The best solution is a separate sound guy but it's funny how NO ONE thinks that is a justified expense. I've seen so many spend MORE on the "magic plugin" or re-take sessions than it would have cost for the sound guy in the first place. And why does buying a new kind of mic always seem like the most suggested solution? Sometimes its not the kit, its just plain old how you use it.

So back to your original thought...WHY is audio giving you fits? I know a lot of us don't really share the "secret sauce" too often but most audio issues are pretty easy to overcome if given a little effort.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Mr. Bellotte...I don't know if your reference to "...three really good responses..." is a "veiled" criticism to high-jacking this thread, but you're right, and I apologize. Specifically, I apologize to Mr. Nantz.

I have a bad habit of injecting off-topic subjects to an on-going thread.

Regards,

J.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

As far as I can recall, this the first time our esteemed friend from Canada (Steve) has mentioned specific video gear.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Maybe it's because audio is considered dull boring and not 'immediate'. People shoot a little video and slap it up for comment because they've just discovered something (even if it was originally discovered years ago then forgotten). Audio stays relatively static and the only really exciting thing was when they invented CDs and digital sound. We can use a 60 year old microphone and still be amazed by what it can capture in the right hands. Nobody now would d even want to use old video gear. We get excited by cameras, lenses and even camera supports - but start a discussion on microphones and nobody even wants to join in. People can detect soft focus and poor resolution so easily, but with sound, the usual repost is they didn't like it. I think I'm actually guilty of this too. In the sound department it's so easy to use pre-existing material than creating it yourself. We use sound effects, and even Foley techniques to convince people it's real, when we could go and record the real thing. Few people do - we just reach for the things to hand. Video people could use library material, but don't - they enjoy the shooting. I do lots of sound, but rarely seem to actually enjoy it? Strange.

Video is always open for comment and criticism - in 2012, we can tut tut at people producing in 720 instead of bigger formats, and we've forgotten that only a few years ago we had what? 240 lines of resolution! We moan and groan about DSLRs and 4K resolution when the reality is many of us really are technicians not photographers. My friend can take pictures that are simply stunning with any old camera or phone. Maybe mine are technically better, but his are the ones you get drawn to. I suspect I'm better with sound and can produce both modern close miked material and do things like choirs and orchestras justice because I can hear what sounds good. When I'm mixing live sound I can balance to the audiences needs - so like this week, the mix for the 1200 old people was quite different from the mix for the younger audience in the evening. Same band, same singers but quite different. For many video people, good sound is simply the absence of bad sound - and that is that!


I think the simple test is to look at a product you've edited recently. If the sound consists of transitions and the occasional fade out or fade in then you're not a sound person. If your sound means more than two tracks of audio and you actually added eq and you used the faders or elastic bands throughout, then you are.

I love to look at colleagues timelines - you see the layering and effects added to the video track, yet see the audio as simply one track with a few cuts and no processing at all.

How many topics saying "what video effect was used here?" I've never seen anybody ask about compression, limiting, graphic vs parametric eq, soundstage and panning, delay and reverberation, let alone the other audio sweetening tricks.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Actually was just reminiscing about some classic still equipment from the good old days of (gasp) film and wet-chemistry printing in an actual darkroom.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Geeze, the posts are coming in faster than I can make any replies but let me start here and I'll get to the others when I can:
Well, it's okay to read some other viewpoints. As someone who was heavy into stereo for years and paid a premium for "quiet" and "the least noise possible", perhaps I'm more in tune, or more sensitive, when it comes to audio. I've been accused of being a perfectionist but I don't see it that way, I like to do a good job and "get it right." If the visual sense is part of the information transmission, so is the audio sense, and a good combination of the two will lead to a greater sense of the message being transmitted.

One of my books, "Final Cut Pro X," Brenneis & Wohl, Chapter 11, page 260, starts out with a few statements:
Editing your picture is only half the story. Your sound is just as important. In fact, a famous movie editor once quipped that sounds is two-thirds of the picture." This is where I got my thread title from.

The next thing they say is "While your picture carries the information about what's happening on-screen, the sound carries the emotion. The inflection of someone's voice often tells more than the words [they] are saying, and similarly, music and sound effects can often completely redefine how your viewers understand a scene..... if seeing is believing, hearing is feeling."

As I see it, good audio will pick up what you want picked up and sound like you think it should sound. Years back, like I mentioned, I was trying to tape and copy the sound of alpine skis with someone skiing (me) so I could use them in a radio commercial. I did a lot of takes but could never get the sound that I wanted. I tried everything, holding a mic, strapped the mic to my leg, etc., but it never sounded like it should and, consequently, never got used.

Several people have commented about the need for a separate person to handle the sound and for most situations that would be true, and that would be really nice, but in my situations that isn't possible because I'm a hobbyist and not making any money on this so I can't justify it. In one case, on a sailboat with two people on board, there is no room for a sound man (person) and still be able to photograph the other person.

I've been on the lookout for additional mics. Something for voice, instrument (piano and accordion), choir, and for use on a sailboat (35-ft with only two people on board. Me and my significan other). Another project is to help do something to support the environment but I don't know what that would be yet but a creek will definitely be one of the subjects and the Poulsbo Marine Science Center another. A friend of mine is a manager there and I want to help him promote it.

My immediate projects:

Piano Recording, string instrument.
Video record some piano playing on both an upright and a grand. The musician is almost 12 years old and the pianos are both in homes. This isn't a performance situation as in a recital so multiple takes and sound tests can be done. I just acquired a used mic stand with a boom so this can be used with one of my mics. However, musicians have their own ideas as to what mics provide good sound reproduction, but the dilema is to find a good bang-for-the-buck mic and then the next step is to figure out how to properly use it.

Accordion Recording, reed instrument.
The same thing applies here as above but this instrument has it's own challenges, one of which the audio comes from two sides of the instrument. There are mics for amplifying the sound internally but there are difficulties here, namely caused by "hot spots". There isn't much room inside the accordion box so the reeds aren't equidistant from any mic(s) placed internally. There are two other options, both external mics. One is a pair of small mics mounted to the base of the instrument and these are specifically designed for the accordion. The other is to just use a mic on a stand and that's the route I plan to go. However, what is a good mic for a reed-type instrument? and how should it be used?

Choir (see my other post on this at http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-thin...recording.html ), post #7 and #20
I've started looking for a video recorder and for about $200US the Tascam DR-40 seems like something that might work. Just started looking at options yesterday but this one has two features: Locking XLR cable inputs and a backup recording. The mics also move for X-Y and A-B use. I'm not a fan of all-in-one instruments because if something breaks you've lost everything and one can't upgrade in pieces. In the case of a recorder with mics, I can't see how the mics can be as good as the separate ones I've got or will get, but I'm sure there is probably a time and a place where the built-mics would be useful.

Sailboat videos
This would mostly be done on-board the boat. A 35-foot boat has a small cockpit and this will create a real challenge. There are all kinds of noises that will be picked up in the audio, ones that you don't want, and until it is played back you'll never notice. I suspect this will be a work in progress for some time. Trial-and-error type work. Wind will definitely be an issue and inclement weather or flying salt-water spray will add to the difficulty mix.

Environmental videos
I don't have a story line for this yet, but I would like to find a way to support their web site and their mission with some video. Poulsbo Marine Science Center There are other environmental areas I would like to support including a local creek. Again, no story line yet but capturing the sounds of nature and putting in some dialog, interview or narration, would seem appropriate.

Rather than deal with all these at once in this thread it would be better to tackle them one at a time as a approach them. For today and tomorrow, I'll do a take of the pianist with the upright using a boom mic and see how it goes. The mic I'll use will be the Sennheiser ME-64 because I've got all the XLR cables to go to the camera for it.

The Rode Stereo VideoMic has a mini plug and I don't have an adapter for it so I can't place it near the piano. I'd like to see how both mics compare.

If I break this thread into it's parts I can post some subject matter videos that would help everybody see what I'm up against.

In the meantime I'll see about some other post replies.

For everybody, I do see that the things that go into creating audio are analogous to the tools in my roll-away tool box in the garage. I already have a few mics with assorted cables and adapters and I see this as just the beginning. The JuicedLink pre for the camera provides some ability to adjust incoming audio signals.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

James, I can really relate to what you wrote. Change a few items and that could be me.

A couple years ago I was looking for a video camera. Been looking at getting one since the days of the black & white viewfinders, and not the flip-out ones, either. Then color viewfinders came out - had to have one. Things happened, video went HD and the guys in the store said it'd never happen with prosumer cameras. Other things happened, got sidetracked, and looked again. Now there was a Canon with both an eye level and a flip-out viewfinder and all solid state. I was talking to my son-in-law about getting it and he said, "Here, you can have this one." So, out the door I went and came home with a JVC HD-7 that shoots Full HD and 1440CBR (which is what I use). Little did I know what a neet little camera this was. Not quite the Canon I was looking at but hey, the price was right.

Fast forward a couple years and I've added nearly $3K in equipment to support the camera that didn't cost me anything. Fortunately almost all of this is used so I can tell my wife how much I've saved. And this doesn't even include the MacBook Pro, Mac Pro (2006 1,1), extra memory for both, FCPX software, Toast 11, a Pioneer Blu-ray burner. Are we having fun yet?

Except for the computer stuff I'd say that just about everything is to support the video: lighting and mic/sound gear. And part of this was three Cool Lights 600 LED panels with Manfrotto Avenger stands and gel kits for the panels. I've gelled them to as close as I can get them to daylight but there is still some green that shows up and if the scenes mix true daylight with the gelled daylight you can see a little difference. Color matching in post isn't my favorite thing. Oh, and my CF boom pole was shipped on Friday. This is a rush or what?

Almost got a used (but with all the boxes and paperwork) Sennheiser G3 a couple weeks ago but by the time I got approval from higher up it had sold. Then she said if I wanted it I could have got it! So far I'm all monaural except for the Rode Stereo VideoMic.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

My wife came home yesterday with a used book she bought from the Friends of the Library titled "Movie Making Course" and wondered if I could use it. It is written by Chris Patmore, copyright 2005, and in his words says he is a "writer specializing in creative technology. .... has worked as a photographer, began filmmaking in the late 70s, shooting Super 8..."

Although the book is titled "Movie Making Course" the author's background is more into animation than films with live actors.

NOTE: The book has 144 pages of which only six (6) are devoted to "Sound." Four pages in "The Shoot" and two pages in "Post-Production."

The author's closing remark in the first section is "Record everything you think you will need, as clearly as possible, but anything you miss can be added in post-production (see pages...)." Hey, for someone getting started in video that's good to know. Well, isn't it???

So if you missed the spot where the bride says "I do" you can just add this in in post?

On the plus side, all kidding aside, for 50 cents the book is a good summary of the major areas of how to put a movie (video) together and provides a good overview. This is not what you need to help with audio but it does give audio a mention so if you got some you can check that box. I've got two audio-only books that total over 850 pages between them and they will help fill in the gap. Heck, even my FCPX quick start guide has more pages covering audio!

So, if this one book is any example you're right on.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Hi James. I had no problem at all with the "hijack", but rather thought it emphasized the point of picture priority over audio and how easily audio gets lost or ignored. I'm never one to criticize where things are said or "please use the search" on forums-I rather like the discussions no matter where they seem to lead.

I love Paul's quote "good audio is the absence of bad audio", but that certainly isn't the end of the story. And I guess you really have to be passionate about sound to be an audio guy as most are not willing to put in the multitude of little efforts that string together to make good sound. The medium does contain both pictures and sound, and I have always felt they both need to be good. Yes good sound is tedious sometimes, but no matter how good the pictures bad sound always seems to spoil them. And yes you are right, most shooters are "technicians"...and all that entails. :-)

So John, you've got quite the list of projects! Quite the difference from a few pals that can't ever think of anything to shoot... The advice i give out most frequently is about mic positioning. It's been said that a cheap mic near a sound source will ALWAYS sound better than an expensive mic far away. I'm a big fan of close micing most things. Once you have the "in your face" sound element cleanly its always easy to go back and add other ambient elements back in. This method gives a lot of control for creating a sum of exactly what you want to hear and nothing else, but yes it takes some time to layer it all up. In the old days it was always a dance to squeeze it all into 4 or 8 tracks and keep it synced up with the picture. GarageBand and Final Cut make it so much easier, add all the tracks you want and audio takes much less horsepower than video.

I think you'll find that the Rode SVM will be a little too sensitive to place close to the piano and may overload, or overload your camera input. The ME64 on a boom will probably work fine, just open the lid and point it down into the strings. We use a lot of ME64/66/67 for general recording they seem to be pretty versatile although I personally find the low end a little lacking most of the time, well when compared to other mics like a MKH-416 for instance. If you have a dynamic mic to try you may find it has better low end. I never think of a mic as being "wrong" for a purpose, rather some just sound much better than others in a given location.

Hey don't forget that audio is VERY subjective, I always say ask 10 audio guys the same sound question and you'll get at least 12 answers... :-)

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

But EVERYBODY in your audience will know bad sound when they hear it. And no matter how beautiful your video is, bad audio will knock down the perception of your production by several notches.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Well...I'd like to know about some of these things but don't know the questions to ask...

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

And also...seeing I've been using skilsaws and miscellaneaous other machinery for 45 years - often times without earmuffs - but not lately, I've lost the top end of my hearing...at least I think that's all I've lost but who knows...sometimes can't hear some birds or such like that others hear...

Sooo...when I come to do audio stuff...meaning editing audio, I wonder at times what I'm missing...and if it will be noticed...

And...given the above, whether it is better for me to use headphones than listen on speakers as everyone advises...

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Hey Renton

There are times also when you have a situation where you simply have to do the best you can and that certainly doesn't mean, forget all the audio gear and record from the camera's internal mic!!

Our magnificent cathedral here is a joy to film in and a nightmare for audio...sorta 30 metre high smooth marble walls and huge windows and the PA system the priest uses makes for instant reverb...you can hardly understand what he is saying as the sound bounces off everything (including the marble floor)

Some audio situations are really a lot tougher than the video side!! I try and mic as much as I can and as close as I can and it does make a difference....but when you get a bride that insists on being at one with nature and standing as close as possible to a waterfall, it's pretty tough to get clear audio.

Being able to record frequencies from 20 - 20,000 hz is probably not as important as getting audio that is background noise free so a piano recital with the guy in the street using a jack hammer isn't going to worry about whether you captured those delicate notes in the upper range but rather that you didn't capture the guy breaking up the concrete outside.

Most PC speaker systems (sorta sub with two units) have a decent frequency range and those are usually adequate but headphones are great if the missus to watching a noisy movie in the next room.

Chris

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

I've always noticed that many of the excellent videos we see are nearly mono! You see pictures of things that really should have location based sound - I saw one the other day taken a theme park, where to the right of the picture was an old fashioned carousel, and to the left, a dodgem car ride - both of these make very different and identifiable sounds. In the middle was a presenter. It was pretty obvious the camera had two channels - one for the radio mic receiver and one for the local sound from the camera's built in mic. An ideal example of where a location recorder could have produced a really interesting stereo sound field - where, listening carefully with your eyes closed, you could have pointed to the location in the frame where the sources really were. Stereo sound, with the presenter mixed central. So few videos feature stereo sound, most are plain and simple mono. Of course, you then get into tricky territory - if the camera pans to follow the presenter, what happens to the sound? Does it change perspective to match, or remain the same? Loads of new challenges. Few video people have experience of recording in stereo. X/Y, A/B or even M/S? Rycote style windshields with stacked directional and fig 8 patterns, and field mixers or recorders with M/S matrix monitoring for headphones. It takes practice to hear the difference between X/Y and A/B, and A/B with cardioids vs A/B with omnis! It's only been a year since plugins that could remove reverberation were announced - previously reverb was accepted as a problem that could not be solved. Many people can't describe the differences between reverb and echo, and others can't hear compression at all. I use Premiere, and in the very basic audio mixer section often see no adjustments have been made to pan positions, and no eq at all!

Sound recordists who edit, always seem to use the audio facilities, yet cameramen who edit do so to a much greater degree - and to be honest, despite my sound upbringing in studios and live sound, I'm frequently guilty of the same thing. After this topic started I looked at my rooms here. In the sound studio I have nice, large studio monitors, but in the edit suite I'm using very inferior loudspeakers for monitoring. I'm just as guilty of 'demoting' the importance of sound as others. I'm now going to make an effort to sort it!

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

This is just bad system design. It is possible to install sound reinforcement systems that do NOT excite all that mass of reverberant space while still maintaining good speech intelligibility in the nave.

And this is why we use clip-on or headset microphones that get the mic as close to the mouth as possible.

To be honest, of the several audio and audio for video forums I participate in, this is the one with the least activity. There are other audio for video forums that get 2-3x more traffic (i.e more questions asked and answered and discussed).

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Much depends on:
* The instrument itself. How well does it "speak". What can you open/close to change the sound? And, of course, how good is it? Is it in tune, etc.
* The space where it lives. Is it a very dead (or very live) room? Is the upright against a reflective wall or heavy curtains, etc. Can you move it slightly?
* The microphone(s) you have available. Particularly what are their directional characteristics.
This is a great opportunity to experiment with different placements of the instrument and the microphone. While the player is practicing the piano, you can practice recording it.

Only the player hears distinct "stereo" from the keys on the right and the bass/chord buttons on the left. The microphones inside or attached to the instrument are typically for reinforcement where you need a good isolated signal to achieve good gain before feedback through the house (and monitor) systems. But these are typically pretty bad for recording as they are way, way too close. At least if you are talking about the instrument as a solo performer and not just one of the layers of a larger ensemble.

Here again, experimenting with the microphone(s) available and the performance space is to your advantage.

This is my specialty. Choirs are typically miced from overhead and from a microphone's "POV" that can "see" all the rows of the group in order to get a balanced perspective. I have several tall mic stands which are typically used for large groups (choirs and orchestras). Sometimes we also "fly" the microphone from a cable (a mechanical cable, not the mic cable) to get it in the right spot without having mic stands in the way. It wouldn't be impossible to get a decent choir recording with the built-in mics on a portable recorder (such as the popular Zoom H4n), but it would require putting the entire recorder up on a stand in the right place, and that removes monitoring and control from your reach. Several of the things I do are impromptu or "run-n-gun" and so I use stereo microphones or a co-incident pair of mics on the same stand.

This is a very different situation, both because of the sound sources, and the hostile environment. Suggest looking up online information about how they do production (both video and sound) for "Deadliest Catch". According to one report, they are practically buying all new sound equipment every season because of the high mortality rate of the microphones, transmitters, etc in the salt-water environment.

Most of the sound that you hear on nature videos (including, or perhaps especially, underwater) is not recorded synchronously with the picture. It is created as part of the post-production editing process. There are specialists in nature-related "Foley" and they have all sorts of tricks for creating sounds that seem like they go with the picture. This is another fascinating field and there is some good info and examples available online. YouTube actually has a surprising number of good videos on production sound, sound design, Foley, ADR, and other production sound topics and techniques.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

With regard to old microphones, in music the ads for old mics really toot the old and retro. If it has vacuum tubes, be it an amp or a mic, it's worth more than when it was new.

When CDs came out the were all the rage for cleaner sound. It's interesting that vinyl hasn't gone totally away and some claim there is more audio in vinyl than in CDs. For myself, I don't know anymore and I used to be really into it. Unfortunately, I, too, have lost some of my hearing on both ends of the spectrum but one thing I don't like, and never will, is "noise".

With probably everything there is a point of diminishing returns. As products get improved there is always the desire to have that new one that saves work or captures whatever with better quality. I still have my old box camera from when I was a teenager and at the time the pictures looked pretty okay, but this was in the day of black & white TVs with screens that weren't even fully rectangle. Given the day and age, the results just fit in. A little later and I upgraded to an Argus C-3 (which I also still have) and Wow! I could FOCUS! Pictures could be taken in dimmer light and there was a flash. This was a definite upgrade, but not for long.

The next camera was a SLR by Yashica (almost an Exakta, though) with a 1.8 lens and in combination with the Weston Master V light meter I was able to take a much wider range of pictures. The Ultrablitz flash saved on flash bulbs. Slide film allowed one to throw up on a screen blazing color and the quality lens allowed for a sharpness that was never possible with the box camera. Buying film in 100ft rolls decreased cost. My last camera would be the Nikon Photomic T. Through the lens metering (no need to compensate for filters) and a what-you-see-is-what-you-get viewfinder. The camera had a huge range of possibilities and because it was versatile I held on to it for a long time. I tried 4 x 5s and 2-1/4 but the 35 was my medium.

Many years would pass before I got another camera, and that was somewhere around 2000. That was a span of 33 years - but I still had the Nikon for the "important" pictures and saved the digital one for the snap shots. Sadly, very sadly, I sold the Nikon a couple years ago and it was sad day in my life. Even though it hadn't seen a roll of film in many years, for what I got for it I should have kept it as a momento or a book end.

The main point I'd like to make is there is a point of diminishing returns in upgrading technology. The early moves in cameras each had significant improvements in quality and features but after the Nikon there really wasn't any "breakthroughs" until digital came along.

With video, it was a jump from Standard 8 to Super 8 (for home movies). I never considered the VHS cameras as they were too bulky and expensive for what you got and besides, I really hadn't been taking any videos anyway because the 8mm was too awkward. It really wasn't until after video went digital, with improvements, that I got back into it.

One can spend a whole lot of money for the best technical equipment but settling for something a little less can save a lot. When through-the-lens metering came along that was the "must-have" as far as I was concerned. After that it was very hard to justify any upgrade from a cost standpoint.

Every once in a while I come across examples of what you're talking about, where someone just has some creative genius in looking at things in a different way. There was one guy who had pictures taken at car shows (street rods) and he could see the beauty in all kinds of angles, close-ups, and reflections, captured show-goers with their emotions, then put the whole thing together in short videos. Even the choice of background music was good. And all this on a cheap-o budget camera.

Maybe we get too wrapped up in the bells and whistles and miss the opportunity to think creatively. My wife with her simple digital camera often takes some very nice photos from an artistic perspective, be they flowers in the yard, a spiders web with dew drops in the morning, or kids and people. It's point-and-shoot camera but she doesn't mess with the gadget settings. Actually, come to think of it, there aren't many.

Ummm... Talk about a lot of things to learn!

Here's my proposal to the administrators of this web site:
That we have a section for audio similar to that for some of the other sections - those that have a grey area with sub-topics. Like "Tapeless recording solutions" or "Support your local camera".

What do you think?

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Yea.... we need to do that once in a while and it feels good.

But don't let your wife catch you talking in your sleep about your old high school sweethearts!

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

That is a nice quote, I like it too. Also the "... most are not willing to put in the multitude of little efforts that string together to make good sound." The devil is in the details.


Yes, so many projects and so little time.

I'll take that "close micing" as good advice. I've actually started doing more of that recently as I came to realize from reading numerous posts that the long shotgun isn't intended to be used from 40 feet (12 meters for the international community) away.

Just recently I came across some recommended distances for various types of mics and was actually surprised how close the shotgun is recommended to be. I had no idea.

Layering: I haven't got into this area yet. I have layered some music with voice and some sound effects (lightning bolt sound) in a kids magician's act video but that's about it. At the moment I'm trying to deal pretty much with what seems to be the basics but there is such a thing as multitasking and not forgetting to think about the idea.

Just last night I did a short shoot combination "test" with the ME-64 on the upright piano but haven't got around to editing it yet. Guess I'm spending too much time writing here! I didn't open the top of the piano because there was too much stuff on top and it was easier to just boom it about 3-feet (~1 meter) over the keyboard. I'm interested in how it will sound. I suspect probably a little muddy or muffled without direct access to the strings.

Dynamic mic: I really need more input on types of mics to use for various purposes. I've been reading a lot but it's just overwhelming. And then everything seems to be colored by opinions so I have to sort through that too.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson
...I've never seen anybody ask about compression, limiting, graphic vs parametric eq, soundstage and panning, delay and reverberation, let alone the other audio sweetening tricks.

Thats MY problem TOO!

If two of us have this problem I'm sure there are others.

Maybe an expanded "Audio" section could help?

And I've got other audio areas that fall into the "don't know the questions to ask" realm.
What about a sub-section "Audio for Dummies" (my wife hates that title!). But that's kinda where I'm at.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

There is so little traffic here now, that would just further fragment it. Suggest participating in more than just this forum if you want to see more discussion of audio in general and production audio specifically.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

I wonder what percentage of members here do any audio recording on its own, whether for CD production, broadcast/internet/hospital/school radio, church services, musical groups/choirs etc or even just personal interest?

Obviously at least a few of the well respected regulars in the audio forum have interest and experience (some at a very high level) in this area. It informs (or rather should inform!) our approach to audio in video production.

But I will plead guilty as well to having done things in "audio for video" that I would not have done in "audio for audio."

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Really?

I would have said it was the other way round - getting good video is easier than getting good sound.

All you have to do is point a camera and make sure the lighting is correct.

You don't have to understand microphone polar-patterns, the inverse-square law, room acoustics, standing waves, boundary effects, proximity effect, distortion, RF theory, the importance of IM-free frequencies, body absorption, fitting mics without clothing rustle, etc., etc.........

No - video is much easier.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

This is my speciality.

A grand piano normally needs omni mics or you lose the bottom octave.

My starting position is a pair of omnis about 20cm apart at about ear height about 2 metres from the piano.

I will then adjust to suit the piano, the work and the room.

You can normally have mics in shot when videoing a grand as the sound is so important. Where the mics are in view (eg: video or a live concert) I would use a pair of Sennheiser MHK 8020 heads on a custom stereo bar on a Sennheiser thin stand - this goes virtually invisible at a concert and is unobtrusive on video.

This is the mics on the stand

This is a close-up of the mics.

For recording without video I would use the Gefell M221, Sennheiser MKH 20 or 8020, or Neumann KM 131-D.

If the mics *have* to be invisible, then boundary mics are the best - either a couple of DPA 4060 or Sennheiser MKE 1 or 2 stuck to the inside of the lid or a pair of omni SDC mics in a Turtle underneath the piano. Both these work well.

An upright needs a different technique - normally away from a wall and microphones behind the piano - this way you can get good video and good sound without seeing the microphones.

I hope this helps.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

Yes - I do - mainly for CD release, though I have done radio broadcasting (LBC in London in the late 1970's) as well and some odds and ends for pleasure.


So I have recorded choirs, orchestras, opera, solo piano, interviews, radio documentaries, and even wildlife - all without a camera in sight.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

If you think that's where you're at, then I suggest you start by reading a few good books. I've never seen any "Dummies" audio books (although I've never looked).

However, Jay Rose has written some excellent books which can be comprehended by beginners, yet have some fairly advanced content. At one time, I believe, they could be found on Amazon. If not there, try Google. (If you still don't find them, let me know, I should have contact info for Jay.) Of course technology evolves fast, so any print book might not cover the very latest models of equipment. But the basic concepts are there, and are explained well.

Re: If 2/3rds of good video is audio, how come there is only one Audio section?
 

I confess, I teach a college post-production audio class. And I would find it very hard to teach it via text, or even in a robust online learning platform. The key concepts need to be presented with diagrams, sound samples, demonstrations, q&a, student practice, ear training, and repetition until understood and mastery is demonstrated by students.

I too recommend Jay Rose's books, he does a great job with them and the included CDs.

But, please do ask your questions about those subjects, and if you don't know what question to ask, sometimes you can describe what you're doing and what the results are, instead.