Mic choice for noisy room

[Bruce S. Yarock]

I'm doing a short green screen shoot in my home studio tomorrow . Problem is that I don't have a large sound proof room. There is occasional noise from out side, depending on my luck.
I'm recording direct to camera (Sony fs7-sold my sd 302 to eventually get a zoom f8). I want to avoid having to capture the audio later and de noise it in isotope , if possible

I want to use the mic that will be best at isolating whatever out side noise I can. Here are the mics I own.
1-Oktava mk-12 with both HyperCard and card capsules.
2-Akg blue line with the hypercardiod capsule
3-My audio technica at 297 shot gun.
I also have a zep type rig for the Akg

What do you think?
Thanks
Bruce Yarock
VIDEO PRODUCTION FORT LAUDERDALE, SOUTH FLORIDA|MIAMI|PALM BEACH AREA

[Oren Arieli]

Can you put a mattress or blankets up against the 'noisy' wall? This (and getting your mic as close as possible), is more important than which mic you choose from your collection. Shotgun mic's aren't always the best choice indoors, but that being said, perhaps run a hypercardioid and cardioid next to each other and choose your favorite one in post (don't mix the tracks, obviously).

[Bruce S. Yarock]

Thanks
The side wall is pretty long , and has the original, junk, 1980's Florida crank windows. I will put up blankets along the wall, and I like the idea of using two mics to separate tacks. Obviously, I place mics as close as possible to talent.
What about the zep on the blue line?
Bruce

[Richard Crowley]

Unless you are waving the mic around in the room (which seems unlikely) you should not need any wind protection. Assuming you don't have a breeze blowing through the room from the dodgy windows.

If you don't have a great abundance of sound mitigating materials, you could at least concentrate on the windows which are more likely to let the noise through.

I would frame it rather tightly in order to get the mic(s) as close to the subject as possible. I would use the AKG and the AT hypers. One in each channel. Then you can use whichever one does better.

AudioTechnica (and Google) never heard of AT 297?

[Bruce S. Yarock]

Thanks, Richard. I think that mic is an at 897- have it for about 12 years and forgot model.
You're right-wind is not the problem. The occasional truck, dog bark, etc is what I'm worried about.
I'll try both hypers, one on each channel.
I appreciate the feedback.
Bruce Yarock

[Bruce S. Yarock]

One more question

Another option I have is to put a wired lav under the talenr's shirt
with mole skin, and also use on if the hypercards.
If Zi did this, which of the hypers would perform better in the event
of an errant sound
Bruce Yarock

[Richard Crowley]

If I had to make a blind guess, I would pick the AKG. But since you have both of them, you can try them side-by-side and pick one based on actual performance.

[Rick Reineke]

Yes, I'd try the AKG as well, an addition to a lav (on separate track).
Soft materials like moving blankets, carpeting, drapes ect. can help 'deaden' a room, (less reflective), but does very little to reduce unwanted noise from outside. That's why most pro recording studios have double floating walls, floors, ceiling that are lined w/ lead or other very dense materials. Search "STL" ..

[Jim Feeley]

Originally Posted by Bruce S. Yarock

The occasional truck, dog bark, etc is what I'm worried about.

In my experience, by the time a noise has penetrated through a wall and into a room, it's pretty nondirectional and lots of mics will pick it up.

Following on what others are suggesting, if you have time, try two hypers and choose the one that works best for you, then perhaps record lav to one channel and hyper to another.

Have someone monitoring audio, and after a problematic take, do some playback with good headphones at least to get a sense of what got recorded. After a couple times with that, you'll have a sense of what sounds/levels are intrusive. And if you're not sure, try another take.

Have the actor/talent speak up, if that fits what you're doing. And be ready for a repeat take now or then.
Some great advice here from everyone!

Good luck Bruce and let us know how everything goes!

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Bruce S. Yarock

The occasional truck, dog bark, etc is what I'm worried about.

Indeed, this is what we're all (supposed to be) worried about. This is why monitoring the audio is mandatory. So when something like this sneaks into the audio, we know it immediately and call for a retake.

No mic is going to save you from this. Only careful undistracted listening works. The undistracted part is why you need someone running the video and a different person running the audio. If you try to do both yourself one will make you attention blind to the other on occasion. That's how you end up hearing things in your audio in post that you swear weren't there on the set. Or seeing things in your video that you swear didn't happen on set.

The only way around this that I know of is to throw buckets of money at it: construct your set from scratch with a focus on sound proofing. Hire an acoustical engineer; they know some nifty tricks and the way around most of the "gotchas" that are easy to avoid at the planning stage but damn near impossible to fix after your new building is complete. Plus they can help you make your space sound good too. ;-)

[Jay Massengill]

Also make sure you aren't pushing enough level at the camera to constantly activate the limiter if you have that set.
The limiter should be acting as the last defence to the very rare hot peak of audio.
If it is constantly in action because your levels are too high, you're just boosting the noises you don't want while tamping down the good audio.

[Paul R Johnson]

If the room leaks you have only two options. One is impractical - stop the sound getting in. This leaves you the simple one - get the microphones closer in to the source. This improves the signal to noise. Forget all the faffing with volume adjustments because the signal to noise stays the same - that car going past can be treated with cleverness, and removed, but it's far better to just get closer and let the inverse square law be your friend.

[Graham Bernard]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

.... get the microphones closer in to the source. This improves the signal to noise. Forget all the faffing with volume adjustments because the signal to noise stays the same - that car going past can be treated with cleverness, and removed, but it's far better to just get closer and let the inverse square law be your friend.

Best advise! Nice one Paul.

[Steven Digges]

Paul, I don't think I have ever disagreed with you on a post. "that car car sound can be removed". Yes it can, at a high cost in time and the talent of a very skilled audio editor if it is going to be done without a noticeable glitch in the sound. I have said it a thousand times. If anyone does a record, video or audio, with the thought "it can be fixed in post", that is an amateur production from the red button push. Record it properly in the first place, do not count on post production repairs in your planning. And that is coming from a corporate market guy that does not have a big budget to do it. I do my best to create quality original recordings. Post repairs not usually required.

Bruce, do the best you can at the time of the record. Your client will obviously know it is a home studio, thats awesome. As said before, monitor, and call for a retake when you hear the outside noise. Be a director, you do not even have to say why your calling for another cut. Your not a rookie, you know how to do this. What a great honest post!

Kind Regards,

Steve