Should I be using multiple mics to record dialogue and sound effects?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

I'm struggling a bit with the way you use jargon. "Room Tone" is one I hate because it means different things to different people. if I record with a boom, I normally record with a mono mic on the camera too. I never record with a stereo mic on the camera because of the weirdness it produces when the camera pans. Room tone - for me - is simply the sound of the room. It does NOT include dialogue, or physical practical sound from doors, things and people moving. I've heard people talking about room sound, but my rule book says room sound is just the absence of nothing and the capturing of something that can be used to fill gaps and sound exactly like an open mic sounds. These kinds of things are bandied about by students, as buzz words and smart-arse jargon. Not just sound, but the camera and lighting people do it too. That's probably why I make it up - like my hairy sausage.

As for surround - isn't this totally and utterly contrived and manufactured? Do people try to capture real surround? I thought most had given up on that quest. It works pretty well on a solitary static camera, but how do you deal with real surround in the edit? It's like my never using a stereo mic on a camera habit. If the camera pans, does the surround pan with it/ If you do, it's like turning your head - everything moves relative. But what about cuts/ Does the ticking clock on the right snap to centre, or does it stay right and be wrong.

Oh it was mentioned in an earlier post to use stereo to capture 'atmos'. I meant atmos by room tone, sorry for the confusion. I meant whatever the previous post was referring to, as I am trying to understand what he is referring to when saying it should be recorded in stereo.

Originally Posted by Patrick Tracy

I suspect in the vast majority of cases surround is manufactured rather than captured. It just isn't practical or necessary to capture it as it happens.

In my little corner of video production, live music, it isn't completely inconceivable to capture surround, or at least capture stereo and process it into surround. Even when the video perspective shifts the audio perspective remains "in the audience," so it makes sense to capture rather than manufacture.

When it comes to recording live music, wouldn't it make sense to record from the mics of all the band member's voices and instruments though, so the voices and instruments are closer to the mics then, rather than from the perspective of the camera, if that's what you mean?

And as for this whole recording surround live, I won't do it then. They said to do it, and I even talked to them about manufacturing the sound later from mono tracks, and they said that the audience will be able to tell that something is off, if it's manufactured in post, compared to recording that way to begin with, and that they are not stupid. But I feel that they over-estimate the audience, and will record mono, and do a surround sound mix in post, based on the advice here.

[Patrick Tracy]

Originally Posted by Ryan Wray

Oh it was mentioned in an earlier post to use stereo to capture 'atmos'. I meant atmos by room tone, sorry for the confusion. I meant whatever the previous post was referring to, as I am trying to understand what he is referring to when saying it should be recorded in stereo.

A stereo signal can be processed into surround. It would be much more realistic that simply putting identical signal into all the channels. It would still be a manufactured soundtrack as the stereo wouldn't be captured during the acting, it would be recorded just like any "room tone" type material and used to create the impression of space.

Originally Posted by Ryan Wray

When it comes to recording live music, wouldn't it make sense to record from the mics of all the band member's voices and instruments though, so the voices and instruments are closer to the mics then, rather than from the perspective of the camera, if that's what you mean?

Absolutely, but on top of that there can be audience mics. In my ideal setup I'll have a pair of wide spaced mics at the foot of stage pointing out and a coincident pair in the middle/back of the audience in addition to all the close mics. The middle/back mic would need to be adjusted to compensate for the acoustic arrival time of the sound from the PA and stage.

None of this applies to what you're doing but it might explain why some sound guys think you should use multiple mics. For dramatic productions I'd use a boom and/or lavs to record the dialog, use the same mics to get some room tone for in between lines, then use a stereo mic setup at some other time (or even another place) to get some atmospheric audio for the surround tracks, then put it all together in post. But as I said I really don't do those productions so don't take my word for it.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks. Are you saying to record the room sound with a stereo mic though, or two different mono mics, that both lead to a stereo track?

[Richard Crowley]

Originally Posted by Ryan Wray

Oh okay thanks. Are you saying to record the room sound with a stereo mic though, or two different mono mics, that both lead to a stereo track?

Can we assume by "room sound" you actually mean "ambiance" and not "room tone"? Ambiance and room tone are quite different kinds of sound recording and using a term like "room sound" is ambiguous and hinders our discussion. It makes us wonder if you understand the difference between the different kinds of sound recordings. If you don't understand, then go back and read response #63 again. If you have specific questions about those definitions, please ask. Otherwise, we must assume that you understand the difference between "room tone" and "ambiance".

Whether to record ambiance in mono or stereo (or surround) is an "artistic" question, not a "technical question. There is no clear, unique solution. It depends greatly on what kind of a scene it is. What is the nature of the sound, etc. etc.

Again, I am unsure whether you are asking about Room Tone, or about Ambiance. Room Tone has a VERY specific purpose, and recording it EXACTLY the same as you recorded the dialog is critical to its usefulness.

OTOH, ambiance could be anything. It doesn't even need to have anything to do with your specific production. With some rare exceptions, if ambiance for your scene is traffic noise coming through an open window behind the actors, it doesn't really matter whether you record the actual traffic on that specific street. Or even in that particular neighborhood, or on the same continent, for that matter.

And if the actors are walking along a beach, the background sound of the surf is pretty generic stuff. If you are using a cutaway of a wave breaking and flowing up to their feet, then it would be good to try to match the sound to the wave breaking if you can see it in the frame. Otherwise, it is just uncorrelated, non-synchronous background sound.

And even if you had a good stereo recording of traffic noise, you might well mix it down to monaural and pan it so that it sounds like it is coming through the window. OTOH, the actors walking along the beach would probably sound more realistic if the surf sounds were mixed in as stereo. Which illustrates the point that recording ambiance in stereo gives you the flexibility of using it in the mix however it fits that particular scene. Even if it us ultimately mixed down to mono and panned off to one side, etc.

But if you record the surf in mono, you are essentially stuck with it. It might be useful in a scene where distant surf sounds are coming in through a window. But not very useful for the scene where the actors are walking through the wet sand as the tide comes in.

And recording the traffic noise in the room where the scene takes place is probably not a good idea either. Because as you ought to know by now, microphones "hear" quite differently than our ear-brain system works. Much better to have a "clean" recording of the traffic without any effects from the room. For at least two reasons: (1) the effects of the room will limit and compromise how well you can produce a convincing mix for that scene. (2) Having a more generic, "clean" recording of the traffic noise is a much better addition to your library of sounds that you can use for future productions.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Richard Crowley

Can we assume by "room sound" you actually mean "ambiance" and not "room tone"? Ambiance and room tone are quite different kinds of sound recording and using a term like "room sound" is ambiguous and hinders our discussion. It makes us wonder if you understand the difference between the different kinds of sound recordings. If you don't understand, then go back and read response #63 again. If you have specific questions about those definitions, please ask. Otherwise, we must assume that you understand the difference between "room tone" and "ambiance".

Whether to record ambiance in mono or stereo (or surround) is an "artistic" question, not a "technical question. There is no clear, unique solution. It depends greatly on what kind of a scene it is. What is the nature of the sound, etc. etc.

Again, I am unsure whether you are asking about Room Tone, or about Ambiance. Room Tone has a VERY specific purpose, and recording it EXACTLY the same as you recorded the dialog is critical to its usefulness.

OTOH, ambiance could be anything. It doesn't even need to have anything to do with your specific production. With some rare exceptions, if ambiance for your scene is traffic noise coming through an open window behind the actors, it doesn't really matter whether you record the actual traffic on that specific street. Or even in that particular neighborhood, or on the same continent, for that matter.

And if the actors are walking along a beach, the background sound of the surf is pretty generic stuff. If you are using a cutaway of a wave breaking and flowing up to their feet, then it would be good to try to match the sound to the wave breaking if you can see it in the frame. Otherwise, it is just uncorrelated, non-synchronous background sound.

And even if you had a good stereo recording of traffic noise, you might well mix it down to monaural and pan it so that it sounds like it is coming through the window. OTOH, the actors walking along the beach would probably sound more realistic if the surf sounds were mixed in as stereo. Which illustrates the point that recording ambiance in stereo gives you the flexibility of using it in the mix however it fits that particular scene. Even if it us ultimately mixed down to mono and panned off to one side, etc.

But if you record the surf in mono, you are essentially stuck with it. It might be useful in a scene where distant surf sounds are coming in through a window. But not very useful for the scene where the actors are walking through the wet sand as the tide comes in.

And recording the traffic noise in the room where the scene takes place is probably not a good idea either. Because as you ought to know by now, microphones "hear" quite differently than our ear-brain system works. Much better to have a "clean" recording of the traffic without any effects from the room. For at least two reasons: (1) the effects of the room will limit and compromise how well you can produce a convincing mix for that scene. (2) Having a more generic, "clean" recording of the traffic noise is a much better addition to your library of sounds that you can use for future productions.

Oh okay, I meant whatever Bryan Drysdale meant when he used the term 'atmos'. I am trying to establish what we are talking about myself, so I meant whatever he was referring to.

As for the example of recording traffic noise, I would record it from whereevever I felt it sounded good. Do you think it's a bad idea to record through a closed window, if you want to capture a sound on the other side of the window?

For example, for one of my short film I wanted a character to knock on a door and yell, and I wanted to hear him through the door, since the characters in the scene hear him through the door. So I decided to have him go behind the door, and close it, and record his voice through a closed door to get the sound I want.

I could have recorded his voice dry, and manipulated to sound like he was coming through a door in post, but I thought that the sound of yelling through a door was pretty straight forward, that I could do it in production and it will turn out fine, which it did.

I also wanted to record a dog barking in the distance of neighborhood establishing shot. I could have recorded a dark barking with the mic right up close to the dog, but I decided to do it from about 50-100 feet away, to make the dog sound distant.

It turned out good as well. Is that a bad way about going about it?

When you say, if you record surf in mono and you are stuck with it, are you referring to a stereo mic, or two mono mics both being fed to a stereo channel?

I'm assuming we are talking about a stereo mic. But the thing about a stereo mic, is both mics on the stereo mic are right next to each other, so the sound going into both mics will be the same anyway, when the mics are right next to each other. Therefore, what difference does stereo make, when the mics are both next to each other?

Unless you are talking about two mono mics placed a distance apart?

[Patrick Tracy]

To get a decent stereo image directly with mics (as opposed to a stereo mix composed of various stereo or mono elements) you need two two identical mics, or a stereo mic, or a compatible pair for mid-side. For mid-side I would prefer a pair of the same model of multi-pattern mics, one set to cardioid and one set to figure-8, but two very similar mics, like LDCs of different models, could work. Definitely don't try to combine a condenser as the mid with a ribbon as the side.

There are various stereo mic techniques. I suspect a coincident pair would be best, and that's my general preference. Spaced pairs of several methods are common in some applications.

[Richard Crowley]

Originally Posted by Ryan Wray

Oh okay, I meant whatever Bryan Drysdale meant when he used the term 'atmos'. I am trying to establish what we are talking about myself, so I meant whatever he was referring to.

Yes, when I use the term "ambiance" it appears to be the same as Drysdale's term "atmos" (short for atmosphere or atmospherics).

As for the example of recording traffic noise, I would record it from whereevever I felt it sounded good. Do you think it's a bad idea to record through a closed window, if you want to capture a sound on the other side of the window?

I said explicitly that recording outside ambiance or atmos through the window is NOT a good idea. Did you miss that part of my response? Did I not phrase that strongly enough?

For example, for one of my short film I wanted a character to knock on a door and yell, and I wanted to hear him through the door, since the characters in the scene hear him through the door. So I decided to have him go behind the door, and close it, and record his voice through a closed door to get the sound I want.

I could have recorded his voice dry, and manipulated to sound like he was coming through a door in post, but I thought that the sound of yelling through a door was pretty straight forward, that I could do it in production and it will turn out fine, which it did.

Good. You must experiment with each situation to see what sounds best when recorded with your talent, crew, location and available gear.

I also wanted to record a dog barking in the distance of neighborhood establishing shot. I could have recorded a dark barking with the mic right up close to the dog, but I decided to do it from about 50-100 feet away, to make the dog sound distant.

It turned out good as well. Is that a bad way about going about it?

Maybe, maybe not. Typically you can make something recorded close sound far away by reducing the level and by rolling off the high frequencies, just as happens in the Real World. Recording a far away barking dog in the city at the other end of a street of brick buildings will not work if you are using the sound in a scene out in a desolate wilderness. That is why you want to get good clean, close, intimate, well detailed recordings. You can always artificially "degrade" them (for distance, for echo/reverb, etc. But you cannot do the opposite. You can't use a distant dog bark if you need a close sound.

When you say, if you record surf in mono and you are stuck with it, are you referring to a stereo mic, or two mono mics both being fed to a stereo channel?

You do the research. Record something with one mic (mono). And record it with a stereo ("single-point") microphone (or a close pair like X/Y or ORTF) And then the same sound with wide-spaced microphones in stereo. They will all give you different recordings. Some of them will be useful in one situation but not in another. You are wandering again into "artistic" or subjective decisions vs. "technical" or objective questions. Recording sound well is an ART. It takes more than understanding the chemistry of paints to become a good artist.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, thanks I can do some tests, as I haven't recorded with a stereo mic yet before.

For the dog scene, I recorded the dog barking from a backyard of a house in a neighborhood that was similar to the one we shot it in before, so I felt the acoustics match. Is it a bad idea to save time in post, by matching acoustics to the scene in the recording, rather than doing a lot of post manipulation?

For example, I did a fight scene in a bathroom and then needed to go out and record the sound effects and foley, but I did it all in a similarly acoustic bathroom along with the actors' voices as they made their grunts and scream sounds.

It just saved me having to do it in a dry studio, then giving it bathroom manipulation later. I mean I figure if I can get the bathroom in camera, why not get it in mic, as well, but is that a bad idea, since a lot of people, I know, seem to prefer post manipulation more?

[Brian Drysdale]

It's generally better to keep it clean. you can't undo the reverb in post, but you can easily add it.

The most time consuming aspect can be recording all the sound effects and you may not want the real sound, it's common to use a "simulated effect" or a composite of a number of sounds to create the effect you want.

Fight scenes tend to have exaggerated effects, the reality isn't like the movies.

[Richard Crowley]

Originally Posted by Ryan Wray

...Is it a bad idea to save time in post, by matching acoustics to the scene in the recording, rather than doing a lot of post manipulation?

It feels like you have asked this 100 times and 100 times we have said NO! If you are only doing something simple and low-quality, it may seem like is "saves time". But if you are doing anything serious, you will kick yourself.

I despair that you are not learning anything from this discussion or the one over on Creative COW. If you don't like our answers, why do you keep coming back and asking the same questions over and over? I'm getting tired of this. Maybe you should spend more time going out into the world and actually recording things rather than sitting at your computer keyboard asking the same questions over and over.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Richard Crowley

It feels like you have asked this 100 times and 100 times we have said NO! If you are only doing something simple and low-quality, it may seem like is "saves time". But if you are doing anything serious, you will kick yourself.

I despair that you are not learning anything from this discussion or the one over on Creative COW. If you don't like our answers, why do you keep coming back and asking the same questions over and over? I'm getting tired of this. Maybe you should spend more time going out into the world and actually recording things rather than sitting at your computer keyboard asking the same questions over and over.

Well said Richard, exactly my point from post #131

Roger

[Josh Bass]

Here is another take for Ryan: I think you WANT to hear that yes you can save time by doing blah blah blah in the field, but the reality is that what all these guys are telling you is the way every movie and tv show has been mixed for who knows how long.

I have done plenty of low/zero budget projects as writer/director and I suspect that like me, you will end up doing the editing/post production yourself (possibly because anyone else you have lined up to do that will drop out once they see the actual workload for a feature-length project compared to the little to no money that you can afford to pay). That means edit, color grade, and anything to do with sound. It is an unbelievable amount of work, probably into the thousands of hours, but that is why in the professional sector all of that is handled by many different people (and it still takes them a year!).

So it is understandable that you want to avoid as much of that as you can, but if you want PRO results then what everyone is telling you above is how it’s done. So now the question is, how polished do you want this to be? Are you trying to compete with the high quality content on Netflix, theatrical releases, etc., or are you ok with it looking and sounding like a low budget student/amateur film? The answer will determine your approach to the entire process.

[Paul R Johnson]

3 minutes of pressing records is infinitely better than two weeks of text! What I simply don't understand is that most of these questions can be answered by you, with a single mic and pair of headphones.

Please don't be offended, but you sound very much like a younger friend of mine who is on the autistic scale. he has to ask and ask and ask before he tries anything himself - he needs a framework to work in and he can't learn at all from experience.

What I mean is your question about recording through a window. I've never actually thought about it, but the glass as barrier does things to the audio. It will reduce amplitude, probably not linearly, and it introduces a tonal shift. I can do this with EQ. In practice, I'd stand in the room and listen with my ears, then listen with the mic, and then probably open the window and record that, and make it sound dull and filtered in the studio.

We seem to tell you things, then you ask "so you mean?" or you crazily say what you mean is what somebody else meant, when you have no idea what they were actually thinking?

We've tried to help, we honestly have - but we get the impression you ignore the whole, focus on the trivial and get confused very easy and switch your viewpoint on a whim.

If you read the topic start to finish, you will find all the people who do audio have broadly the same solutions, a few have found alternate systems, and while we often do it differently, I think that's within the limits of professional alternatives. Rarely have any of us disagreed. For goodness sake - put in some effort and try what we suggest out and decide for yourself.

PS it's ALWAYS Foley, never foley. Common error but it's proper name, so always something people spot as a 'sign'.

Of course, you could always record some stuff and let us listen and guide you. Sound works so much better than text.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, well sorry if I kept asking questions, it's just that there are certain variables I want to nail down, that's all. Like when people say to introduce a stereo mic for atmos, or recording dry, that creates a whole new world of variables, that I just wanted to ask about, that's all. I feel that the answers, provide more questions that I felt like I needed to address, that's all.

I guess to me, that choosing to record a lot of the sound effects dry is like shooting a scene in front a green screen, and then saying that the reason for doing so is, is that if you shoot in a real location, you can never undo it later. So I figure if you can do video in the real location, then why not audio as well. But I just wanted to cover why audio is best done dry and then adding later, if you wanted everything to match, that's all.

[Brian Drysdale]

A book is a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Film-Sound-Pr...6370/din02c-20