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

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks, but I was told before by others, not to do this, because using a splitter, cuts the signal in half and it's not good for the signal, cause you loose decibels this way, I was told. I was also told it's not good for the mic either to do this, so is using a splitter, a good idea therefore? Cause if I loose decibels, than I have to turn up the gain even higher then. I don't want to do anything that is bad for the mic if it is to, of course.

[Richard Crowley]

Originally Posted by Ryan Wray

Okay thanks, but I was told before by others, not to do this, because using a splitter, cuts the signal in half and it's not good for the signal, ...

Not true. Microphone splitting is a widely used technique across all areas of professional audio.

Whomever you are getting advice from seem profoundly clueless about audio. Recommend staying away from them.

[Paul R Johnson]

Ryan - you seriously have a bunch of advisors who seem to know very, very little about audio. I've been splitting audio for a very long time now. I have quite a few snakes - one has a three way 24ch transformer coupled split, I also have two others where the stage box end has a male and a female connector in parallel, with a further multicore out wired across them. Nowadays, I use a Behringer X32 and a Midas M32 both being fed from the Midas 32 channel stage box in digital. There is no difference I can hear between the lossless digital split and the passive splits. The physics says there is a loss. The practical upshot is that you simply never notice. On occasions, we've had one show with the passive splits feeding an OB truck, who de-rig and clear during the second show. They pulled out their cables and no gain adjustment was needed between the two shows.

If you cannot solder, buy a Y splitter, they cost nothing really - so a damn useful bit of kit for the tool box. The only rule with splitters is a simple one. Only ONE device supplies phantom, not two. However, it's easy to get wrong, and I've never had an issue with this. Audio folk do need a bit of physics/science, and your friends probably took an art class rather than science. It brings me back to the standard of education sadly. All those people who like to have a gain reduced safety track have to feed one mic to two inputs somehow? A splitter. My cameras for years have had a switch to feed the camera mic to one or both channels - it's just a link switch - another splitter.

[Patrick Tracy]

Originally Posted by Ryan Wray

Okay thanks, but I was told before by others, not to do this, because using a splitter, cuts the signal in half and it's not good for the signal, cause you loose decibels this way, I was told. I was also told it's not good for the mic either to do this, so is using a splitter, a good idea therefore? Cause if I loose decibels, than I have to turn up the gain even higher then. I don't want to do anything that is bad for the mic if it is to, of course.

It doesn't harm the mic at all and you lose very little signal. XLR mic splits are a common way to record a music event or to send the signals to a mixer for the audience and a separate mixer for the band stage monitors. Sometimes a single mic (e.g. lead vocal) is split to two channels for separate processing for audience and stage. The worst case scenario is that occasionally a console will do unwanted things if it sees phantom power from another console, but that's rare. Another risk is ground loop when the two ends of the split are on different A/C power, but if you're just splitting into two channels on one device those problems won't happen.

I own a couple of 16-channel splitter snakes. I've never had a problem using them.

[John Nantz]

Given the somewhat difficult working conditions that has been presented it would be handy to have more options available, like a safety track for example. Sure, the discussion has turned to splitters but just want to give a plug for the safety track because I think it would be really handy.

Speaking of handy, how about another recorder? While everyone has their preference, this Tascam DR44-WL has worked very nicely for me. Has two stereo inputs, records safety tracks, and is easily controlled with a smartphone. As I write this, eBay currently has a used one for Buy-it-Now open box US$193.30 or new for $205 (free shipping).

[Edit: forgot to mention, it can be operated from a distance via a smartphone application (iPhone in this case). Works well it in combination with a plant mic. Operate Start/Stop, gain adjustment remotely]

With a second recorder one can record the plant mic, hook up a lavaliere, or what have you.

Can’t have too much kit!

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks, but I don't think I would need a second recorder if I already have the splitter, but maybe. It depends on if I have another person to operate it or not, but if it's just me doing the sound mixing and the booming, I cannot operate another recorder successfully I don't think. I think I would need another person for that...

[Josh Bass]

But arent you directing too? That’s going to be very tough (if not impossible) to split your attention and do both well. Sounded like you already had planned for a separate DP...I’d advise getting a separate sound guy as well. Then you wouldnt have to worry about any of this (other than that person’s competence)!

[Ryan Elder]

Oh in the past, I was forced to do my own audio on my own projects, if shorthanded. I look for other production sound mixers/boom ops, but there do not seem to be near as many of them around compared to cinematographers it seems. The two guys I talked to who recorded music bands were possibly interested they said, but they were the ones who wanted to plant mics all around the room, and create surround sound while shooting.

[Josh Bass]

Hmmm. That's quite the wrinkly pickle. I guess you're better off doing it yourself with proper technique than using folks who have no idea what they're talking about.

[Ryan Elder]

I can hopefully find someone better. It's just most audio people prefer to use lavs as well, but they do not have enough for all the people I have, and I would rather just use the boom mics I have, rather than lavs, which have caused me problems in the past, but also do not have enough of usually. But it's hard to find someone who is good at booming, so I've done it since I've done it for other filmmakers before.

[Richard Crowley]

Originally Posted by Ryan Wray

...The two guys I talked to who recorded music bands were possibly interested they said, but they were the ones who wanted to plant mics all around the room, and create surround sound while shooting.

Let them record a production like that and make them edit/mix it down to a professional-sounding track. If they have any sense they will quickly see why that is a bad idea.

Plant mics were popular back in the 1930s when a microphone was the size (and weight) a bowling ball. There is no logical motivation for that kind of compromise here in the 21st century.

[Ryan Elder]

Yeah that's what I thought, the only time I saw a plant mic used was in the movie Singin' in the Rain, which was hidden inside an actual plant.

[Brian Drysdale]

Having made a film with surround sound, I would do it all in post. You have so much control that it's a dream laying the sound; going back to the 1930s for mic techniques is not really the way to go. It's extremely limiting, I've done it once when shooting on a low budget one man band corporate video on health and all the action has to be pinned down.

Read Walter Murch and others on sound design. Trying to get good surround sound whilst shooting will eat into your shooting schedule,so get good clean mono dialogue sound tracks (use radio mics if needed) and a separate stereo atmos track for each location and do the rest later. The sound recordist can pick up many of the spot effects etc when you've left the location or elsewhere in the location on the day or during breaks, otherwise you'll have to stop rigging/ setting up/ rehearsing every time they want to record something. However, schedule time for them to do this and other foley work.

Building up all the effects etc is really a fun job and you can really enhance a production with an imaginative sound track..

[Paul R Johnson]

Have you ever done TV? You have a recorder on a strap around your neck, you have maybe a couple of its clipped on to the participants and maybe a boom to manage. Perversely possible. You don't have a hand on each control. You set the levels, then work the boom. You are NOT mixing, that's for later. You are just capturing sound, as cleanly as you can. The other day somebody was looking for a carrying solution for multiple receivers, the recorder and all the odds and ends. This is perfectly normal, everyday activity for audio people. You are making everything into a huge mountain, which is isn't. You just need proper planning.

I recently did a job where I had to do everything. There simply wasn't any budget for paying 3 cameras and one audio guy. The project was speculative. I had no idea if it would be viable. They wanted old fashioned DVDs as the end product. I recorded 9 audio tracks in the end, and five video cameras, two which were about 30m apart, so I was recording audio totally unattended, while I ran back and forth changing angles. Wore me out but with all the fixed cameras the result was ok. Could have been much better with proper cameramen of course, but for weeks nothing much happened then an order arrived after they saw the five minute clip I sent them. All the money is mine, nobody else to pay so turned out to be totally workable. Audio was no issue whatsoever set and forget. I perhaps guessed maximums a bit OTT, so clipping was never going to happen. Easy to mix and balance.

Ryan I think we are all trying to tell you that you need to stand back a step, review your past work, identify problem areas that were terminal and those that weren't, then use your experience and common sense, and stop letting audio idiots tell you how to do your job. Develop the knowing nod - where you appear to listen and contemplate, then reject the advice and do it your way.

[Ryan Elder]

Okay thanks. As for recording atmos sound, why do I need to record that in stereo? I've been recording it in mono before with no problems, but what's the reason to record it in stereo?

Before I just used a shotgun on mono and that was it. Any surround sound mixing was done after.

As for using lavs in addition to the boom, I didn't use lavs to save money, especially in scenes where there multiple actors, that would require quit a bit of lavs, so I just boomed from actor to actor only and went with that instead.