I am shooting 6-7 people seated around a large round dinner table, eating and talking (all seated in a semi-circle, leaving one side open for 2 cameras). What is the best mic setup to capture great audio? My audio will be going directly into a canon XH-A1 camera.

I really want a nice close-mic sound. My initial thought was to use 7 wireless mics back to a mixer and then into the camera. After thinking about it though, I’m wondering how much chewing, lip smacking and swallowing sounds that would pick up? Not good on close shots of important discussion where someone off-camera would be chewing loudly.

One moderator will lead the discussion – the rest will chime in as the discussion ensues. I anticipate lots of back and forth discussion with some cross-talk.

If I use mics above the table (hanging) what would they be? How close to a 'close-miced’ sound could I get from that? I don’t want it to sound like an echoey, hollow board room meeting! How about PZMs? (I’m thinking that table noise and utensil clinking would be an issue here.)

I'm also thinking that because of the unpredictable nature of the conversation, It would be too difficult to capture with a boom mic/boom operator.

Any advice/input would be appreciated –

Thanks!

Actually, a boom mic with a talented operator is probably your best bet (short of having everyone mic'd).

A short mic (not a shotgun) with a cardioid pattern pointed towards the speaker from a fixed height would minimize differences in volume and sound quality. Saves lots of time in post too.

As a backup, you can consider a Zoom H2 with all 4 channels going (front and back) in the center of the table (hidden in a centerpiece of flowers, perhaps).

As a backup, you can consider a Zoom H2 with all 4 channels going (front and back) in the center of the table (hidden in a centerpiece of flowers, perhaps).

Good suggestion but beware something I had recently - 6 people sitting in a conference room on a corporate shoot in Cambridge. They were seated around a table with the Zoom H2 with all 4 channels going as suggested by Oren - trouble was one of them kept taping the table with his hands whilst talking/listening/picking his nose/breathing....just about ruined my "back up" audio!

If I was limited to recording on just 2 audio channels, I would use two mics (either cardioid or hypercardioid, small diaphragm condensers) on static booms. Each mic covering half the participants from above at about 30 to 45 degrees and as low as possible. Shooting widescreen will help with keeping the mics lower.
Is this a scene in a movie or more like a talkshow? If a movie scene you'll probably use a totally wide establishing shot less than if it's a talk show.
You may need to use an alternate placement for the widest establishing shot if that includes the whole group. For example you could use the same mics hidden on the table in the widest shot, then go to boom mounted for all the close shots. Or if the widest shot is only a lockdown you can matte out the static booms in post with a little pre-planning.
It's important to have a room with low ambient noise and acoustically soft surfaces (including a tablecloth) as well as carpet, moving blankets, padded furniture etc. You can treat the ceiling pretty easily by tacking bed sheets up so they hang down in a slight arc about a foot below the ceiling.
Other sources of noise like air conditioning, refrigerators, traffic, fluorescent lights, must be kept to a minimum. You might even want to buy some chrome-plated plastic utensils. You can hardly distinguish them visually from the real thing but they would be much quieter.
You'll need mics with very low self noise and good sensitivity. High quality mic preamps and mild compression will also be very important.
I would consider using a higher quality audio recorder, possibly one with 4 channels of recording. This would allow you to use more mics, each covering fewer people from a slightly shorter distance. The key is you need to keep each mic isolated on its own channel. Live mixing will probably be too slow, automatic mixing could be fooled too easily by the noises of the table and eating. Leaving all mics up and combining them to a lower number of channels would be a disaster!
With each mic isolated on its own channel, then you make the best audio choice in post for each shot.
This will probably be one of those threads where 20 different ways of solving this problem will be discussed, but the above description is what I'd do personally.

You don't say about seeing mic's. If it's a chat show why not stick a wired lav mic on each person and get someone who has done it before to mix it as it happens. Basically keeping the most likely mic's semi open and fading between. Just like on a live tv show.

Only thing is you need 7 wired personal mic's a mixer and a sound engineer to do the mix.

for me it would be ok as i have 6 wired mics and some radios as well so I could muster about 10.

Obviously if you only have such and such gear then the answer needs to fit the gear.

What do you have available?

Orin, Andy, Jay –

Thanks for the great feedback.

Here’s some more info I should have included.

The video of the dinner discussion is documentary in style and will happen in real time while shooting two (or three) cameras. One will be wide, one fixed on the moderator (seated in the center) and one roving back and forth (close) depending on who’s talking.

Would a boom-op be best? It seems to me that with the conversations jumping back and forth, (unscripted) it would be very difficult in real time. Here’s a link to an example of a program that we are styling our shoot after.

YouTube - Dinner for Five - Ep #3.2 (2004) Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMV2fS2ZK00)

Looks like they are all on wireless.

If boom -- which mics (specifically) would you recommend?

Thanks again for the great feedback!

Jimmy -- just saw you reply after posting - thanks. Seeing them is not a problem. However, I'd prefer not to have to go with 7 wireless for the obvious reasons (you mentioned), but above all, I want to get great sound. I can budget 7 wireless if necessary.

How long do you anticipate recording at one time? That would factor into whether a live boom op (or two preferrably) could handle it. I think they'd have to be on ladders also, with the boom resting behind their head across the shoulders to shoot for extended periods of time.
If you can get 3 or more recording channels, then mic the moderator with a hidden, wired lav and use two static booms each covering 3 people. That would be simple, but the enhanced presence of the moderator's lav might be noticeable. Maybe use a planted mic on the table directly in front of the moderator.
What's your budget for everything audio? You could buy or rent, and you'd have to balance out the cost of a better recorder versus better mics versus boom ops versus a live mixer (person) etc.

Thanks Jay --

I anticipate rolling uninterrupted for at least 1/2 hour -- and possibly up to 1 hr. So yes, the boom op(s) would get fatigued I think. Thanks for the ladder/shoulders tip however.

I will only have 2 channels (into camera). I could get a mixer..

If I were to static boom as you suggested, what type of mic would you recommend? And would suspending the booms from the celling produce the same results as static booms on stands/poles? How about positioning?

I'm a bit leery about a mic on the table in front of the mod. Do you think I'll get too much clinking/table noise?

Budget -- I'd like to keep it under 1K including boom op.

Thanks again --

I think live boom ops would be way less efficient than static booms with such extremely long takes.
You could also use hanging choir-type mics suspended from the ceiling, although generally they don't have as low self-noise as a premium cardioid or hypercadioid that could be boom mounted. Plus hanging anything from the ceiling would be more setup and less flexible to change if something around the table needed an unforeseen adjustment. I think static booms are the way to go.
Can you record to more than one of your cameras to gain more than just two tracks? If the answer is No due to audio quality of camera inputs, then I'd use a cardioid to cover the moderator and half the other people, then a cardioid to cover the remaining half.
I'd really try and find a way to record at least 3 or 4 channels though, one for the moderator, one for the left half and one for the right half, (and one overall cover mic that wouldn't be great quality but would have everyone recorded evenly. This could be used as a backup, as a logging and editing aid and could be sent to the 3rd camera so that footage would have cleaner audio than just ambient when aligning tracks and checking for drift over long takes.
Since $1k would have to be spread over a lot of different pieces (assuming you have nothing to begin with), that's going to be extremely thin if you're purchasing. It can be done, but the quality of mics would be reasonable rather than premium.
Are there sound professionals in your area that do this kind of work? If not and you're set on purchasing your own with that budget, then I think you'd be limited to AT3031 mics ($169 each) or maybe the newer AT4021 ($249 each) if you could beg, rent or borrow other items.
Again because of using a lower number of wider pattern mics at a slightly greater distance to get even coverage, your recording space has to be low-noise and acoustically soft.
In addition, you should have a shockmount, boom pole, boom holder, stand, sandbag, and cable for each mic. You'll also need a stereo mic preamp or a small mixer with sufficient quality mic preamps, a compressor would be nice, more cables and good headphones.
All that's going to be about $1500 depending on the quality of the boom poles and preamp. You could go directly into the camera without using a preamp, but that's usually not sufficient for a good quality, low-noise signal, which is the whole point of buying better mics.
The good news is all these items purchased will outlast your camera if you get quality gear and take care of it.

Thanks for the great info Jay --

Just to clarify -- my budget is for rental. I'm in the NYC area with access to great gear. With that being said, what mic would you recommend -- or other gear?

So it looks like two static boom on stands? I'm concerned about picking up the stands as the cameras mover back and forth as in the example (link) earlier in this thread. If I were to hang the booms from the ceiling, I suppose I lose the option to easily move them around to capture the best sound.

Yes, I can go to another camera with audio, but would prefer to leave one of the cameras 'untethered.' (will only use 2 cameras)

So two channels in (1 each boom) and then maybe a zoom H2 on the table for backup?

Thanks again --

I did one of these with a very small group around a dining table in a small apartment. I hung a Schoeps MK41 (hyper cardiod) in the overhead light pointing straight down at the center of the table. It picked up the conversation very naturally, but it may not be the close up sound you are going for. There was zero sound treatment done in that situation. For a close up sound with lavs I would suggest hard wired into an eight channel automatic mic mixer. Hardwired that is if you can avoid showing the wires and don't have to have people coming in to sit down. Wireless lavs would be good too but might blow your budget. The mixer itself should rent for $100 a day max. I've done this with large (up to 25 people) groups and its sometimes the only way.
If you decide to go with boom ops I would go with Schoeps mics or other high quality cardiod or hypers and divide the group in half. For long takes I use a mono pod support to help me. I recently boomed a five person group (one person was on wireless lav on his own channel and the rest were boomed. I was sending my mixer output direct to the camera via an umbilical. It was a spontaneous one and a half hour discussion and I hardly broke a sweat. If you have to be on a ladder it might get tricky to use a support but it could work. If you use lavs I hope you're good at hiding them if that's also the style.
Good Luck!
Bernie

Just looked at the example and they are all on exposed lavs. Looks like possibly Sennheiser MKE2s. The auto mixer would work well in this scenario. If you rented Countryman B6s you could poke them through a button hole and hide them in plain site.
Bernie

What about using a boundary microphone? These are omni directional, and you put one in the centre of the table. A "not-too-bad" plate microphone could be AT841a - quite small.

TingSern's suggestion of a boundry mike is going in the right direction. A boundry mike is NOT a PZM mike. The PZM would be the best choice. The PZM due to its operational characteristics minimizes reverberation & other room artifacts; some refer to it as a plate mike. You could use 2 of them at least 3-4' (to minimize comb effects) apart on the table. I would test the setup with one mike,to see if it would pickup all of the individuals; then try 2 mikes & go with the best setup. Remember these are non directional & will pick up all sounds abovethe table top.

The boundry mikes are not PZM's; they were brought out by other manufacturers after Crown International aquired the patent rights to the design from Ron wickersham. Radio Shack used to sell a PZM that was made under the Crown patent for $60-; but like all really useful products that become popular, they were discontinued.

This is the kind of shoot which requires a little bit of everything for sound. I would use hardwired or wireless lavs going to an automatic mixer system like my Shure FP 410's as well as mount a couple of booms recorded to a second channel. I don't like boundary mics for this as the table noise is usually closer in proximity to the mics than the voices but they might serve instead of the booms. If one has the budget it would also be great to record the iso's but most of the time the lavs mix will be outstanding and the automatic system means most of the time only one mic will be in the mix at a time except when everyone is talking at once where it sounds like a mix. It is important to have a line of sight for the sound person so they can see if someone is not talking and making annoying sounds etc while not talking so they can be dropped out of the mix for that time. Reminding people before the shoot that they are miked so unnecessary noise should be avoided can help.

I still have my two original Radio Shack PZM's, plus a Crown PZM and two Crown hypercardioid boundary mics as well as several in cardioid and omni from Audio-Technica.
They all work well for boundary purposes, but I think the close proximity to the noisy table activities would be more of a problem than with properly located boom mics.
Since you're renting, then you can use premium boom mics like Schoeps.
I also have the Shure FP-410 and while it too does a good job of auto-mixing in the right circumstances, I think if you have too many mics too close to each other, coupled with the noises of the table and eating, the mixer would keep most of the mics up all the time.
Let us know what you decide to do and what the final results are.

PZM and boundary mics seem like the best bet for coverage, but I don't know if they are practical, at least not if they are on the table. There is going to be way too much noise there from glasses, clinking plates, people moving stuff around, and stuff like that. Mouth noises are going to be a problem with lavs too. I vote for a couple of cardiods on stands.

Since you're renting, then you can use premium boom mics like Schoeps.
I also have the Shure FP-410 and while it too does a good job of auto-mixing in the right circumstances, I think if you have too many mics too close to each other, coupled with the noises of the table and eating, the mixer would keep most of the mics up all the time.
Let us know what you decide to do and what the final results are.

I have done more than a few wild roundtables with food and have been continued to be impressed by how well the automix does but jay is correct that sometimes it gets confused but rarely does it open all the mics except when everyone is talking at once. It is more likely confused by a fan or airconditioner at one end of the set than by everyone making noise all at the same time. Remember even though it is auto mixing you can still turn down a mic which is adding noise but not content. Also mic placement is helpful. Try and keep to the 3 to 1 rule so the distance between the mic on one person is closer than three times that distance to the next person to avoid phasing issues.

Well having seen the video it would seem even clearer now that my initial answer is the way to go.
One thing to bear in mind if you are shooting multi camera is a live mixer will need a picture cut to mix to if you want the emphasis on who is in shot i f there are two conversations going on at once. Obviously can't do that if you don't have a live vision mix as with hard wired studio cameras. I assume you are recording to separate cameras such as the Z1 for instance.
If you have 3 cameras locked together you get more audio tracks to use of course. But I assume that is too complicated and you are looking for a mono mix of chat.

Personally I would avoid boom mounted mic's in this situation as they need dedicated operators to follow the action and they add nothing but superfluous audio quality to the production. Good lav mic's will more than suffice and will pick up less cutlery noise.
As you have a budget you should hire a sound engineer and just find one who has the kit required. Say a couple of radio mics and the rest wired lav's. + a mixer... easy - job done. Would not even bother with the auto mixer. You need someone dedicated to wiring up the speakers and listening to the mix live so why not just mix it properly and by hand?

Good lav mic's will more than suffice and will pick up less cutlery noise.
As you have a budget you should hire a sound engineer and just find one who has the kit required. Say a couple of radio mics and the rest wired lav's. + a mixer... easy - job done. Would not even bother with the auto mixer. You need someone dedicated to wiring up the speakers and listening to the mix live so why not just mix it properly and by hand?

Have you been on a shoot with the FP-410 or something similar? Personally having done many of these things over the years with and without I find they are a great tool for this application. They are not to be confused with Auto gain, they never fall asleep and still can be controlled by the soundman. No sound man I know can act as fast as the machine consistently.

We are using 3 of them on a show I work on to feed a single fader as a reach too fader if someone speaks and we don't know who it is. Then we cross fade to that persons mic. We also iso all those mic's to 24 track. We have 22 people who cal out with out warning duriong the show.
However James says he has only six or seven speakers. How hard to mix is that? Just keep most the mic's at half mast and if you have a few slightly low level interjections so be it.
I've nothing against the auto mixer but it takes time to set up and has no discretion concerning who is the main voice. Sometimes one person is leading and the others are all laughing and commenting together. I would give the main speaker a good ten db over the others, maybe more. I call that mixing. It's not arbitrary which the auto mixer is.
If you are happy recording the show without monitoring the audio properly then the 8 channel auto mixer could really help if set up properly and if you don't mind every noise being given equal priority in the mix. But as you do need to pay close attention to the sound as it is recorded and as you do have let's say 7 personal mics to rig you also do need a sound man so why then have him and not have him mix the gig?
Personally I would not expect any camera man to deal with his duties well and look after that many mic's. This is a difficult sound job and requires a sound man to guarantee good sound. So why use an auto mixer?

That's just my personal opinion and to me it is pretty much the only option. Look at the you tube of Bert Reynolds and friends.. turns out there are no booms, just personal/lav mics. It looks like a live vision mix too with sound mixer working to picture cut as it happens. Could be wrong about that though.

My initial thought was to use 7 wireless mics back to a mixer and then into the camera. After thinking about it though, I’m wondering how much chewing, lip smacking and swallowing sounds that would pick up? Not good on close shots of important discussion where someone off-camera would be chewing loudly.

One moderator will lead the discussion – the rest will chime in as the discussion ensues. I anticipate lots of back and forth discussion with some cross-talk.


Exactly the reason to mix it manually.

I've also done many shoots with the Shure auto mixer and it really doesn't take that much time to set up. Its one knob per channel and has two parallel mono outs. You can still do a mix of sorts if needed. There are a couple of reasons to use an auto mixer over manually mixing it.
If the line of sight is bad and there isn't sufficient video monitoring an auto mixer could be a life saver. Also if the room is very noisey the background would be louder if all the mics had to be half up to avoid missing an interjection. I don't think incidental eating noises would be that much of a problem. It it was an issue that mic could be temporarily lowered.
Be sure there is a good tablecloth and heavy utensils to keep clinking to a minimum.
For sure a qualified sound person should be on the job. That is a good number of mics to deal with, and you don't just set and forget the automixer if you want top results. I would run the output of the auto mixer into another mixer and from there out to all the cameras. That way you can have the main speaker on his own channel at full level all the time and the rest of the group on the other channel submixed by the auto mixer. Another option would be to rent a multi track recorder and put each mic on its own track and mix it in post.
Whatever route you choose good luck! It looks like a fun ideal!
Bernie

Orin, Andy, Jay –

Thanks for the great feedback.

Here’s some more info I should have included.

The video of the dinner discussion is documentary in style and will happen in real time while shooting two (or three) cameras. One will be wide, one fixed on the moderator (seated in the center) and one roving back and forth (close) depending on who’s talking.

You need to iso everyone. Get something like BoomRecorder where you can record each track separately, then fix it in post. Either that or get a really good sound person to mix it live to 2-track.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Thanks guys for all of the excellent feedback. Lots of great info here. If I can afford it in my budget, I may hire and affordable production sound mixer for the day (with mic package) and let him do his thing. If I'm going to do it myself, I'll probably go the boom mic route with two well placed mics overhead.

Just to toss it out there -- In the NYC, how much should I expect to pay a production sound mixer for the day (with gear, mixer, mics, recording back to camera and hard disk)? (in at 9am - out by 5pm)

James,
This is where it can get complicated but which gear etc. If you pay the Soundman $450 for labor how much gear do you expect him to provide in your list with transportation and parking. Are you talking hardwire Lavs, Wireless? Harddrive recorder for how many tracks? Lots of different ways to skin a cat to hit a budget number. As a for instance the Shure FP-410 package with 7 wired lavs would rent for about $225 per day. HTH