I’m relatively new to audio. I’ve spent years learning the other aspects of filmmaking and am now up to audio. I put it last because it was what I was most afraid of. I’m still afraid of it.

I have a little kit consisting of the Akg se300b w/ck93, Sound Devices mm-1, and the Zoom H4. I use Audition and Izotope RX.

I have spent an enormous amount of time on pre-prod for my next film. I know exactly how my film will look. But I'd also like it to sound a very specific way, and I'll twist myself inside out to achieve this.

The sound of the dialogue in this film is what I’m after:

YouTube - Sister my Sister part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvqZg8Gabkk)

There is something very distinct about it. It sounds thick and old, and sort of stuffy, and it seems so inextricably bound with the picture that it is hard to image how to replicate it. I have tried so many combinations of things in Audition and just can’t seem to get anything similar.

What I mean by am I kidding myself is, is this kind of audio impossible with my equipment, or do I just not have the knowledge of post manipulation? I’d appreciate some ideas on the post side of things. I’m not looking for any silver bullet, golden arrow, etc., just some thoughts.

You might say the audio sounds degraded because of youtube, but it is still the same basic sound on the dvd. In fact, everyone’s voice in the film and all the sound effects have the same type of sound, the footsteps on the wooden floors, the thick crunching sound of a pin through fabric, etc.. I just can’t put my finger on it.

If there are books I can read, equipment I can buy, tests I can do, anything, please tell me. I fully realize how difficult and how specialized audio production is, and how hard you people work to get where you are. I want to work hard too.

Sorry for the long post. Thanks in advance.

If you boom it correctly and know how to use eqs and compression you can do it. You may want a short shotgun for outside.

Layers upon layers. Dialog recorded very close so there's minimal room in the voices. Maybe shot on a set constructed on a quiet soundstage rather than on a "found" location. Lot's of Foley, it's very likely that every single sound you hear, from the footsteps on the wood floor to the beans snapping in the kitchen, was recorded and laid in separately and deliberately to build up the final tapestry.

Two good books to have are Jay Rose's book "Producing Great Sound for Film and Video" and S. Dean Mile's book "Location Audio Simplified". The latter book can be purchased at his website : Home (http://www.locationaudiosimplified.com).

Thanks for the replies. I am still deciding over a shotgun, the Sanken cs-1 is nice, though I may save for the cs-3e. To make something clear, I live in a relatively remote part of Australia. The nearest rental house is 20+ hours drive. That and the fact that I work on my films evenings and weekends means it is more economical to buy my own equipment.

Chris R: We always have the mic just out of frame, and aim it at the chest area. I understand how an eq works, though I don’t know how to sweep certain frequencies to locate and pull out vocals, etc. What is the best way to learn this stuff? I think I’m starting to get a handle on compression. Does the audio in the clip sound very compressed? Apart from eq and compression, is anything else going on?

Steve: Thanks. On closer inspection I see that the sound in one instance doesn’t match the actions, so I’d imagine all sounds are foley, like you said. Would the AKG suffice for recording foley fx? I’ve read a large diaphragm mic is best.

Chris S: Thanks for the recommendations. I’m fairly sure I have the audio gathering side of things covered for my specific gear. It is more the post manipulation I’m after. Do these books cover post production?

The AKG is ok for this application then? Is there anything I’m missing or could improve in the audio chain?

If I were to record a sample of dialogue say next weekend, and link the file here, would anyone be willing to have a go modifying it for me? Conversely, if no one has time, if I post my best effort, could someone critique it? Maybe give some guidance?

Many, many thanks.

I disagree with some of the previous posters.

I don't think this is a lot of layered foley. The voices are very unfocused sounding, not the kind of pinpoint dead center mono effect you get from close miced voices (or tight pattern mics). The dialog wanders a bit in the stereo image, unfocused.

The effects also sound pretty unfocused, very ambient - again unlike normal close miced foley.

The ambience on both the voices and effects is very short, and consistent. I can hear the backgound noise pumping up and down a bit.

The voices can be heard at varying distances as the actors move.

This sounds to me, like what you would get by stereo micing a sound stage, assuming you had good, old fashioned actors who know how to project a bit, and then compressing the sound.

It sounds like what I have gotten when I did exactly that, at least. ;-)

Or maybe an MS mic setup with a bit too much of the 'S'. It sounds a bit phasey.

I think this is a very low budget production and maybe they either just stereo miced the whole thing, or saved money on foley by recording a stereo pair at the same time as the boom and just mixed it in.

If not, they sure went to a lot of trouble to sound this unclear.

As to the sound not matching in places, that would be caused by using the sound from one take (a master, perhaps) and cutting in other takes (closeups, etc).

This is not very good audio by modern standards. But you have heard a lot of audio like this in older movies, perhaps we tend to associate it with more 'real' because there was less possibilty of messing with the audio in those days - sort of like how old B&W film is perceived as more 'honest'. We don't think it has been manipulated, effected, 'Photoshopped'.

It sounds thick and old, and sort of stuffy ... You might say the audio sounds degraded because of youtube, but it is still the same basic sound on the dvd. In fact, everyone’s voice in the film and all the sound effects have the same type of sound, the footsteps on the wooden floors, the thick crunching sound of a pin through fabric, etc.. I just can’t put my finger on it.

I think this is because they were recorded in the same room, at the same time. If you want to duplicate this, try booming normally, but also put up a stereo pair (to two separate tracks), and then mix in the stereo tracks in post to get that effect. The effects tracks are also compressed, perhaps fairly heavily.

Part of what you are hearing is the 'stereo-ness' of the 'crunching sound...'. And its bounce off the close walls of the set/stage.

It would be pretty easy to try this out at home before committing to your production. Make sure none of the mics is any closer than 15 feet to another mic.

To do this in post, try feeding all the foley and a little of the voice into a very small room reverb with some fairly heavy first reflections. Unlike normal practice, then compress both the original foley -and- the reverb together.

Another thought - something else you might try in the initial recording would be to have the actors play the scene twice, once boomed normally, the second time with them just mouthing the words (no sound) and record the stereo mics at that time.
Sort of do-it-yourself foley. This would pretty well guarantee some out of sync effects just like the one you like. ;-). But the background could then be heaviy compressed without interfering with the voice. ...probably woud not work, too out of sync...never mind that last idea...

A quick look at the IMDB page...hmmm. Low budget, yes. First time director. Interestingly, the sound department is larger than the camera department! Was this because:

1. Green director just KNEW soud was SO important.

Or

2. First time director screwed up sound so badly many people had to be called in to try to fix it...

Pick a likely one. ;-)



-Mike

Mike, how to say thanks... your post is helpful, insightful, and it made me laugh :) I knew, from listening to the film so many times, that there was something odd about the sound. That’s when I got concerned about my equipment, and decided I needed to seek help.

Indeed the film is low-budget, and directed by a first-timer who came from theatre. It’s fairly apparent she had only her theatre experience to bring to the film, so the idea of micing the “stages” with a stereo pair sounds very plausible. The imdb details do list a boom operator, so maybe your notion of them saving on foley is right.

The audio is poor relative to today’s standards, and that’s exactly what I want. I want the film to look and sound like it was made years ago. I agree with you about the old films being perceived as more real. I’m trying to efface any pretense from the film and create something that feels genuine. For me it has always been about the specifics, not what’s considered the best.

Unfortunately, as to your suggestions, I am limited by my equipment at present--I knew I should have bought the mixpre. I don’t suppose there’s anyway of creating a verisimilitude of “stereo-micness” with just one mic and a one channel pre? Gosh, what a ridiculous scenario this is turning into! Could you recommend a set of stereo mics?

Your post, although making the task now seem harder, made my day. Thanks for that.

I listened to the audio one more time, and learned some more. The frequency response of the background effects changes depending upon whether there are voices present, and their level. This suggests some single ended noise reduction may have been used. This would make sense if the original audio was recorded a little too low level, or distant, and was, as a result, a bit hissy. Taking myself back to the early 90's, that is part of what -I- used to do, among other things, to clean up crappy audio that desperate green producers brought me.

The net result of this is that, when by themselves, the background noises sound rather dull - no high end. When the voices come in, there are a bit more highs, making the voices a little more present.

Listening closely to the delays on the percussive sounds between the two channels, I would guess them as being more than 15 ms, but less than 40ms. So I would guess the (stereo pair) mics were spaced 20-25 feet apart. Or thereabouts.

This is definitely a spaced stereo pair, not a coincident mic placement.

You really need a stereo pair to get this effect. With only one mic, the best you could do would be to back off the mic, roll off the highs, add about 5% tube distortion, and then compress it heavily. But that would sound more like early 30's mono sound, not really this effect.

They should be condenser mics (dynamics would be noisy), but they do not need to be very good ones - in fact really cheap ones might be just the ticket for this. Not so cheap they are horribly noisy though.

You really need to be able to record three tracks separately. Without that capabiity, you run great risk of losing it all.

With your current gear, plus two more cheap mics, I might try this first:

Two mics at the front of the stage, spaced about 25 feet apart, pointed slightly down (not at the actors heads), and straight back at the back of the stage. The idea being to pick up more of the ambient sounds and not so much of the voices. You may have to point them in more, you have to listen to them.

Feed these to the Zoom.

Normal boom. Use your normal setup, feed to camera.

In post - you will have to manually sync the Zoom and camera tracks. And more than once, as they drift off. Plus, you may need to make minor delays/adjustments in timing to make them truly lock together.

Eq a little of the voice presence range out of the ambient mics. There will be voice bleed on these tracks, this will help the main voice track punch through a bit better.

Roll off some of the highs on the voice track. Notice this track you like is not very sparkly, the highs are more than a 1930s track (almost telephone quality) but less than modern tracks. Listen to the S's to match that.

Roll off even more of the highs on the ambient track.

You will need to roll off lows on both tracks as well- notice there are no real lows on the movie tracks, even the music seems to be missing the lowest octave or two. Use the movie as a reference for this.

Now mix the two together, and compress until the background sounds seem about as present as on the movie you like.

Fine tune eq and compression from there. Have some of the movie sound handy as a reference so you do not get off track.

This may or may not do it, it is just what I would start with, a first try.

Another possible thing would be to use the spaced mics as above, but point them at the actors, and use -mostly- them, and less of the boom. You just have to test...

Make tests before you shoot!!!

-Mike

PS:

Make tests before you shoot!!!

PPS:

Remember to make tests before you shoot!!!

Mike-

Some incredibly informative stuff here. Very glad to have you on the boards. I hail from P-town, nice to see familiar faces =) Also, just so you're aware- when I'm ready to tackle sound engineering (I mean really ready to commit some time to it) I'm coming up there to convince you to mentor me. If that doesn't work I'll stalk you on all your projects and learn your best tricks anyway!

Mike:

I think I’d subconsciously factored out the Zoom’s XLR’s because the pre-amps are so lousy. They really are noisy on high, and are fairly ineffective on medium gain setting.

By a “cheap” stereo pair, I take it you don’t mean this cheap:

BEHRINGER - C2 STUDIO CONDENSER MICROPHONES PAIR (http://www.cranbournemusic.com.au/cstore/930087000265.html)

But how about these:

http://www.music123.com/MXL-993-Condenser-Microphones-Stereo-Pair-273171-i1126986.Music123

Or these:

Rode NT5-MP Cardoid Condenser Microphone Pair :: Vocal & Studio Microphones :: Microphones :: Audio :: New Media Sales Pty Ltd (http://www.new-media.com.au/Rode-NT5-MP-Cardoid-Condenser-Microphone-Pair-pr-3132.html)

Anything specific you could recommend?

I think we are getting somewhere now. What you’ve been able to intuit seems logical when listening to the audio. I’m definitely ready to give it a go.

And don’t worry about my testing before I shoot. I won’t be shooting anything until I get what I want, regardless of how many tests I must do.

Thank you ever so much for your time and advice. As we say in Australia, you are worth your weight in Uranium ;-)

I read a lot of the previous comments and I think a lot of them are totally off the mark.

Most if not all dialogue recorded on set and location here in the UK is done with one mic and without any frills at all. a sennheiser 416 (0r 816) is the defacto for drama recording. Sometimes a smaller mic such as a sanken or neuman km is used on a fisher boom but sound poles tend to have the 416 on it.

It is very rare that a stereo or M/S mic will be used at all and this certainly sounds like a fixed set in a studio sound stage. It could be location but if it is then the same recording set-up will be used, the wide shot certainly sounds correct perspective for a 416 on a panamic boom.

I have had a good listen on my sony 7506 cans and what I hear is a 416 in a set but there is also some sort of problem with the transfer, it may be from an optical track as there is some pumping in the background noise or this may be the you tube transfer. Listen to the bit when Julie Walters is laughing and you can hear her going on and off mic as she moves her head, the 416 will be about 18ins above her head at 45 degrees. There has been very little added in post and apart from the servant bell most of what you are hearing is real, it may also be that there is an expander on the dialogue tracks which will also explain the background disapearing.
As for the tonal quality it is usual for dialogue mixers here in the Uk to roll off all of the top end EQ at about 6k and cut the bass at around 150hz. This is a fall out from the optical transfer days where bandwidth was limited and it is still done on a lot of dramas.

Drama here in the UK tends to be recorded very simply and there is a certain discipline to this technique as everyone knows what the limitations are and a very consistent sound track can be attained. Certainly most of the high end costume dramas such as this are recorded this way and the post follows with very little messing around with the raw dialogue tracks.

Hope this helps I have over 29 years experience in UK drama production and most things I have done at a high end have been done on a 416 at the end of a panamic.
A similar sound can be had with a rode or cheaper mic but th rule of thumb is keep it simple and follow the shot framing to get the correct perspective.

Just had a look on IMDB and the dubbing mixer was Dean Humphreys, he is one of the top dubbing guys here in the UK and he works at Twickenham sound studios. Size of sound crew was pretty normal for film drama prod in the 90's Chris Munro was the recordist and he went on to some some other low budget stuff??? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0613101/ NOT!
Guess in recording was a 416/816 to a stereo nagra IV, may have been just a mono nagra with pilot tone. Anyway he will tell you all here:http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/dor/objects/826378/quantum_of_solace/videos/qs_chris_munro_sound.html;jsessionid=e7n3fnhe168f3
Two mics seen on the booms are a 416 and a 816 as stated, the 816 is in the blimp that is 3 ft long.

Dean is one of the old skool film mixers and he is vastly experienced so I would guess that a lot of the nasties are from you tube or dolby miss tracks.

His IMDB is here:Dean Humphreys (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0401981/) Claire Manning my neighbour's daughter and a good friend of my own daughter is now one of his sound editing team.

Sister my Sister was done in 1994 so was probably done on magnetic film stock as I dont think Twickenham had digital till the later 1990's. Also the age of is will point to a 416 or 816 mc too.

Mag film stock is basically analogue audio tape with sprocket holes like 35/16mm film, the 35mm stock has three audio tracks and will also have dolby SR or A noise reduction, the quality you are hearing is a lot to do with that too as film mag is limited in its audio frequency range.

I think I’d subconsciously factored out the Zoom’s XLR’s because the pre-amps are so lousy. They really are noisy on high, and are fairly ineffective on medium gain setting.

That's 'H4' not 'H4n', right? Definitely not with dynamic mics, but with reasonably high output condensors, maybe. You have some mitigating factors in place in this case that will help with the noise.

By a “cheap” stereo pair, I take it you don’t mean this cheap:

BEHRINGER - C2 STUDIO CONDENSER MICROPHONES PAIR (http://www.cranbournemusic.com.au/cstore/930087000265.html)



Maybe...

I am not the best person to ask about cheap mics. The last time I had any interest in them was over thirty years ago, so I am not exactly up to speed in that area. Thirty years ago we did not have the kind of competition there is in mics now, not to mention cheap Chinese manufacturing. The only time I can remember looking for cheap condener microphones, I bought a pair of AKG 451s, which I think cost me around $300 each in the late 70's. I don't think there was anything cheaper at the time (for true condensers, not electrets).

So to be able to buy a pair of any kind at $99 seems rather miraculous to me.

And they might be fine for this partiucular application. Remeber we are talikng about rolling off highs to create that old fashioned sound, which will reduce hiss.

On the other hand, a nice pair of condensers is a pretty handy thing to have in your audio kit, and you may not always have such a forgiving task for them. So maybe the very cheapest may not be the best choice. My old AKGs still serve me well, I surely did not waste my money - and you won't either.

I doubt you could go wrong with the Rode, it bumps you up a class.

If you decide to go for a less expensive solution try to try several out first - pick the one with the highest output and lowest noise. Unfortunately, the specs on these tend to have many traps for the unwary, due to, shall we say, extremely 'creative' testing conditions, so believe your ears before the manufacturers numbers.

I think we are getting somewhere now. What you’ve been able to intuit seems logical when listening to the audio. I’m definitely ready to give it a go.

Ok...I must once again mention something though, because I have this nagging felling that some of my audio forbears are spinning in their graves, and I just hate that...

Are you SURE it is *this* particular movie's sound you want to emulate? Because its audio really does have some problems that the fine audio engineers even of the 30's and 40's would have gagged at.

You got me interested in this with your question, so I spent some time listening very closely to movies in the 1930 - about 1955 range, trying to put my finger on just what characteristics the sound had that makes it so instantly identifiable.

I don't think you need to trash the sound quite as much as that movie to get the 'old movie' sound you seem to be looking for.

Here is what I think makes up that sonic signature - in order of importance -

#1. Most important, I think this is roughly half the sound. These movies were all recorded on sound stages - and those sound stages had a particular sound - and this is surprisingly consistent between studios. These are large spaces, and normally would have been very mushy sounding, with a reverb time way too long for voice. But these people were running state of the art facilities, they read the research, read Beranek, and followed the acoustic wisdom of the day, which was that for voice, a reverb time of 1/3 to 3/4 second sounded best (today, we tend to just get things as dry as possible and process it later - partially because we do not have the luxury of always recording in the controlled environment of a sound stage). So they treated these stages to get just that.

When you shorten the natural reverb time of a large space in that way, it creates a very specific kind of ambience: a short delay after the sound, then a very short, but very smooth, reverb.

And that effect is on ALL the voices, everywhere. Even in cars (actually done on sound stages), in street scenes, on top of mountains, in outer space...all done on the same stages, with the same reverb. That part of the sound is practically identical from 1930 to the mid fifties.

You cannot get exactly that sound in real locations. Though you may be able to by recording dry and using modern reverbs effects.

2. Limited frequency response. No highs, no lows. You just can't put much of either on an optical soundtrack without it crapping out, and if you did manage to, the theater systems of the day couldn't have reproduced it anyway. This does change over the years though. Jumping from 1930 to 1940 to 1950 is like someone is slowly turning the bass and treble knobs up. Slowly, the technology was getting better. But the gap between 1955 and 1980 is still easily heard.

3. Slightly more distant micing of the voices, more real ambient sounds, less foley. I lump these together because one leads inevitably to the other. They had foley almost from the beginning. But unlike today, not EVERYTHING was foleyed. Just the stuff that had to be, or which was specially important.

4. Crappy limiters with a certain sound, and more actual gain riding than today to try to avoid the problems. Modern gain cells hadn't been invented; the way the variable-mu (gotta love these old terms, did you ever own a triple conversion super-heterodyne radio set ? ;-) ) tube compressors of the day worked was essentially to just overload on peaks producing - when workng normally - 2 to 5 percent distortion. I never realized it until I really listened, but you hear this practically every time some actor gets loud, or laughs. It's not too offensive, because this is good old tube second harmonic distortion, but it is everywhere.

5. Yes, there was some phasing sometimes when actors got too close to a set. Yes, sometimes they got a little too far from the mic and sound a bit off-mic. But they knew these were problems, and the better productions had much less of this sort of thing than the cheap ones. Your reference movie has a lot of this sort of thing, but while it is there on older movies I don't think it is the biggest key to the old fashioned sound.

The technical people that made the sound of these movies were limited by their technology, much more than their knowlege. Mostly, they were not making the kinds of mistakes that green directors make - that have to be fixed in post.

-Mike

Gary - There is nothing like direct experience in that market to vastly improve the quality of your guesses! ;-)

Now that you have explained the usual procedures there, I am still curous if you think there might be any possibility that a green director, from a stage background, might have over ridden their sound person (I looked this crew up on IMBD too, before I commented) and had some more mics up to catch ambience. This drama has a lot of long spaces where the ambient sounds are all that is happening. I swear I think I hear some stereo in there on at least some of the ambient sounds.

But I suppose you could be right and that is from some decoding problem too. I only know what I hear, which is pretty unfocused. I actually swapped the phase on my speakers at one point to make sure the problem wasn't on my end. ;-)

dolby miss tracks Unfamiliar term to me, does this mean 'Dolby decoding errors'?

It's interesting how people do things differently in different countries/scenes. You say it is usual for dialogue mixers here in the Uk to roll off all of the top end EQ at about 6k and cut the bass at around 150hz. implying this is still the case - I never would have guessed this was still being done, so assumed it must be to fix something.

Ask any two audio engineers a question, you'll get at least three different answers.

I wrote the previous post before reading Garys, but I think this supports what I was saying in it - whatever is causing the problems in that movie, whether Utube or dolby errors, or cosmic rays from Planet X, trying to duplicate certain of them may not be the way to go.

-Mike

Unusual that a new director would overule the sound crew if they are more experienced, the fact that the recordist went onto do five bond movies inc casion royale and quantaof solace show his experience and he is one of the top guys in the UK.

Dolby miss tracks are very common on old material and if a 1db line up problem is copied it then becomes a 2db problem and so on, it will make the audio pump and cause the type of problems that you also hear with bad encoding in the digital world.

The roll off at top and bottom end was very common in the days of MAG and optical sound tracks as the freq response of the systems was very low and in the case of optical it was better to limit the freq content due to the optical printer working on percentages as opposed to db's. That way you got the max amount percentage of signal on to the track without any spurious frequencies affecting the transfer.

Most dialogue in dolby surround tends to be made narrow band so as to isolate it on the centre speaker leaving full bandwidth for the fx and music.

As for the you tube track I have listened to it several times and it pretty much sounds mono to me but with decoding problems due to the you tube crap bandwidth.
Any stereo or mono ambient sounds tend to be added in post, I have even heard noise gates or expanders used for dialogue tracks with a constant buzz track added to give a constant noise floor, this can be done more on period dramas as you need to get rid of distant traffic etc.

Oh, what I would call Dolby mistracking - subtle difference in language usage (dang Brits ;-) ). Right, I see what you mean. And if the Dolby was misaligned between the channels, there would be differences in frequency response actively changing between the channels, which could cause wandering of the stereo image.

Add to that crappy mpeg compression (too lossy), and it could cause most or all of the problems I am hearing. I see your point better now. Possibly the mpeg could cause some time delays between the channels as well.

What caused me to ignore this possibility was that the original poster said the dvd sounded the same. But 'the same' may differ depending upon what you are listening for, and level of experience.

I still retain my God-given right to blame the director in future, however. ;-)

This brings up one more thing to add to my list above - Most of the old movies are recorded in mono, and in the later ones mono dialog with stereo music sound track. This means any ambient sounds recorded with the dialog would also be in mono, panned dead center.

Interesting discussion. Now I want to make an old movie. ;-)

Note to Charles: I suggested the space pair specifically to try to emulate the wandering stereo and time delays I was hearing.

I think you would do better to just follow the method Gary outlined, he has pretty much given you the specific details of what was almost certainly used on that production.

There may still be some use for another mic pair, though. He has described what an experienced sound crew would do. They woud be pretty certain to get mic placement right, and subtle balances between dialog and back ground sounds just right.

Your first time out, you might not be so lucky. It could be handy to have some mics on mostly the room, ambience, effects. That way you could be a little more conservative with the main boom (ratio of background sounds to the dialog) and use the other mic(s) to add more ambience in only as needed.

Rather than using a spaced pair for this, a coincident technique would be better - being careful to keep any bleed of the dialog dead center in the stereo image. This way, you would have a choice of both the levels, and by panning in the stereo pair, could make the ambience more or less mono/stereo with no fear of phase problems.

And if you really, really wanted to duplicate a horribly mistracked, wandering phasey sound, you could flip one of the stereo pair out of phase and mix a little of the pair in with the dialog mic, and I am pretty sure that would get you somethng close. ;-)

You should have plenty of things to try now, I'll be interested to know what you discover.

-Mike

Mike-

Some incredibly informative stuff here. Very glad to have you on the boards. I hail from P-town, nice to see familiar faces =) Also, just so you're aware- when I'm ready to tackle sound engineering (I mean really ready to commit some time to it) I'm coming up there to convince you to mentor me. If that doesn't work I'll stalk you on all your projects and learn your best tricks anyway!

Thanks for the compliment.

It doesn't do much good to follow engineers around; there are so many different ways of doing things you would have to follow around at least four or five, and get ten different answers to every question. In the end, you learn by doing and listening, and wind up with your own preferences and style. I'm always happy to share my own peculiar ideas, of course.

I'm not doing any audio production right now anyway, and probably will not be for at least a year, because I am building (yet another) studio. This time, in my home - if you can't beat em, join em. ;-)

I moved out of Portland to Vernonia, by a lake, surrounded by birds,bears, deer, horses, sheep, and loggers. Maybe I should make nature recordings...maybe I can capture the sound of Bigfoot. ;-)

-Mike

My own pro location days were left in the early 90's but to show how things have not changed much my own kit then and now is as follows.

In the 80's we had a nagra 4 with a 416 and an 816, radio mics were also available and were microns. If a mixer was used it was an sqn. All location audio was recorded in mono.

I moved into post in 1991 when I went to work for AMS Neve developing their digital editing kit and consoles, after that I freelanced as a dubbing mixer and editor.

Now I am semi retired but my kit consists of the following as a lower budget set-up for use with my HDV cameras.

Rode NTG-1 mic and sony S270 camera mic(actually a very good cam mic) two sennheiser G2 radio mics. All my location audio is recorded direct to the camera with these, if I need more inputs I use a sign 44 location mixer. I still record all location sync sound mono. (note I would love a 416 but the rode and the cam mic are fine for my needs)

I also have a sony D50 with a sony ECM957 M/S mic and record stereo buzz tracks (wildtracks) for adding in post on this. I have used the sony ECM957 for 15 years and used to use a mini disk before I got the D50. I can also do sep sound with the D50 hooked up to the sign44 if required.

That pretty much covers it and I believe in keeping it simple, all the post work I have done over the past 18 years has had mono dialogue and spot effects and all stereo backgrounds were added in post.

I now do shooting too with a sony S270 camera (soon to be a panasonic 301 P2) and edit on final cut studio 2, audio post is then done via OMF from FCS2 to a pro tools 002 rig with dv toolkit 2 running version 8 on an i-mac or macbook pro.

My last five years of dubbing was on the ITV UK cop show The Bill you can see a couple of videos here of Mark Apicella the asst dubbing mixer doing some foley work, YES its a 416 mic and YES we did do post sound fx in the dubbing suite:http://www.thebill.com/videos/videodetail/item_200027.htm
I used the sony ECM957 with a mini disk to do location spot effects and ambiences as the whole production base is the police station and hospital set, it was a bit scary to be walking though a police station and court room to get to the canteen.

Gary, thanks for providing some insight. It does help, a lot. I read somewhere a while ago that the film was done on location somewhere in London. I can’t seem to find the source now though. I see what you mean about Julie going off mic, and I see the same thing in other instances.

From some further reading I found the DVD version was produced by KOCH LORBER FILMS and is, frankly, a terrible transfer. It is pan and scan, picture is muddy, and I’m guessing the poor transfer would help produce the audio artifacts? There is a VHS version that is reputed to be better in terms of image and audio, which is a sad thing indeed. That is what I mean when I say the sound is basically the same, the same type of artifacts are there on the DVD.

//That's 'H4' not 'H4n', right?

I have the H4, yes, not the H4n. And I think I will go for the Rode’s. Though, in light of this new information I might buy either a 416 or Sanken cs3e first.

//Ok...I must once again mention something though, because I have this nagging feeling that some of my audio forbears are spinning in their graves, and I just hate that...

Undoubtedly! I’m starting to see objectively my quest for bad audio ;-) I’ve gone back over what it is I really want to achieve, and it comes down to these things (my apologies for having to explain them in layman’s terms):

A thicker sound or presence on the vocals: when I listen to the audio I’ve recorded, it sounds full, and I definitely like the sound of the AKG, it’s an improvement over my Rode NTG-1 for interior work. But, it still seems to lack the “texture” or fat/full/thick sound I’m hearing in the film. I was doing a lot of fiddling with compression/eq/reverb, but (from lack of experience/knowledge) I couldn’t arrive at a similar sound. Sometimes it’s almost as though the actresses have a paper/cardboard larynx! If this is cause by bad transfer I guess I’m out of luck, but if this is a characteristic of the 416 and post work, maybe I can still get what they originally got, which would suffice, well, actually I’d be over the moon! Will compression/eq/reverb get me there? And if so, how can I learn how to do these things properly? Trial and error? I’m scouring the web every night for info on post production. I’m listening to all kinds of films to try to learn to identify the different effects employed.

//Here is what I think makes up that sonic signature - in order of importance …

Whoa! Thanks for the deconstruction. It’s nice to learn some history at the same time. All this stuff is extremely interesting for me. I gobble up anything to do with filmmaking ;-)

//Ask any two audio engineers a question, you'll get at least three different answers.

That’s funny.

//Most of the old movies are recorded in mono . . . any ambient sounds recorded with the dialog would also be in mono, panned dead center.

I had planned to record everything in mono. I read Kubrick had Lolita recorded entirely in mono, and I love how that sounds.

//Interesting discussion. Now I want to make an old movie. ;-)

So come out to Australia for a while… if you don’t mind heat, no pay, lots of things that will kill you, and the atrocious “Aussie” accent! Good food though ;-) But seriously, I’m addicted to older films, and also to the not-so-old older foreign films that Bergman, Tarkovsky, Bresson, etc. made. There is so much in those films that simply cannot be found in the films of today--quite depressing actually.

//I moved out of Portland to Vernonia, by a lake, surrounded by birds,bears, deer, horses, sheep, and loggers. Maybe I should make nature recordings...maybe I can capture the sound of Bigfoot. ;-)

Want to do a house swap sometime? (kidding) I would kill to live somewhere like that!

//You should have plenty of things to try now, I'll be interested to know what you discover.

I’ll be interested too. I did ask before, and I think I might be overstepping the line, but, if I do a recording, and post the original plus my effort, would you be willing give me a critique? I think that’s the only way I’ll get to the bottom of this. Either way, what you and Gary have done is a tremendous help to me, and I appreciate it greatly.

Charles I think a lot of what you are trying to do can only be done on very high end kit, there is a certain sound quality to analogue and a well placed 416 on location recorded on tape mixed on and old neve or analogue console will have a totally different sound quality to the latest digital techniques.

At the end of the day it is more about getting good clean location dialogue and then using post techniques to get the best out of it.

I have been lucky to use some of the best kit in the world but these days with care and attention you can get very good results with lower cost kit and I always enjoy the challenge of getting a good end result from my own budget set-up.

Of course I have a huge advantage in the 29 years experience that I have and it has now just become automatic in what I need to do to get to the end result.

People ask me all the time for tips and what settings that I use to get the best from location dialogue but at the end of the day it just becomes instinct and I use my ears and dont even look at what settings I have dialed in on the desk in post.

That also goes for levels I have PPM meters as a guide by once I have set the level on my dynaudio speakers I just balance away. One thing though I always have a brick wall limiter on the main out so even if the rookie director says make it all louder I never go into the red. Have a listen to this clip that I dubbed a few years ago, there is some serious compression going on:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSgs4fcFa4E&feature=relatedBy the way the only sync sound is the mono dialogue. (also shame crappy you tube transfer has put the audio out of sync)

I think that the type of rich sound you are after can be had but you need to learn how to use eq and compressors more to get the best out of your kit, a 416 will help as it is superb for location recording but you will be able to get close with what you already have. You will be amazed how much compression is sometime used in post but the key is using it so that it doesnt draw attention to it and that is where you need to know how to set them up correctly.

I agree that the DVD transfer was probably bad a lot of transfer houses dont understand dolby and a lot of old movies done on mag have been transfered with dreadful dolby mistracking.

Now here is a small challenge for Charles, listen to this one and see if yu can hear what the main difference is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB47_wUY_uA&feature=related

Thanks Gary, I’ve some comments:

//Charles I think a lot of what you are trying to do can only be done on very high end kit, there is a certain sound quality to analogue and … will have a totally different sound quality to the latest digital techniques.

I can understand that. I know there will always be a divide between digital/analog. It’s the same as the difference between 35mm anamorphic or 70mm Vistavision and the Red Epic with 617 pro sensor. While Red may have enormous resolution, dynamic range, etc. it will never have the look or texture that film does.

//At the end of the day it is more about getting good clean location dialogue and then using post techniques to get the best out of it.

I’m very willing to take that approach as I know I can get very clean audio on my locations.

//... you can get very good results with lower cost kit and I always enjoy the challenge of getting a good end result from my own budget set-up.

That is excellent and what I really like to hear. But again, I’m not really after what’s considered to be excellent audio. I actually like all the anomalous extras from bad transfer, etc. and I think it gives the film a real characteristic dated illusion. In fact, I’m not sure I’d even want to watch it in its original unmarred state. When I watch a Bergman film, the somewhat degrade picture adds to the appeal of the film (for me), because it’s the chiaroscuro, the staging, the composition, the way Bergman cuts and delays time, the psychology, that makes it a Bergman film, and the soft picture, the grain, the green tinge, only add to it’s foreign charm. And you’ll say ‘yes, but the quality was there to begin with’, and I’ll agree and say I need to learn how to get the best quality audio I can get before I can go backwards. So there I go contradicting myself as usual.

//People ask me all the time for tips and what settings … but at the end of the day it just becomes instinct…

I understand that. I never ever want to know specific settings or whatnot. I want to understand the theory and real-world implications of that theory so I can adapt it to my own environment. I guess what I originally wanted to know was what the basic post tools were, and if there was anything I was missing that might make the difference I was after.

//I think that the type of rich sound you are after can be had but you need to learn how to use eq and compressors more to get the best out of your kit … you need to know how to set them up correctly.

OK. You’ve got me motivated now. I’m going to spend all my available hours researching, experimenting, and putting a little mix together. I’ll just do everything by ear. When I think it sounds as good as I can get it I’ll send it to you for a reality check, because I know I’ll have lost all objectivity by then!

//Now here is a small challenge for Charles, listen to this one and see if yu can hear what the main difference is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB47_...eature=related

I think you’ve got me there Gary. Apart from the different levels, when I matched up the volume on both, about all I could discern from listen about 100 times, is that the background sounds more compressed on the first video. Sorry, but I don’t quite have the organ of audio yet.

Gary, thanks again for your time and wealth of information. I’m so thankful people like you exist.

You are welcome Charles I like passing on help to people who wish to expand their knowledge of audio, it tends to get lost in the edit and in the case of those two bill clips there are some dreadful sound edits that were not done by me. The Bill has a really bad habit of not locking the picture off and there is a production commitee that does sound notes and they are then hacked together by either the editor or by someone other than the main dubbing mixer and mistakes get through.

The main differences in the two was that the first one was Mono and the second Stereo.

They both have dreadful you tube encoding compression but the first lacks some frequencies as it has been collapsed to mono at some stage and this has totally changed it.

That may also be the case of the original clip you posted us to listen to and just goes to show that even in the digital age the various compressions used can really affect the sound track. This also goes for TV transmission and it is amazing what differences there are in listening to full 16 bit 48k audio in the dub suite and then hearing all of the detail and stereo backgrounds being obliterated by encoding for transmission.
You can also see this in the pictures too as material is compressed for delivery.

Best wishes and thanks for listening to my rantings.

Ok, here are some more thoughts.

But, it still seems to lack the “texture” or fat/full/thick sound I’m hearing in the film. I was doing a lot of fiddling with compression/eq/reverb, but (from lack of experience/knowledge) I couldn’t arrive at a similar sound. Sometimes it’s almost as though the actresses have a paper/cardboard larynx!

It is not ALL about the recording. The fact is that these are top notch British actors, among the best technically trained in the world, in my experience. They know exactly how to project, and make their voices have certain qualities.

Who are you recording? Top notch pros like this? Believe me, it matters a LOT, probably more than anything technical you could do.

I went through a period of depression after about the first two years in my professional life. Everything I did just didn't sound very good to me. Somehow, it was always missing something. I was, truly, almost ready to give up. Then, one day I got a demo project that the more experienced engineer didn't want to do. Everything changed. I didn't really do anything different, but... The session was easy, everything just fell into place! It sounded awesome (well, maybe not by my present standards, but for then). I played it for all my friends, they were impressed. I had been recording all these teen age garage bands. This was just a demo for another unknown touring band, hoping to get signed. Just some blues band led by a guy nobody had ever heard of, named Robert Cray. ;-)

It makes a difference what is on the other side of the mic.

The room also makes a large difference. If you are in a small room with a bunch of flat surfaces creating flutter echos, this will be near impossible to make sound good later. You need to put up some some sound deadening before recording.

If this is cause by bad transfer I guess I’m out of luck, but if this is a characteristic of the 416 and post work, maybe I can still get what they originally got, which would suffice, well, actually I’d be over the moon! Will compression/eq/reverb get me there? And if so, how can I learn how to do these things properly? Trial and error? I’m scouring the web every night for info on post production. I’m listening to all kinds of films to try to learn to identify the different effects employed.

I don't know exactly what will get you there, and you need to listen to Gary most because of his very direct experience in that specific market and style.

But if you brought me very clean audio tracks, I would probably use something like a dbx compressor on them to lock them into place, to the point where there was only a few db variation in level on my VU meters (we don't use PPMs this side of the pond ;-) ) - you have to judge this by ear - you won't really hear much of the compressor if done right. Dbx compressors have an 'over-easy' curve that lets you just smash things without it being too audible. Maybe 4 or 6 to one ratio. How much? Until it sounds right and locks into place. This brings up the room sound. If the room was good, and the mic placement was good - not too much of the room - this should sound pretty present on the voice, kind of mid-rangy, but in your face a bit, yet with some warmth from the room in there.

If it was recorded really dry, I might pull up a Lexicon reverb (has smoothest room sounds), and select a a small room or plate, but removing from the program any first reflections (you already have those from bounce in your real room). I would then insert a digital delay into the feed to the reverb, set to about a 50-100 MS delay. Or adjust that in the reverb program, if it has that option (usually it is there). This is to emulate the sound of a sound studio.

I would then roll off the top and bottom from the voices (to something like Gary specified earlier.) If the reverb was still too 'present' sounding even after this, I would roll off some of the high end from its returns (you want it clearly behind the voice, it is set right when it no longer masks the clarity and presence of the voice). Don't be afraid to takes lots of top off the reverb, if you need to. I would make sure the reverb was also panned exactly center, no stereo.

Go by the sound, not preconceived ideas about what it 'should' take. It doesn't matter HOW you get there. As Gary mentioned,most people would be horrified by what actually happens in post. Stay away from 'audiophiles' and other such dangerous people. ;-)

You learn by doing. What is on the web is mostly technical, with few real details of what is done, because those details are really very situation specific, and even market specific. For example I would not have recorded that movie exactly like Charles described, even in the nineties. But we would have both been right, for our markets. I don't like PPM meters, they are neither fish nor fowl, showing neither peaks nor average levels accurately. Most British engineers swear by them. Who is right? Both are right.

"There are many differeent stories. All are true."

-Mike

I totally agree with Mike's comments and we do use PPM's a lot here as they are BBC spec and show true levels for engineering purposes, I use this on on the pro tools:Raw Material Software - PPMulator (http://www.rawmaterialsoftware.com/ppm.php) the max level is 6ppm which is +8db. I have also used chromatech meters which are the on screen version. PPM's tend to be used to make sure that all the levels are legal for broadcast in the UK but you can use them with sine wave tone to set-up your compressors.

As a guide I set my main dialogue compressor at 6-1 with a threshold of -8db PPM, bear in mind though that there is always another limiter set at 100-1 coming in at 0db too. A slow attack with quickish release and the DBX set-up Mike explained is roughly the same that I am after.

Eq wise a low cut at around 120hz and some top 3-6db at 6k, no firm rules though and this is on the AMS Neve Logic and DFC consoles it is totally different on the Pro Tools.

Oh and you need to have decent monitors, I have used dynaudio for the past 15 years and they all sound roughly the same regardless of size my home set-up has BM10'shttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/GaryNattrass/GarysStudio.jpg but when at The Bill we had these:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/GaryNattrass/Gary1a.jpg

That mono-stereo mix comparison was probably more useful to me than to Charles.

I don't listen too U-Tube stuff much, or any compressed material, other than on DVDs.

I knew it was bad, but I didn't realize just HOW bad U-Tube was until now.

I could hear the mono-stereo difference all right, but good grief, just barely. The imaging is just totally destroyed. Utterly, completely, trashed. It is worse than any old, out of phase miscalibrated ancient analog deck I have ever heard, way worse than anything ANY commercial movie may have done at any point in time since sound existed.

Charles, trust me on this, and I could not be more vehement: Gary is right, this is only artifacts - the phasey, wandering image part - and NOT what you want to emulate.

Find a British drama with a GOOD dvd transfer and use that as a reference, not anything like this. Make your work sound like the new reference. If you still want to see how it sounds trashed, just upload to utube, no further work on your part required!

If any of my work ever gets uploaded to utube I don't want to know about it. My heart is not strong enough for that.

How can anyone justify doing that to an innocent audio track? Or even listen to it?

A whole generation is growig up with this. Its worse than AM radio. I'm glad I am getting old.

-Mike

...you need to have decent monitors

Yes. And put them into a reasonable space, preferably a little dry. If you put even good monitors in a flat walled room with little absorbtion - like the average 'spare room', you will not be able hear good imaging, even if it is there. A good mono mix should make a very tight, very defined, dead center phantom image between the speakers; if the room is too live you will not be able to hear this, or other details.

It occurrs to me that you might look for something like a BBC radio drama on CD. This would provide the advantage of being able to hear this production style uncompressed, which is not generally possible on DVD.

You need to know what good audio sounds like to emulate it.

-Mike

I must admit Mike it also took me a while to tell that the original clip was mono too, quite shocking that I have also downloaded some i-tunes music and it is also heavily compressed and distorted.

I also find that new and rookie directors are now so used to hearing everything at max compressed / optimod style that they want everything to be that way.

As a reference Charles have a listen to something like apocalypse now or in the case of brit drama atonement to hear good location to dubbed delivered sound.

I also find that new and rookie directors are now so used to hearing everything at max compressed / optimod style that they want everything to be that way.



It's been going on even longer on the pop music world I am mostly familiar with. And I am a big sinner - running a studio you do what they ask you to, to survive. I have compressed a heavy metal mix to the point where there was less than 1/2 db variation from beginning to end of the song (on VU meters), with a peak to average ratio of less than three db (digital peak meter). The producers absolutely loved it.

If British drama production ever gets to that point...well...it's the end of the Empire. ;-)

-Mike

//...these are top notch British actors … They know exactly how to project, and make their voices have certain qualities.

Definitely the kind of info I was looking for.

//I went through a period of depression … I was, truly, almost ready to give up.

I'm sorry to hear that. I feel like that from time to time.

//Then, one day … Everything changed.

Well I’m sure I’m very glad it did.

//The room also makes a large difference

I’ve done everything in my means to deaden the sets. Carpet, sound blankets, furniture, etc.

//But if you brought me very clean audio tracks, I would probably use something like a dbx compressor on them to lock them into place…

What do you mean by ‘lock them into place’?

//Go by the sound, not preconceived ideas about what it 'should' take. It doesn't matter HOW you get there.

What I’d always planned to do from the start. I just got the idea I was missing/misunderstanding many things (which I was).

//As Gary mentioned, most people would be horrified by what actually happens in post. Stay away from 'audiophiles' and other such dangerous people. ;-)

Amusing, I’ll keep that in mind. I’m actually very impressed by what happens in post. It’s amazing what can be done.

//You learn by doing.

And that’s how I like to learn. I’ve had to learn everything I know that way.

//"There are many different stories. All are true."

Yes, and “A person will stand for a long time with their mouth open before a roast duck flies into it.” ;-)

//Oh and you need to have decent monitors, I have used dynaudio for the past 15 years

Nice setup Gary. I’m jealous! I couldn’t afford a set of dynaudios’s, but I’ve a set of m-audio bx8a’s and they are very nice for the price. My editing room is probably is a little too resonant for accurate sound. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, something I’ve been meaning to address for some time.

//… when at The Bill we had these:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ass/Gary1a.jpg

Good to put a face to a name. Those things are impressive!

//Charles, trust me on this, and I could not be more vehement: Gary is right, this is only artifacts - the phasey, wandering image part - and NOT what you want to emulate.

And from this discussion I can now agree with you.

//Find a British drama with a GOOD dvd transfer and use that as a reference … Make your work sound like the new reference

Will do.

//A good mono mix should make a very tight, very defined, dead center phantom image between the speakers; if the room is too live you will not be able to hear this, or other details.

I feel rather fatuous now having asked these questions without having first addressed simple acoustics of my room…

//It occurs to me that you might look for something like a BBC radio drama on CD. This would provide the advantage of being able to hear this production style uncompressed, which is not generally possible on DVD.

Thanks, that’s a great idea.

//You need to know what good audio sounds like to emulate it.

Yes, I’m beginning to see that more clearly than ever.

//As a reference Charles have a listen to something like apocalypse now or in the case of brit drama atonement to hear good location to dubbed delivered sound.

Will do. I’ve seen Apocalypse Now about twenty times. Not seen Atonement yet. Thanks for the suggestions.

Thanks again for your patience. I will take everything that’s been said and suggested onboard and make a thorough effort to learn properly, I am expecting it to take a long time though. For the record, for me there is nothing outside filmmaking. When I think I’m not making any progress I feel depressed, empty, and tired of life—and I’m only twenty-three! I do not make films for fun—and my films are not about fun things—but more as a necessity to keep myself out of the jim-jam clinic, so your breath has not been wasted on me.

Best regards.

You are welcome Charles and good luck with you quest for good audio, it is great that you are taking such an interest in the one aspect of film making that tends to get sidelined.

What do you mean by ‘lock them into place’?

Mixing is like putting the pieces of a puzzle together, when all the ins and outs perfectly match, the pieces lock together. The exact meaning depends a little upon context. In this case I was talking about a vocal, so it is kind of like the difference between having a casual conversation with someone moving about the room, and having that person stand directly in front of you, feet locked to the floor, speaking directly at you. Compression helps create that kind of presence and consistent level. You can sense when the right point is reached - someone may be right in front of you speaking passionately, that is ok. If it feels like they are yelling it is too much (overcompression), it feels false. Too quietly, you miss the passion, (undercompression), also feels false. You know it when you hear it.

In terms of a mix it would mean all the pieces are there, everything clear, nothing sticking out, it all just feels natural, like it was meant to be. Even if you just spent the last eight hours trying 400 variations to get it there, ;-)

I hear that term used a lot here, but it may just be a U.S. thing.

The comment about audiophiles is kind if an insider joke. Anyone who has spent any time working in audio has run into the fellow who wants to be 'helpful' but is focused to a fanatic degree on things that are not really relevant. Like one 'consultant' friend of a band that had me spend about four hours pulling console modules to bypass certain caps, and replacing my speaker wiring with his special cables. All this for a demo of a bar band, mind you. The time would have been far more profitablly spent in a little more rehearsal for the band...

Oh and you need to have decent monitors, I have used dynaudio for the past 15 years

And I am still using my ancient and venerable Urei 811s, horribly out of date, but I know exactly what my mixes should sound like on them to translate well. And they are also large enough I can put an unlimited, unprocessed bass drum through them at levels as loud as I hear in the drum booth without them crappiing out.

For mid size monitors, some old Fostex RM780s, and auratones for the 'am radio' mix. ;-) All time aligned and having a pretty consistent sound - when the mix is right it sounds about the same on all three, just gets bigger and more full on the larger ones.

I think the most important thing with monitors is they be studio type (accurate, not pushing certain ranges), and that you be thoroughly familiar with them, and the way your room sounds.

I keep thinking I should upgrade, but...such a long learning curve for new monitors...

These little powered monitors that are all the rage now - they can't give me the levels I sometimes want. 'track loud, mix soft' - you need both. I am speaking of music production though. 125 DB bass drum levels are somewhat rare in dramatic productions. ;-)

Now what ARE those big monitors in the picture, I want to know too.

Here is my test for good monitoring, by the way:

Have a vocalist sing and play a deep drum plus something like a tamborine. Mic about 2-3 feet away with a high quality large diaphram condensor (U87 etc, omni or figure 8 setting). Close your eyes and listen from the mic position. Listen closely. Now go into the control room and listen on your main monitors. It should sound exactly the same, like you could reach out and touch the singer. Not worse, NOR 'better'. -Just the same-. If it does, you know you have accurate monitoring and the room is good enough.

If it doesn't, there is work to do in one area or the other.

I am expecting it to take a long time though.

Good plan ;-) Make your mistakes early and often.

When I think I’m not making any progress I feel depressed, empty, and tired of life—and I’m only twenty-three!

Normal for 23. It gets better. ;-)

I do not make films for fun

All of the arts are far, far, far, too much work if they are not also your greatest fun.

Even if you make films about depressing subjects, I hope you really enjoy being depressed.

-Mike

The big boxes are Dynaudio M3A's actually they are total overkill for mixing TV drama but very nice anyway, they are the same speakers that AIR studios use(George Martin's place)
There is a second hand set-up on e-bay:Dynaudio Acoustics M3A complete active system, used/new on eBay, also, Monitors, Pro Audio Equipment, Musical Instruments (end time 05-Jun-09 15:09:10 BST) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Dynaudio-Acoustics-M3A-complete-active-system-used-new_W0QQitemZ300285212574QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_ConElec_SpeakersPASystems_RL?hash=item300285212574&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1688%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50)
Here is a full view of the old dub suite at The Bill featuring an AMS Neve logic 1 and 32 track audiofile, they now have three top end pro tools/icon systems:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/GaryNattrass/Dub1a.jpg

My home studio has the BM10's with a 12 inch powered sub bass, they still have the very smooth sound of the big boys but all dynaudios are nice and sensitive so you dont have to drive them hard like you had to do with the other speakers I used all the time in the 80's the tannoy red's.

The pic of my home studio has an AMS Neve logic 3 and audiofile but this has now gone as it was too big I now just have the pro tools 002 rig with the dv toolkit:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/GaryNattrass/DSC_0191.jpg
I also edit and tracklay on final cut pro studio 2.

Oh and one last audio secret for Charles, to get the best sounding mix you need a Duck and a Sheep to keep you right, a lava lamp is also essential for nightime mixing :)

I may have to try to find some Dynaudios to listen to. I like Tannoys and in general monitors with a sort of emphasis in the midrange rather than pushed highs or lows. If the Dynaudios have that kind of sound I might like them.

I agree about the lava lamp, but sheep? Must be a Brit thing and I am not entirely sure I want to know more... ;-)

-MD

Certainly the dynaudios are the closest I have come to the tannoy sound and they are used a lot in the UK dubbing world.

The sheep can be a problem at times but at least they stay awake during the dub unlike the assistant editor:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/GaryNattrass/DSC00053.jpg

You have worked with the large Dynaudio, and the small. I am curious how you would describe the difference between them. (but read below first)

I am a bit frustrated right now with the available choices for speakers. For instance, I thought maybe I would see what Tannoy was offering lately. What I find on their site - for studio use - is a whole range of nearfield monitors. And absolutely nothing else! Having near fields is fine, I just don't think those should be the -only- monitors available. I understand that lot of the market now is home studios, etc, usually with too small rooms, where near fields are a godsend. But...

The available choices now seem to be, not just from Tannoy but almost all the manufacturers, either near fields or a few offering really large systems designed for very large rooms which only the likes of George Martin can afford to build. I tend to like and build medium sized control rooms - a little small for the largest systems, but which need more than nearfields. Something with maybe a 12 or 15 in woofer. Not two.

It's important to me because I simply don't feel I am getting the full picture from nearfields. All these seem to be little 6 or at most 8 inch speakers. While it is technically possible to make these speakers reproduce much lower frequencies now, with long excursion cones (at the price of inefficiency) they just do not sound the same as larger speakers.

It's very hard to describe what I am hearing, but something is missing. On the nearfields, I never can get away from the sense of sound coming out of two boxes. On larger, non-nearfields like my ureis, the speakers just disappear. The test I mentioned above for accurate monitoring - I never get the feeling I am 'there' like on larger speakers. Accurate frequency response - yes. But never, really that I am there in that room. The larger speakers sound, somehow, effortless. I can almost feel the nearfields straining. Regardless of what the numbers say, the bigger speakers sound - bigger.

We are being told it is ok not to have full range speakers in each cabinet, that a single driver in a subwoofer can handle this just fine, because 'we can't localize low frequencies anyway'. And crossing over much higher is fine. The numbers come out the same. Apparently Tannoy beileves there is no longer any need to make truly full range monitors any more.

If this were really true, I should be able to line up nearfields and large monitors, at the apprpriate distances, match levels, and then A/B between them with my eyes closed, hearing no difference. But that is not what I hear.

It's great for the manufacturers, they are building smaller, less expensive boxes to build, using fewer large expensive speakers, and charging us a premium price for them.

I have this vague feeling we are being had.

So I am wondering if you have the same kind of sense about the difference between the nearfield Dynaudio's and the full size ones. Or maybe I am just an old dinosaur who is having trouble adjusting.

There is so much hype around speakers...

-Mike

The dynaudios do all sound similar BUT I am using the BM10's that I have as nearfield speakers with a sub to just add some bottom end for the lowest octave. They certainly go loud enough for home use.

I agree that large boxes are the best for a decent sized room but I have also used these dynaudios as main speakers:M2 (http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Default.asp?Id=282)

The laws of physics are that to monitor correctly in a large room you do need to have big speakers, and in the case of music studios a small PA system sized set of monitors.

I used to own a facility in london and I kitted the whole place out with modern tannoys and they certainly did the job well. The main 5.1 room had three srm12 at the front two srm10 at the rear and a 18 inch sub.
I dont know if tannoy still make these but they did the job without me having to get horn loaded JBL's installed.

...
It's very hard to describe what I am hearing, but something is missing. On the nearfields, I never can get away from the sense of sound coming out of two boxes. On larger, non-nearfields like my ureis, the speakers just disappear. The test I mentioned above for accurate monitoring - I never get the feeling I am 'there' like on larger speakers. Accurate frequency response - yes. But never, really that I am there in that room. The larger speakers sound, somehow, effortless. I can almost feel the nearfields straining. Regardless of what the numbers say, the bigger speakers sound - bigger.

...

Give a listen to the JBL Pro LSR43xx nearfields. Their digital correction magic includes time and phase alignment for the listening position as well as tuning out room resonances. The sensation of the speakers disaappearing and the sound coming from a stable stage between the boxes that you're describing is precisely what I hear on my pair of LSR4328.

Oh and one last audio secret for Charles, to get the best sounding mix you need a Duck and a Sheep to keep you right, a lava lamp is also essential for nightime mixing :)

Now look, we could have saved days of confusion if you'd just said that from the start. I've put in my order for the "mixer's secret" duck, sheep, and lava lamp kit from B&H ;-)

Mike, thanks again, and again. You continue to provide great info, and inspiration.

The sheep can be a problem at times but at least they stay awake during the dub unlike the assistant editor:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/GaryNattrass/DSC00053.jpg

How much are you paying him?

I used to own a facility in london and I kitted the whole place out with modern tannoys and they certainly did the job well. The main 5.1 room had three srm12 at the front two srm10 at the rear and a 18 inch sub.
I dont know if tannoy still make these but they did the job without me having to get horn loaded JBL's installed.

That is exactly what I was thinking - buy whatever the upgrade to SRM-12s was. I would go to their site, select 'studio monitors' and read all about the new magnets and/or other improvements.

Here is what I found:

Tannoy - Studio - Summary (http://www.tannoy.com/StudioSummary.aspx)

Not a single monitor that is not near-field. Not a single woofer larger than 8 inches.

The closest thing I could find was in their DC12i, sold as a home theater speaker. Maybe that would work.

JBL seems to have ONE, amidst all the near fields.

Apparently these manufacturers now think all studios are located in small spare bedrooms. ;-)

-Mike

Give a listen to the JBL Pro LSR43xx nearfields. Their digital correction magic includes time and phase alignment for the listening position as well as tuning out room resonances. The sensation of the speakers disaappearing and the sound coming from a stable stage between the boxes that you're describing is precisely what I hear on my pair of LSR4328.

Yes, interesting comment.

I was actually already looking at these. I love listening to music on JBLs, but have always been afraid to mix on them, because they always seemed to flatter anything sent to them. I think they have become much more neutral over the years, but old fears die hard. I will definitely try to have a listen when I can.

I have been talking about main music monitors (meaning two for stereo), but my real problem is slightly different. I want to do 5.1 mixes. My control room is small enough that I am sure I can use near fields for that there, but my main recording room, which is set up to double as a theater, really needs full size or mid size monitors (it is roughly a square 24 feet on a side with some of the corners clipped off , 10-12 foot ceiling. ). Remember this is basically a home studio (with some commercial ideas that may work out - in which case upgrading speakers wil not be a problem, or may not, in which case I'd just as soon not spend $25,000 - M2s - on a personal use studio ;-) I'm picky about audio, but not wealthy. Whatever I wind up buying 5 of twice, I will be feeling serious pain...

Finding nearfield choices is not much of a problem. The bigger ones are much more difficult.

'Esoteric' is out.

Right now I see

Tannoy - DC12i - about $1200 each.

JBL - LSR6332 about $1400 and I really can't go much higher in price.

I've considered building some myself, it's within my technical skill level, and by the time I am done building these rooms my carpentry skills should be quite well honed.

Here is another crazy idea - why not just buy REAL theater speakers? I would not have considered this, figuring it was too expensive, until I saw this:

JBL 3632 Three-Way Bi-Amplified ScreenArray Cinema Loudspeaker System at Performance Audio (http://www.performanceaudio.com/cgi/product_view.cgi?products_id=1252)

$1600 is barely more than the JBLs, and imagine being able to say to a producer, "No, this is not LIKE a theater system to proof your mixes on, it IS a full THX approved theater system, exactly the same as you find in many multiplexes".

Undoubtedly a bit more optimized for 'loud' than ' accurate', but I am not sure I care. I can worry about the fine details in the control room ;-)

-Mike