Re showing off the ceiling - One idea is an "establishing shot" starting at perhaps the entrance really wide and zooming in on the stage area. Dollying in of course would be better but we need to be realistic - although a slow short forward slider move fading into a closer shot of the stage area (with or without the performers) often works.

Or start vertical with the ceiling filling the frame and tilt down/zoom to a shot of the stage area. Or just use a still shot of the ceiling and fade your title in over it and then fade to your forward slider shot, or take a 3D panorama of the space with a still camera and animate the camera moves in a 3D package, - or or or.....

Somehow I have a dim recollection of a 90 degree tilt from an old Metropolitan Opera show where they started with an up view of the famous chandelier.

Just ideas that are probably worth what I'm charging for then. Above all, have fun.

So how does one learn where the best position is within a given location? Is it purely down to testing different areas whilst monitoring the 'phones? Or is there a way to calculate it given the structure of a building?

I don't have expertise at that level, but it's more of an art than a science. There are some guidelines, like not recording mid-way between the front and back wall due to cancellation issues, but it really comes down to the experience and ears of an expert audio engineer.

Headphones, unfortunately, don't provide a representative soundstage. In a big budget production, you'd have a OB truck on site:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outside_broadcasting
The mobile production control room (PCR) is known as a "production truck", "scanner" (a BBC term), "mobile unit", "remote truck", "live truck", "OB van" or "live eye".

OB trucks have small audio studios, including a treated room, stereo/surround monitoring, a mixing console, and an operator. That allows you to hear the isolated signals with speakers in space.

Headphones are more for basic quality checks. You can listen for signal presence, unwanted sounds, noise, hum, clipping, and rough levels. Bleed from the environment, isolation of L&R sources, close proximity, and no bass feel limit them as monitors for fine mixes.

That's why experience is so valuable. If a person has recorded in that space before, they will have a known-good solution that they can simply set up. If they've recorded in similar spaces, they'll have a nice starting point in mind. With golden-eared experience, they'll be able to walk around an unfamiliar space and listen for a good placement point before they've taken a mic out of its case.

And yes, actually doing this is beyond my level of expertise. I'm like a sports enthusiast who knows all the fine points in theory but who lacks the natural talent and expertise to do it at a pro level on the field. :)

I agree - speakers are a necessity for this kind of environment if the positional choices are going to work. In reality, you walk into the space, clap your hands and the first light goes on in your head. It's not just the RT60 that matters, it's the arrival of the first reflection. This can be quite destructive sometimes. So one huge space is quite nice to work in, but oddly another huge space with a different shape might just be a mess. You can then assess the distance between the source(s) and the mic array, and consider what you want it to sound like. Getting the mics higher, so they look down, can remove some of the reflections from surfaces behind the source. If you are using cleverer mic techniques than simple X/Y, you could be using crossed pairs of figure 8's, the old fashioned Blumlein pairs - but this emphasises the space behind, and in some spaces, this is pretty destructive rather than nice.

You also need to consider the choir itself. If they are a pro choir, then their internal balance is already adjusted, but amateur choirs often have more enthusiasm than quality - and there always seems somebody who needs to be shifted from front row to back row, to get their component quieter - this needs a bit of people management to stop it being awkward. A good choirmaster can keep the balance spot on, a less good one allows the sections, probably SATB in a mixed choir, to get a bit out of control. If this is the case, then instead of X/Y, maybe 4 channels would be my way of doing it and then blend them back in the studio. Not a perfect solution for a good choir, but better on a poorer one. 4 mics of course looks much worse!

So the way it would normally work is you walk into a rehearsal, and have a listen, then you consider the space, and probably have your mic position nailed to maybe ten feet or so. Then it's a case of best guess first, and have a listen on speakers. Adjust mics and repeat a few times till you are happy. In general, I tend to use my ears, and have a wander around un till I find the sweet spot, then stick the mics there.

If you took in a proper analyser and spent ages producing a detailed plot of the space, it wouldn't really help much. Sure - you'd identify the arrival times, the noise floor, the background sounds, and on an impulse test, you's be able to measure the individual bounce backs and decays. It would warn you of major problems, but a clap of the hands is usually quite good enough.

One last comment - are the choir singing solo, or with a piano, organ or orchestra? If they are singing to a track, this will take quite a bit of planning too, to stop it getting into the mix, and of course if it is a track, you are also into multitrack territory.

Paul, great point about the hand clap. You don't have to buy or rent it, and you'll never forget to bring it along. :)

I would imagine that with an assistant (or whomever is handy), it would be best to have them clap from the source position while you listen from the mic position. That way you hear the interaction between the source and first reflection. That said, a mic-location hand clap should still tell you about the frequency response and flutter at that location: does the bass cancel or build up? and do you get a series of slap-backs?

I'd love to write a detailed reply to everyone - thanks for your responses - but I have to get to work.

The shoot went well. The audio engineer knew everything that he was doing, and set up the mid-side mic in front of the choir, then he had two at the back for ambient and two in the front (somewhere) for additional audio. He had a problem with Logic Pro X - didn't recognise his audio sources, so we had to wait for another audio engineer to arrive for it all to work, but work it did.

I had the AX100 high in the middle, looking down in 4K. The GH4 on the right hand side of the aisle at head height in 4K on a wide. Then I had the GH3 with a 24mm equivalent lens on a slider for a nice ground shot... then I had the GoPro in front of the conductor. Unfortunately, it's so wide it's picked up other equipment - and the two audio engineers! But you live and you learn, I guess... I still think the angle will add a lot to the film, rather than leave people thinking about the negatives. I got b-roll of Mary in the cathedral, as well as shots from outside the venue. I tried tilts from the ceiling to the choir and other things... the audio engineer thinks it'll be a few days before the edit is finished, but we'll see how it turns out. He had speakers, and to my ears, it sounded great when he played it back at the end.

I'm exhausted. I'll try to post up how it all went on Saturday, as I am busy all day tomorrow.

Thank you again to everyone who helped me to succeed with this project... it's been quite a journey - from no shoot a week ago, to shooting my first choir five to six days later! :)

I am looking forward to posting it, and hopefully you will all think it's good enough for a first try. I can already see plenty of little tweaks I would have made... but it's my first time, so I should just be happy that I did the job.

Thanks again!

Craig

P.s. I will reply to everyone soon!

Thanks much - congratulations!

Yes, congratulations on a successful production! Best of luck with the edit and the final result!

Thanks everyone. I got all the footage loaded last night. Three solid angles and the GoPro with a few mistakes with how I framed it. Should be pretty cool... Just need to wait for the mix! :)

Looking forward to posting it, and thanks very much again!!!

did the mics get in the way much?

We had the two main mics in shot in the middle, but they kinda looked epic. I liked them there tbh. Then because the AX100 was centre and shooting over the conductor, I didn't have any mics in the shot. Following this, I had the low camera for interest on a slider - but some of the mics stands blocked faces on this shot. Then the GH4 to the right had a couple of faces missing due to the mics in the middle - but I couldn't really get my tripod any higher and still operate it. I think if I were able to get onto a higher platform, it would have looked better, but then I wouldn't have been able to check on it either...

I look forward to hearing people's comments for this reason though, as I may be pleased with something that you dislike, and then I can learn more from that...

Congratulations Craig! You say there is already things you would do different..... I have been doing this well over twenty years. I do not think I have EVER done a multi cam shoot when I did not see something in post I could have done better. Learning is a never ending process. I have worked with guys that think they know it all, I am not one of them.

I am looking forward to seeing the film.

Steve

Living in a part of the country without decent roads was always my excuse for not renting, and in my forty year career, avoided it in the main, WASTING huge amounts of money. I've lost count of the kit I bought for one off projects that I'm now storing and sits around unused. I could hire it out but am reluctant. My accountant says I'm mad. Audio and video gear just sitting around, some of it now ancient. I thought I had a betacam sitting around somewhere, and found two! I remember buying it second hand for a single project, then putting it on a shelf in the store. I used a portable production unit for some shows in 2005 and that hasn't been touched since then, a bargain Vinten camera crane it's huge and mega heavy. I do not want to sell it, because one day a project will appear that I can use it for. I am stupid. This need to buy rather than hire has cost me dearly over the years , but I still do it. I'm looking at a flight case with two very weird LED fixtures I bought for a project in April. They're useless for general use, and I have no idea why I didn't just hire some in.

I think it's just a cultural thing, the need to collect interesting kit. Hire is sensible, and cost effective, but just not 'yours'. Totally daft!

This made me laugh because it is exactly what I do. I have a room we call my AV bone yard because I never get rid of old gear. My audio guy is also a friend of mine. Unfortunately he moved out of state last month. He told me he was thinking about video recording some of the bands he does audio for just for fun. We went to my bone yard and I found an old Canon XL1 and a Sony Hi-8 camcorder. I gave them both to him and said go have fun. I never sell old stuff because I hate the hit you take on it. I read about some guys on this forum that wheel and deal gear on e-bay so often it is like their local grocery store. I just cant do it!

Steve

Steve

The one place where I have "wheeled and dealed" is lenses. I started off with, well, the wrong lens for my needs. I then got a Nikon lens to EF mount adapter and had an extended loan of some old Nikon primes. I then sold my wrong lens and got a series of Canon EF primes. From there, I sold something like six standard primes and upgraded to three L lenses. Now that I have my "keepers", I've slowed down. Except that Canon now seems to be releasing superior updates to my Ls. Hmmm...

Mics are a different story. Like lenses, they hold their value, but I tend to keep what I have. Electronics lose value so sharply that the buy-sell model doesn't work nearly as well.

But back on topic, I'm looking forward to seeing and hearing the choir and learning more about the story...

Congratulations Craig! You say there is already things you would do different..... I have been doing this well over twenty years. I do not think I have EVER done a multi cam shoot when I did not see something in post I could have done better. Learning is a never ending process. I have worked with guys that think they know it all, I am not one of them.

I am looking forward to seeing the film.

Steve

Thanks Steve! The mix is nearing completion for the audio engineer, so hopefully I'll be able to get to work on it next week. Although I'm busy, I'll try my best to get it all done and finished in the next week or two!

Cheers Steve!

A special thank you to everyone who was able to help me. I am extremely lucky to have found this board, and extremely pleased to be able to share what I hope will be a reasonably well-received recording of a live song. The audio engineer did a great job (from what I can tell) with the mix, and most things that I was hoping would work out reasonably well, did. However, there are a few things that I found frustrating. E.g. one of the sides of the hall was yellow to a point of being out of sync with the overall feel / colour. Therefore, I've toned down the yellow and added blue, but I think this shows a little too much in one of the shots - much better than how it was though. Also, I didn't realise the extent to how wide the GoPro would be, even with a person being directly in front of it... so there's an unfortunate 'selfie' of me in the film as well; but I felt that the shots were too important to leave out, as the piece is to showcase the client's talents as a conductor.

Hope you all think it's worthy:

If Ye Love Me on Vimeo

Thanks again!

Craig

P.s. The second song will follow at the weekend.

Great job. They should be very proud of their production.

Very nice job - congratulations!

By the way, do you know what mics were used? Reverb works very very well - makes it feel natural for the surrounfings

Nicely done! Good on ya.

And you weren't kidding about the long trail in that hall. But I'm sorta doubting the 9 seconds. I'm thinking the T60 time is more like 5-6 seconds. Still very long, but more manageable.

Interesting how your audio guy decided he needed to be quite close, in front of the director. And low. But... he was right. All you have to do is listen to it.

So... what are the details on the micing? I think I can tell by looking and listening, but it's always nice to know for sure.

You should be a happy guy, and your client should be equally happy. If they wanted a promo that shows what they can do, they surely got it.

(And I did like the ceiling shot ;-)

Yeah - the reverb doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as I would have thought. On the other hand looking at the interior space it's clear that they knew what they were doing acoustically re materials and structural details when they designed the space.

Impressive on many fronts. In a way, a more tricky space with the very flat and open floor - so probably why the low mic position worked well as the audio guy also recognised the benefit of M/S by the looks of it, to give a bit of after recording adjustment. The piece was ideal for the space.

How did the actual recordings go? How many takes and problems?

Craig,

That is a very impressive piece of work. I think your client will be quite happy. The audio guy certainly did his job.

In my not so humble opinion do think there is two lessons to be learned here. I hate the go pro shot. Not just because you are in it, I don't like the shot. If it were not for that shot I could easily believe that recording was done by a production company with multiple operators and broadcast equipment on set. Your images are tack sharp and the colors pop. Everything has a matched look of professional multi cam work. Then BAM, the go pro jumps in, it is soft, underexposed, and confirms to the viewer there is no audience present. I know you were excited to try that shot but it failed. With five stage lights in frame on an auto exposure camera underexposure was predictable. I suspect your original footage is under exposed and you did what you could to salvage a bad shot? Did you record a test shot from it in position and PLAY it back before they started? I confirm ALL cameras with a test recording. With time on the job some operators get lazy and skip this step, I don't. I am wondering if you looked at a test clip first?

Also, I am very good at listening to client direction. If they told me this was primarily about the conductor and not the choir that changes everything. I never would have left my "conductor" shot up to a $400.00 auto action cam. Conductors stay on their marks, I would have had a tight shot on her, with a real camera and lens.

Now, don't let my arm chair criticism take away from what you pulled off here. I look at that clip and it tells me volumes about the state of our industry. It was not so many years ago when I paid more for a single camera than your total kit investment. To get a recording like that the clients only option would have been to pay for someone like me AND my crew. With today's technology and your talent one man went in with a mis mash of gear and little experience and came away with a professional result. That is quite an achievement for anyone to pull off. Good for you! I believe it is easy to teach technology, it is science. On the other hand it is very difficult to teach talent. I have seen a high talent factor in each piece of your work. I think you are on your way to starting a gifted career. I would be quite proud of that piece of work!

Kind Regards,

Steve

Beautifully done on all levels!

Given that the performers and conductor all had music stands, the mic stands were completely unobtrusive. Yes, we notice the mics as we're into the gear, but the general audience will not.

I agree with Steven's analysis of the GoPro, and give him props for offering truly constructive criticism. I could imagine multiple edits. One would be a performance view, without the GoPro. You could include the GoPro footage in a behind the scenes version, or in a conductor-focused version that the conductor could use for self-evaluation and to assist in job seeking. Of course, this depends on client needs, not my musings. :)

The audio really sounded great with just the right wet/dry mix. Earlier in the thread I had recommended a M+S setup in the focus of the semi-circle, and it was really rewarding for me to hear this exact setup. I'm curious to know how much/little of the distant mics were used in the mix.

FWIW, I play 2nd violin in a small community orchestra that performs in a church. I might just plan on replicating this recording technique for our Christmas concert. :) Any additional information on the mics is appreciated.

Thank you for all of the compliments everyone! I am hoping to edit the second film tomorrow, though I imagine this will be a much slower edit, as the song goes on for over 5 minutes, so I don't know how interesting I'll be able to make the camera work... we'll see!

Very nice job - congratulations!

By the way, do you know what mics were used? Reverb works very very well - makes it feel natural for the surrounfings

The only mic information that I received were:

Ribbon and Ribbon and Fig 8 pair in MS and two Audix ADX51s (at either side).

Does that make any sense to you?

Nicely done! Good on ya.

And you weren't kidding about the long trail in that hall. But I'm sorta doubting the 9 seconds. I'm thinking the T60 time is more like 5-6 seconds. Still very long, but more manageable.

You should be a happy guy, and your client should be equally happy. If they wanted a promo that shows what they can do, they surely got it.

(And I did like the ceiling shot ;-)

Yeah, it was the conductor who said 9 seconds... it seemed quite loud. We had a speaker in there, and the audio engineers were going through all of the frequencies of the human ear... and it was crazy to hear that... even crazier when a bird/creature at the top of the cathedral responded with some loud squeals back! :/ That was quite spooky at 11pm in an empty cathedral! :)

Thanks! I was trying to get the ceiling shot - but I actually made a huge glaring error here - I still had the spikes on my tripod feet and had very little grip on both of my tripods... I thought it was the feet on my Sachtler Ace tripods not gripping to the slippy floor, but later realised that I'd screwed them up for the spikes to become available at the wedding I shot back in August. Thankfully, I managed to get the shot(s).

Impressive on many fronts. In a way, a more tricky space with the very flat and open floor - so probably why the low mic position worked well as the audio guy also recognised the benefit of M/S by the looks of it, to give a bit of after recording adjustment. The piece was ideal for the space.

How did the actual recordings go? How many takes and problems?

We had a breakdown of the interface of Logic Pro X on the audio engineers' Mac. Therefore, we had a second engineer arrive with a spare MacBook. Following about 1-2 hours of rehearsals (the group were thrown together in some ways for the evening from many different places in England), we did about 4 takes of each song. So... the shoot that was supposed to take a short time, ended up taking about 4 hours! :)

We didn't have any technical issues apart from the choir practising and the conductor wanting more emotion and feeling from the group themselves... I think everyone was really pleased by the end of the evening, and if this next recording is good enough - visually - then I'll be really pleased with the project.

Bearing in mind all the work that's gone into this, how much do you think I should have charged? I didn't charge anything like minimum wage for myself! :/

Craig,

That is a very impressive piece of work. I think your client will be quite happy. The audio guy certainly did his job.

In my not so humble opinion do think there is two lessons to be learned here. I hate the go pro shot. Not just because you are in it, I don't like the shot. If it were not for that shot I could easily believe that recording was done by a production company with multiple operators and broadcast equipment on set. Your images are tack sharp and the colors pop. Everything has a matched look of professional multi cam work. Then BAM, the go pro jumps in, it is soft, underexposed, and confirms to the viewer there is no audience present. I know you were excited to try that shot but it failed. With five stage lights in frame on an auto exposure camera underexposure was predictable. I suspect your original footage is under exposed and you did what you could to salvage a bad shot? Did you record a test shot from it in position and PLAY it back before they started? I confirm ALL cameras with a test recording. With time on the job some operators get lazy and skip this step, I don't. I am wondering if you looked at a test clip first?

Thanks Steve! Those are really valuable lessons to take from this, and had I have considered this, I would have definitely done as you have said above.

I don't think I punched the GoPro footage too much for fear of the image quality breaking down even more. The stage lights were off to begin with, which meant the shot itself was total darkness. Therefore, we finally were able to locate the switch for the lights that you can see just before the shoot began. I was considerably more pleased wtih the exposure given the completely black screen before it, but I said that it probably wouldn't be any good, but we'll just roll with it and see what we get... it wasn't necessarily going to make the edit in the end... I think if it wasn't meant for the conductor, I would have left it out too... but I think as she'll be judged on technique (I assume) I thought it would still be a worthy shot for the people she's trying to impress.

Also, I am very good at listening to client direction. If they told me this was primarily about the conductor and not the choir that changes everything. I never would have left my "conductor" shot up to a $400.00 auto action cam. Conductors stay on their marks, I would have had a tight shot on her, with a real camera and lens.

Make sense, Steve! I was just trying to cover all angles with a lot of different advice that I received here. Though I feel that I am moving in generally the right direction, what I think I am best at is listening to constructive advice and criticism. Had I not received that here, I don't know if I would have had the high shot in the middle, for instance, and may have not seen how the stands were in the people's faces. I might have done, but by listening to the advice here, I already knew what to look for and avoid.

I have to admit to liking the look of the conductor shot in the video posted here... though it may not be pro quality... I'll definitely consider doing what you said if I have a chance to shoot a similar project in the future.

Now, don't let my arm chair criticism take away from what you pulled off here. I look at that clip and it tells me volumes about the state of our industry. It was not so many years ago when I paid more for a single camera than your total kit investment. To get a recording like that the clients only option would have been to pay for someone like me AND my crew. With today's technology and your talent one man went in with a mis mash of gear and little experience and came away with a professional result. That is quite an achievement for anyone to pull off. Good for you! I believe it is easy to teach technology, it is science. On the other hand it is very difficult to teach talent. I have seen a high talent factor in each piece of your work. I think you are on your way to starting a gifted career. I would be quite proud of that piece of work!

Kind Regards,

Steve

Thanks Steve! Really appreciate the comments!!! I agree that the industry has paved the way for people with a smaller budget to create a better product. I still lust for cameras like the C100s... but then I think, my back couldn't carry this around in the 'guerilla' style recordings that most wedding videographers are used to - especially not a one man band. So I'm really thankful that there are cameras out there like the GH4 and a range of fast prime lenses!

Hopefully I'll be able to continue to improve with each piece that I contribute and complete.

The next is a wedding in two weeks, followed by a fashion shoot for a department store and charity. If I can do a great job of both, then that is my work finished for this year, and I can begin focusing on breaking into the industry full time.

Beautifully done on all levels!

Given that the performers and conductor all had music stands, the mic stands were completely unobtrusive. Yes, we notice the mics as we're into the gear, but the general audience will not.

I agree with Steven's analysis of the GoPro, and give him props for offering truly constructive criticism. I could imagine multiple edits. One would be a performance view, without the GoPro. You could include the GoPro footage in a behind the scenes version, or in a conductor-focused version that the conductor could use for self-evaluation and to assist in job seeking. Of course, this depends on client needs, not my musings. :)

The audio really sounded great with just the right wet/dry mix. Earlier in the thread I had recommended a M+S setup in the focus of the semi-circle, and it was really rewarding for me to hear this exact setup. I'm curious to know how much/little of the distant mics were used in the mix.

FWIW, I play 2nd violin in a small community orchestra that performs in a church. I might just plan on replicating this recording technique for our Christmas concert. :) Any additional information on the mics is appreciated.

Thanks Jon! Really appreciate your time and advice!

I would give all of those options if I hadn't already worked for about £2 an hour! :) Those are great options though... and I think they would have truly transformed my package as well.

I've asked the audio engineer, and hopefully I'll be able to inform you! :) The mics are listed above, but I'm just asking about the mix for you. If I can get any other information, I'll be sure to post it!

Thanks again for everyone's help with this piece, and I'll be back with the second one tomorrow if I can get it all finished!

Kind regards,

Craig

"Ribbon and Fig 8 pair in MS"
Not sure what is meant but, many ribbon mics are figure-8, tworibbon mics are typically in a Bluimlein pair configuration, a MS config. is usually a cardioid, and a single figure-8, which is normally decoded (easy.. with a DAW or mixer).
Two channels/tracks for acquisition three channels decode/mix.

"Ribbon and Fig 8 pair in MS"
Not sure what is meant but, many ribbon mics are figure-8, tworibbon mics are typically in a Bluimlein pair configuration, a MS config. is usually a cardioid, and a single figure-8, which is normally decoded (easy.. with a DAW or mixer).
Two channels/tracks for acquisition three channels decode/mix.

Thanks Rick!

Here's more information from the audio engineer:

"To mic the choir, I used an MS pair for the direct vocal and two Audix ADX51 small diaphragm condenser mics at the sides, pointed upwards at the walls to capture the extremely reverberant ambience. I had a Beyer M160 ribbon for the Mid signal of the pair, running through an external Art pre-amp, and an AKG Perception 420 in Fig8 config for the Side signal.

Since there was so much ambience to record, I didn't need to push it in the mix very much at all, rather it just sort of sat in the background to give the listener the feel of the space."

---

Hope this helps! I wish I knew more about audio. Does anyone know of any courses that relate to event recordings that I could purchase / watch / read online?

Thanks!

the MS config. is nice and yeilds a substantial adjustment of the width after the fact , in post. It seams the tracking engineer gave you a lot of options. Kudos.

the MS config. is nice and yeilds a substantial adjustment of the width after the fact , in post. It seams the tracking engineer gave you a lot of options. Kudos.

I am going to research everything you just said to see if I can make any sense of it! :)

I'll pass on your compliments to him though. Thanks Rick.

M/S is a nice technique for a limited range of recordings. Location sound recordists quite like it, especially when they are recording wild tracks, or sound effects, and there's a mod to get the two mics into a Rycote housing, one above the other.

When there is a nice wide sound field - like this with a choir and the building itself, it's great because back in the studio/edit suite you can adjust the balance of the two microphones to give mono, right through to quite massive left right differences, and the beauty is you can do it afterwards. Downside is simply the monitoring. using a pair of headphones plugged into the recorder it sounds really weird. Some field recorders have a matrix switch that does the decoding so headphones work, but without? Yuk!

While a Blumlein pair does function as a M/S pair, the rear pickup from the 'mid' mic can sound a bit strange in a reverberant space, when the reflections can be destructive. Cardioid works for me best, although fig-8 and even omni as a mid mic can work for certain spaces/sources.

I've personally never found the space mics very useful, as the time delays tend to muddy up the sound, but they must have been very low in the mix - I always found that when they were low enough to not mess the sound up, they were so low as to be a bit pointless.

This is a pretty decent topic - with a good outcome for you. I guess you're now quite happy a sound recordist got involved. Did you bother to listen to any of the camera audio by any chance. Well worth it to see how wrong it could have been?

Craig,

You own a Zoom H5. For $79.00 (US) you could pick up their mid side mic capsule if you want to play with this configuration. I am NOT suggesting in any way it will replicate what your audio guy did. It wont. Both the recorder and the mic are consumer products. But for a few bucks it would allow you to make some back up recordings at your events and start playing with the mix in post to help you start understanding how post mixing works. Other than Zoom trying to make a big deal out of their M/S mic, M/S recording is a great tool when appropriate. It is not needed on most jobs. And a mic mounted on the device will be useless unless you can get proper placement.

Your willingness to learn and experiment is exciting. Far too many guys at your stage and beyond do not place proper emphasis on the audio side of what we do. You are on the right track. I see a quality field mixer in your future budget.

I would also encourage you to keep your audio questions here in the audio forum instead of the wedding forum. There is some very knowledgeable people helping you out.

Also, I think you said you are mixing you own audio in post with headphones. That wont do. Recently there was at lest three threads where we discussed near field monitors. They do not have to be a huge expense. Many people made recommendations for their choice in the $150.00 to $300.00 range. I know, I know, the gear list of needs seems to never stop! But at some point you are going to need to hear what those expensive mics you buy are really recording ;-)

Steve

Edit: I must have been writing this at the same time as Paul.

I use M/S almost all the time for orchestral stuff - I like the result and I like the flexibility alluded to above to play with the stereo spread in post.

Before responding to the below posters, I'd like to thank everyone again for the success of this production (however limited or solid the production is as a piece of work). I am really thankful to you all.

I finished the project last night, and bar a few uploading issues to Vimeo (bit rate dropping below the recommended bit rate), I have finally managed to resolve the issues and have a high quality HD version below:

Christus Factus Est - Bruckner on Vimeo

I took the advice of Steven Digges and co. and omitted the GoPro shot from the recording. Instead, I focused on using the AX100 to its full potential, as well as the GH4, which were both recorded in 4K. My slider work wasn't as solid in this piece, and so I was a bit disappointed and recalled everyone's advice here to always ask for another take. At the time however, I was reasonably pleased and didn't realise that the slight movement in either direction would really bother me - but it does. Therefore, I omitted a few slider shots that would have passed for a personal project, but not for a professional one. I think as a piece it works well, and the client is really pleased.

Here's to more shoots of this calibre in the future! :)

Thanks again, everyone. It's been a crazy couple of weeks! :)

M/S is a nice technique for a limited range of recordings. Location sound recordists quite like it, especially when they are recording wild tracks, or sound effects, and there's a mod to get the two mics into a Rycote housing, one above the other.

When there is a nice wide sound field - like this with a choir and the building itself, it's great because back in the studio/edit suite you can adjust the balance of the two microphones to give mono, right through to quite massive left right differences, and the beauty is you can do it afterwards. Downside is simply the monitoring. using a pair of headphones plugged into the recorder it sounds really weird. Some field recorders have a matrix switch that does the decoding so headphones work, but without? Yuk!

While a Blumlein pair does function as a M/S pair, the rear pickup from the 'mid' mic can sound a bit strange in a reverberant space, when the reflections can be destructive. Cardioid works for me best, although fig-8 and even omni as a mid mic can work for certain spaces/sources.

I've personally never found the space mics very useful, as the time delays tend to muddy up the sound, but they must have been very low in the mix - I always found that when they were low enough to not mess the sound up, they were so low as to be a bit pointless.

This is a pretty decent topic - with a good outcome for you. I guess you're now quite happy a sound recordist got involved. Did you bother to listen to any of the camera audio by any chance. Well worth it to see how wrong it could have been?

Thanks for the in depth response, Paul. I'll certainly try to understand all of this thread as soon as I get the time to sit down and digest more.

I did have time to listen to the on-camera audio, which was fairly OK from the AX100, as it sat above the conductor and gained reasonably surprising audio. That said, it is nothing like the mix - which is insanely good to me as a videographer. I would have gotten reasonable sound with the SANKEN COS11D above the AX100 had I opted for that route I think, but again... totally not as good as the sound engineer was able to attain.

Ultimately, this is definitely an area of videography that I hope to improve in... and if anyone has any places where they have learned from tutorials, I would be greatly interested to hear about them...

Thanks again, Paul!

Craig,

You own a Zoom H5. For $79.00 (US) you could pick up their mid side mic capsule if you want to play with this configuration. I am NOT suggesting in any way it will replicate what your audio guy did. It wont. Both the recorder and the mic are consumer products. But for a few bucks it would allow you to make some back up recordings at your events and start playing with the mix in post to help you start understanding how post mixing works. Other than Zoom trying to make a big deal out of their M/S mic, M/S recording is a great tool when appropriate. It is not needed on most jobs. And a mic mounted on the device will be useless unless you can get proper placement.

Thanks Steve - I might just try that - even though it's hard pressed to find the spare time at a wedding to make it happen. I had an offer to record a 2 hour celebration at a church in a few week's time, but I am swamped at work and have two jobs approaching, so I had to turn it down. It's the first time I have done so, and I am glad that I did given that I will be able to make the most of the time I have with the next two projects; one of which is a commercial project for a department store to advertise their clothing lines.

Your willingness to learn and experiment is exciting. Far too many guys at your stage and beyond do not place proper emphasis on the audio side of what we do. You are on the right track. I see a quality field mixer in your future budget.

I would also encourage you to keep your audio questions here in the audio forum instead of the wedding forum. There is some very knowledgeable people helping you out.

Also, I think you said you are mixing you own audio in post with headphones. That wont do. Recently there was at lest three threads where we discussed near field monitors. They do not have to be a huge expense. Many people made recommendations for their choice in the $150.00 to $300.00 range. I know, I know, the gear list of needs seems to never stop! But at some point you are going to need to hear what those expensive mics you buy are really recording ;-)

Steve

Edit: I must have been writing this at the same time as Paul.

Thanks Steve! Videography is exciting! New projects, new ways of recording and capturing moments that can be played over and over again... I love what we are able to achieve on our own as videographers.

If you were to recommend a field mixer, which one would you say to go for, Steve?

I agree, not to the detriment of the talented wedding videographers that we have on the board, but the audio guys seem other worldly where knowledge of audio is concerned.

Hmmmm... I have no idea what near field monitors will do that my AKGs can't, but I am sure that you're right... so I will just nod and research the project until I can offer a better response to this! :D

In my most recent wedding, I realised that there's a bit of distortion present at times - even though I never peaked beyond 0db in FCPX. Therefore, I was able to ask the audio engineer present at this recording, and he told me the following:

"Speakers are 'more powerful' if all of it's energy is focused on one particular frequency. So, even if you've got a sound which on a meter looks fine, if all of the sound is just one frequency then the speaker will probably rattle/distort more than if you have a broad range of frequencies, which collectively added up to the same level on the meter. As with the broadband signal, the power is distributed over all of the frequencies that doesn't necessarily explain why the speech is a problem yet...
Basically, the problem is that somewhere a long the physical line, whether it's the design of the microphone, or how the audio is being recorded, some frequencies are recorded louder than others, which if you use an EQ effect with an analyser on it, can be displayed graphically; and if a particular frequency is really emphaised (quite often happens with cheap mics), then this is similar to what I described above where the energy is NOT distributed over a range of frequencies, and hence the speaker resonates at that frequency and rattles, or 'clips'.
In conclusion, although the overall average output level may not be exceeding 0dbFS, the problem lies in the actual content, not the overall volume. To fix this, the easiest tool/effect is a parametric EQ:
so, you find the frequency (or many frequencies) which are resonating, and turn them down, compared to the rest of the frequencies. This way, you counteract the issue, and 'even-out' the audio spectrum, so no single frequency resonates exceedingly more than any other, solving your issue."

Genius. This information blew my mind... though I'm sure that it's basic...

I'll look into getting some near field recorders in the near future! I'll try to find those threads, too!

I use M/S almost all the time for orchestral stuff - I like the result and I like the flexibility alluded to above to play with the stereo spread in post.

Thanks Jim! Definitely worked on this project!!!

Headphones work fine for many things but where they fall down is in the stereo field area. In the studio, we use two speakers, like most people listen on at home, and both ears hear both speakers. The left speaker gets heard by both ears, but your right ear hears it slightly quieter and slightly after your left. Your brain does a bit of maths and with your eyes closed, you can point at the speaker. Let's assume you have a single microphone, and with the pan knob, you move it left to right. Your ears let you follow it. On headphones, it sort of moves from left to right THROUGH your head, not in front of it. Your brain, unused to this, rejects it as weird and shunts it forwards a bit. You've lost the accuracy, and it can make some people feel a bit queasy.

Once you are fiddling with stereo recordings, this headphone mangling impacts on your choice of mic position. It's not quality or anything really obvious, but if you put the mics where it sounds good in headphones, it's less good in speakers. Oddly, with modern music, especially music that is made from non-real instruments, it often sounds better, because there is no realism to mangle. So club/dance music producers rarely have issues with headphone mixing. For real music, especially music recorded in big spaces, it can sound just wrong.

We argue and worry about X/Y, M/S, A/B, ORTF, Blumlein and other clever mic techniques, all using combinations of space and angles, levels, distance and time to produce an accurate and appropriate stereo image, for loudspeakers. If you use headphones, it messes with it, so your result that sounds nice on headphones won't be as good or accurate on speakers. This is why acoustic recording is sooooooo different and hard to do properly than other types of recording, especially odd when you mainly only have two mics!

Headphones work fine for many things but where they fall down is in the stereo field area. In the studio, we use two speakers, like most people listen on at home, and both ears hear both speakers. The left speaker gets heard by both ears, but your right ear hears it slightly quieter and slightly after your left. Your brain does a bit of maths and with your eyes closed, you can point at the speaker. Let's assume you have a single microphone, and with the pan knob, you move it left to right. Your ears let you follow it. On headphones, it sort of moves from left to right THROUGH your head, not in front of it. Your brain, unused to this, rejects it as weird and shunts it forwards a bit. You've lost the accuracy, and it can make some people feel a bit queasy.

Once you are fiddling with stereo recordings, this headphone mangling impacts on your choice of mic position. It's not quality or anything really obvious, but if you put the mics where it sounds good in headphones, it's less good in speakers. Oddly, with modern music, especially music that is made from non-real instruments, it often sounds better, because there is no realism to mangle. So club/dance music producers rarely have issues with headphone mixing. For real music, especially music recorded in big spaces, it can sound just wrong.

We argue and worry about X/Y, M/S, A/B, ORTF, Blumlein and other clever mic techniques, all using combinations of space and angles, levels, distance and time to produce an accurate and appropriate stereo image, for loudspeakers. If you use headphones, it messes with it, so your result that sounds nice on headphones won't be as good or accurate on speakers. This is why acoustic recording is sooooooo different and hard to do properly than other types of recording, especially odd when you mainly only have two mics!

That makes a lot of sense, Paul, thank you! That also explains why the audio engineer brought a speaker with him, rather than headphones. Thanks for taking the time to share this and helping me to understand!

I'll definitely buy some speakers at some point in the near future! Thanks again Paul!

The new film is also uploaded at the top of my previous post! :)

Craig,

That is a beautiful piece of work! Regardless of experience level or gear limitations it can stand on its own as a portfolio piece for just about any videographer. You should be quite proud of it.

As a demo for the choir it fully hits its mark. No criticism at all.

The audio mix is outstanding. The occasional pauses in voice allowed him to use the reverberance to his advantage in the mix as it trails through the pause.

As a demo for the conductor it falls a little short because of the lack of a tight shot to emphasize her conducting. I only say that because you told me she was a high priority. Again, if I was a potential client and you showed it to me as a choir sample I would have no criticism at all.

Craig, when I set up multi-cam shoots I think in terms of "insurance and art". The insurance shots are first priority. That means I have everything covered in a way that positively WILL work no matter what. The go pro and possibly the slider would fall under art. The art shots are my bonus material I may be taking high risk with. If I nail them great, they add super things to the production value. If I blow them there is no great loss because they are backed up. That is just how I think and work on a set up. Not to beat a dead horse but the GoPro was high risk. You were counting on a camera to get that shot, not your skill. If it worked you got a "hero" shot (pun intended). If it would have been backed up you would still have your tight shot, but it wasn't. Tough lesson learned.

As a new shooter you have obviously put a lot of time and effort into learning all of the so called cinematic fad shots of today's DSLR shooter. Keep in mind fads change. When you get a chance to breath I suggest you step back and look at all of your work and make sure your skills are solid in the good old basic shots that always have and always will be the foundation of videography or cinema. For example the camera does not have to be moving at all times. I am not saying yours does. I am saying a proper mix of shot styles is as important as good audio mixing. In other words, don't overlook the obvious.

Thank you for taking us trough this project with you from start to finish. This thread has been one of the more interesting threads I have been a part of in a long time. It was great to listen to everyone's take on this. I am always trying to learn. You had a learning experience AND pulled off a great product......congratulations!

Kind Regards,

Steve

I've spent my life doing bits of everything - my work attention span is quite short, so I've ended up not being expert in any one field, but ok to hold my head above the water in many. In fact, most of my wisdom comes from messing it up badly once, and having decent advice on what I did wrong.

Earlier up the topic, we briefly mentioned about having some space/ambience mics, and you'd be amazed how many people see an engineer do this, and copy it, getting it badly wrong. Sometimes, the engineer goes for a dryer and closer mic placement because he has to - maybe cameras, or people dictate the perfect mic position just can't happen. If the space sounds great - like this one, then you can take some of the ambience and 'cheat' it into the soundfield - if, and only if, you really know what you are doing. I've never had success - it always sounds like a cheat and artificial. Some software gives you a phase meter - so you see the soloist central as a straight line, but when the others play they are off to one side or the other, and when they all play, the sound field can be seen as a splodge that opens and closes from the centre, as they play. Things arriving with phase errors mess this controlled 'splodge' up pretty badly - expanding to the edges, so you can see what you are hearing, and many people swear by them because they often show you what is wrong - your ears just saying it's not right. Spaced mics are huge culprits at messing things up - removing directional information with conflicting sources that just don't sit well.

It's a really interesting thing to get into. I used to do a few organ concert recordings, and finding a single place for the mics in some churches/cathedrals is almost impossible. Some of the pipes are so far away from the others that the notes appear as two separate ones, even when played together. Try aligning those! Acoustic recording is magic, really!

Craig,

Here is the mixer for you:

The Sound Devices 302 Field Mixer

Sound Devices 302 Portable 3 Channel Field Mixer 302 B&H Photo

You have three broadcast quality mics. This mixer will complete your signal flow without killing the quality of the mics signal. Sound Devices is the professional audio industry gold standard.

When you buy a quality mixer your money makes a difference. What you are paying for is good pre amps. Cheap pre amps may be fine at low levels but as soon as you need to crank them up and get power out of them they fall apart and introduce noise.

Here is a real world scenario for you. At weddings it is common to put a wireless mic on the groom but not the bride. When you go to post some guys use the audio from the grooms mic to pick up the brides vows and boost with their NLE, introducing noise. With a mixer like this you can "ride the gain" and when the bride speaks you can boost the pre amps and record a clean signal. Audio is all about garbage in garbage out. There is nothing better than a good clean signal in post.

When recording audio in the field you have one single minded goal. Record a clean and true signal. Audio sweetening to adjust the sound for the ear takes place in post. Your Zoom is a consumer device. But, this mixer would enable you to feed it a clean signal and keep your Zoom pre amps down at acceptable levels. So, one of the real benefits of this is to be able to get the real benefits of your good mics when conditions are less than perfect. Plus you use cameras with no real world audio capability. This mixer would let you use your three mics simultaneously and feed anything you want. Audio is about signal flow. It will only be as good as the worst thing that processes the signal.

Kind Regards,

Steve

I used a 302 for years. Finally sold it because I only regularly use two mics these days and the SD 702 is fine without the mixer in front of it. But it was a great little mixer and I can't recommend it highly enough.

Looks amazing, Steve.

I don't have any wireless mic controls though, so I may need to wait a few years before making this jump. Unfortunately, it's all about being conservative now, as I look to jump into full time videography. I know the first few years are going to be really tough, so I'm just hoping to survive.

The equipment that I have now enables me to do the job. The only things I'd like to get now include some extra back up audio equipment, as well as a super wide angle lens. Then it's a year of saving for a new Mac and a Thunderbolt drive with loads of space to power me into the future. I'm waiting on the new Mac Pros though.

I feel like the foundations of a business are coming together... just need to keep plugging. I just hope I can make enough to continue investing into my equipment in the future.

Thanks so much for your help and helping me to understand the beneftis though... they seem to be a particularly incredible device. Unfortunately, we pay a lot more for one in the UK - £1599 = $2,400. Insane how much we get taxed in the UK considering the one you posted is $750 cheaper! :)

Thanks again to everyone in the thread... I am really pleased with the outcome for this project, and would like to thank you for your help and support in achieving a successful project.

I'll be back! :)

Craig

The 302 is a great field mixer and top quality but if you are just wanting a flexible portable multi tasking mixer have a look at the Behringer 1002B: https://www.bax-shop.co.uk/analogue-mixing-desk/behringer-xenyx-1002b-pa-and-studio-mixer?gclid=CjwKEAjwyqOwBRDZuIO4p5SV8w0SJAAQoUSwKs_9uv-Cv-gQoxVCp5DLMt6a5HvAmhdQ4wiY1vtKvRoCDJTw_wcB

OK and before everyone says it ain't the quality of a sound devices it certainly isn't but I have still done Live to air and many recordings that have been on the mainstream BBC and other channels with this mixer feeding my panasonic P2 cameras.

Less than £100 and it is battery operated too.

The 302 is a great field mixer and top quality but if you are just wanting a flexible portable multi tasking mixer have a look at the Behringer 1002B: https://www.bax-shop.co.uk/analogue-mixing-desk/behringer-xenyx-1002b-pa-and-studio-mixer?gclid=CjwKEAjwyqOwBRDZuIO4p5SV8w0SJAAQoUSwKs_9uv-Cv-gQoxVCp5DLMt6a5HvAmhdQ4wiY1vtKvRoCDJTw_wcB

OK and before everyone says it ain't the quality of a sound devices it certainly isn't but I have still done Live to air and many recordings that have been on the mainstream BBC and other channels with this mixer feeding my panasonic P2 cameras.

Less than £100 and it is battery operated too.

Great suggestion, Gary! Would I get tonnes better audio with this over my Zoom H5?

Are there any particularly great tutorials to get the best out of mixers? How do Edirols compare? I remember Rob Adams sharing that they were his choice as mixers.

Having read through the whole 10 pages over the last couple of evenings, I've just watched the finished products on Vimeo (listening through a pair of Tannoy Reveal active near-field monitors) and I'm hugely impressed, both by the audio and the video. Some random comments:

It's really helpful to see just what can be done with "pan-&-scan" on the AX100 4k footage.

The sound is superb. The microphones don't intrude in the pictures, and to anyone who knows a bit about audio, they confirm that the conductor takes recording seriously - no bad thing in a promo.

On reflection, the Go-pro shots are a mistake, though not terrible. I'm really pleased to have seen the version of If Ye Love Me with them included, though, to illustrate the points made about them earlier.

My Tannoy speakers were an end-of-line bargin (a Mark-2 version had just been launched) that I bought 10 years ago. Like mics and lenses, and unlike PCs and video cameras, a good set of speakers will last you for many years. I feed computers, DVD player, TVs, cameras etc though a little Phonic mixer to them.

I'm not sure about the suggestion of a £100 Behringer field mixer instead of the SD. Don't shell out without listening carefully - and if you are happy, make sure you buy the one you hear. I've been caught out with cheap gear that way in the past! The main reason for using a field mixer is to get really good, quiet preamps. Are the Behringer's preamps actually any better than those in a Zoom or a camera? My experience is that the preamps in a good video camera are not that bad. Certainly, my Canon XH-A1 is quiet enough not to be audible on a normal TV.

Mark,

It's very cool that you read through the 10 pages from the beginning. This thread might win the "best DVInfo success story of the year" award. The key? That so many recommended hiring an audio professional - and the client actually did so. Too often the experts recommend that a poster step up the game by two notches only to find that the client took three steps in the other direction. In this case, the results speak (and sing) for themselves. :)

John,

You are absolutely correct. This tread represents everything good about what this forum can do. And the audio forum here at DVINFO has some true experts (I am not one of them) that are willing to spend their time and offer their expertise to anyone who actually listens.

Chris Hurd and others have done a great job over the years of keeping the trolls away.

Craig, Don't add it here, a new tread would be in order. But I know you have a fashion show shoot coming up. My first one blew me away. I could not believe how fast those models are really walking. It is like a sprint with a sashay! You have what you need to do the job. If you have any questions just ask....people here are more than willing to help those that at least consider the validity of input received.

Kind Regards,

Steve

Having read through the whole 10 pages over the last couple of evenings, I've just watched the finished products on Vimeo (listening through a pair of Tannoy Reveal active near-field monitors) and I'm hugely impressed, both by the audio and the video. Some random comments:

It's really helpful to see just what can be done with "pan-&-scan" on the AX100 4k footage.

The sound is superb. The microphones don't intrude in the pictures, and to anyone who knows a bit about audio, they confirm that the conductor takes recording seriously - no bad thing in a promo.

On reflection, the Go-pro shots are a mistake, though not terrible. I'm really pleased to have seen the version of If Ye Love Me with them included, though, to illustrate the points made about them earlier.

My Tannoy speakers were an end-of-line bargin (a Mark-2 version had just been launched) that I bought 10 years ago. Like mics and lenses, and unlike PCs and video cameras, a good set of speakers will last you for many years. I feed computers, DVD player, TVs, cameras etc though a little Phonic mixer to them.

I'm not sure about the suggestion of a £100 Behringer field mixer instead of the SD. Don't shell out without listening carefully - and if you are happy, make sure you buy the one you hear. I've been caught out with cheap gear that way in the past! The main reason for using a field mixer is to get really good, quiet preamps. Are the Behringer's preamps actually any better than those in a Zoom or a camera? My experience is that the preamps in a good video camera are not that bad. Certainly, my Canon XH-A1 is quiet enough not to be audible on a normal TV.

Thank you for your time and comments, Mark. Great to hear that this thread has been entertaining and fulfilled its purpose too. I have been blessed by the presence of so many here.

Mark,

It's very cool that you read through the 10 pages from the beginning. This thread might win the "best DVInfo success story of the year" award. The key? That so many recommended hiring an audio professional - and the client actually did so. Too often the experts recommend that a poster step up the game by two notches only to find that the client took three steps in the other direction. In this case, the results speak (and sing) for themselves. :)

Thanks Jon! :) The client definitely did the best thing by listening to yours (and everyone else's) advice.

The client is thrilled by the films, and has submitted them to the conductor course that she'd like to be a part of. As she currently resides at the best University in England, I would think that she stands a good chance. Only 10 places are available though, and I think many more than that apply. Hopefully this video will at least give her the opportunity to be watched and listened to (thanks to the audio engineer). Finger's crossed.

I think I have had a few 'success' stories here due to the posters' insightful help before shooting different events. As Steven states, a fashion shoot is next.

Thanks again for all your help, Jon.

John,

You are absolutely correct. This tread represents everything good about what this forum can do. And the audio forum here at DVINFO has some true experts (I am not one of them) that are willing to spend their time and offer their expertise to anyone who actually listens.

Chris Hurd and others have done a great job over the years of keeping the trolls away.

Craig, Don't add it here, a new tread would be in order. But I know you have a fashion show shoot coming up. My first one blew me away. I could not believe how fast those models are really walking. It is like a sprint with a sashay! You have what you need to do the job. If you have any questions just ask....people here are more than willing to help those that at least consider the validity of input received.

Kind Regards,

Steve

Most definitely. Love this forum!

Hahaha that does not help me!!! :D

I would be willing to start that thread, but where would you advise that I post it?

My idea for that shoot is to use an AX100 facing down the catwalk, as that will have lots of depth of field. Then I'm going to use the slider and tripods around the catwalk to get the best close up shots. If I can get shots of the feet, the hand bags and the little details such as this, then move to a higher ground to get the head shots, then I think I might have a reasonable highlight. The delivery is only 30-60 seconds for a Facebook post, but the client(s) are highly regarded in my town, and so a good job could lead to some good leads.

Thanks again for all your help, Steve. You sell yourself short - I am sure that you're very capable in the audio department!

Kind regards,

Craig