gsbischoff

Oh that's very interesting! Thank you for your information! In fact, looking at some studio examples I have, they quite clearly are using those Sony lavs. Yes this whole subject is very interesting to me. Really cool how they had equipment that came from on who had worked with them. Probably was instrumental in tackling the problems ahead of time by someone who may have had that experience. Were other systems of the time finnicky though? I.e. were their signals easily blocked by obstacles and didn't go very far? It's great to know what system they had likely used then, but then there's just two questions left: why did they hide it in those outdoor shots? (the two that were perhaps not done with a shotgun mic) And would the lav mics pick up ambiance like we hear in those two examples?

Oh neat! Uh, so did Audio Ltd make the transmitters and TRAM the mics? What did they have in their line around then? The 'history' of personal mics and their quality really interests me when I've seen examples like this. Yeah, seems like at least 4-5 whereas you'd think it would be half that! But, since determining this is a bit tricky I think I should shift the question a bit, and focus on questions about ambiance. The prod audio that we hear in that blooper doesn't sound very directional like a shotgun (but still a bit directional). And we've seen that, assuming they aren't ADR + foley, the two other scenes sound very non directional (i.e. picking up ambient sounds). The question there is... do lavs pick up ambiance like that? Or does this narrow it down now to non-personal mics like a cardiod, etc? Preemptively, yes, that this is so confusing to me is a testament to how well they did in whatever technique(s) they used! (not like I'm a standard for knowledge of these thing though, that is the reason I'm here!)

And that's what's getting me! It seems too well mixed for me to think they had done foley. The audio quality just doesn't change suddenly. And the voice seems to not have that "in a box" sound of ADR. Could it be? I should look again. The head tilting thing makes sense. However, I have one counter to that and it's that in all of their studio work they clearly show their lavs on their tie. Why would they go to lengths to hide it when they're out and about? (attached is a screenshot of an example from another episode) edit: also I can point to this episode where we can see clearly under his tie, no lav. But that seems easy with a boom in that situation. Really? From where, in the van? That's interesting, I never figured that'd be possible. But, to me, the audio doesn't seem out of sync, it just seems very slightly delayed, uniformly. Did pop in my mind, but I still wanted to get the opinion of this forum. I'd just found it and the people on here are very knowledgeable! Perfect place for such a question, in my opinion. ---------- One thing I've noticed is that "blooper" at the end. It shows them slating the shot, we can hear ambiance (birds), and we can hear the way the audio from the phone is picked up, presumably, by the boom mic. I'm not specifying shotgun because, again, how would we have that ambiance? That is another one of the shots that don't add up. If it's a 'blooper', would they soup it up like the rest of the episode? (i.e. are we hearing just the production audio there?) Then what mic is this? Again, we can hear ambiance. Cardiod, hypercardiod, lav? getting into fun specific details there If then, does that change the situation if it were true that they were getting those results from production audio? (about whether you think it's ADR or not?) Thank you all for responding to my barrage of questions!

Oh, that is very creative! I did imagine they could have done something like that but I'm guessing they didn't because: they wouldn't be allowed to modify the telephone they'd been given and they probably wouldn't go to such lengths to hide a microphone when they hadn't before with their lavs in studio. Thanks for the thought though! No doubt! But from the point of view of an outsider, it really makes me wonder the specific 'hows'! I like it. The style of it is really interesting to me, even if commonplace at the time. Well put-together reportage, the highlight on technology where you get to see, if you look at old clips, early incarnation of old technology. Presentations like this are helpful when trying to get a feel for what the technology was at as I like to do. For example, they had some pieces on computers at the time and I've seen other videos too -- I never imagined all the purpose-built systems and the widespread of some early computers!

Hello jwsound! First off, I'm not too sure which board this should go in... it is a question about technique -- but the answer is probably one or two types of equipment! So, anyone who is knowledgeable about audio technique or equipment, especially around the late 70s, this question is for you! I have a huge interest in location sound and the techniques used in location sound from back then, I have a question which I'm wondering if any of you can give insight into with your experience. The productions which achieve that high quality location sound really impress me, yet finding information on how is difficult so I wonder if you could help: It's this particularly interesting video from the BBC from 1979: Tomorrow's World: Mobile Phone 13 September 1979 - BBC In it, the presenter is shown moving around a lot, even into a vehicle and closing the door while their voice is being picked up, and then moving far from the camera at the end. What sort of solution would they have for this around then? The latter situation seems difficult to do with a shotgun and the former seems impossible. In more detail, with specific concerns: Walking from the door, to the vehicle, and shutting the door behind him in a wide shot (can't keep a consistent level from a shotgun with that?) Walking (from afar) towards and away from the gate, while the sound of his voice is being picked up clearly and consistently (also too wide for a shotgun?) However, I can't spot a lavalier in these shots as they're too far to see up to his tie (where they always mount them). Mind you, for this program, I see they wear lavs 99% of the time in studio work (visible on their ties) and whenever they're on location it's around 10% of the time, so I can see they take them out with them, but they probably stick to shotguns for location work. Again, though, these don't seem very doable with a shotgun! It's definitely not coming from the phone because that's clearly been bandlimited for transmission. Lastly, something to note: in the two shots we can very clearly hear the ambient noises in the car (engine, seat, door), and for the other shot the sound of his shoes on the ground and them bending as he walks, as well as the birds! (they even got the bird while he was sitting, shouldn't shotguns not do that?) So... how might they have pulled these off so well? For the ambiance at least they may have gone to great lengths for foley, maybe... unless there was a way they got that too. But the main question is capturing the voice at those distances. Did they have good lavs back then? And were they likely using any sort of portable recorders you could stash away on-person, or even portable transmitters? Thank you in advance for your input!