Jump to content

How to Mix and/or Record the Wide Shot - CS3e, lavs, or MK 41?


rb1138

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

I've been wondering how you all record and/or mix the wide shot. Normally I had done it with a combo of COS 11s and Schoeps MK 41. However, recently I've gotten a Sanken CS3e and it has some interesting properties that sort of "change" the game, so to speak.

The main property I speak of is its strange bit of reach. It seems to sound good enough that I would figure we would not even need lavaliers in post. It kind of eliminates the need for my COS-11s as the main microphones in many wider shots.

However! If I A/B the two microphones I almost always use the Schoeps. It just makes the ambience of the room sound better. On the other hand, doesn't that mean that post would have to mix in the (sometimes) scratchy, but always strange-sounding lavaliers into the mix for treble/intelligibility?

But according to many sound books, of course, the boom microphone is supposed to be the primary microphone. That makes me think I should use a CS3e since it sounds so good as boom from farther away. However, I would say that the Schoeps' ambience pick-up sounds better and would be a better choice to mix in with the lavaliers.

What I really want to know is if I should use a CS3e all the time. Or should I use it only for wider shots? Use Schoeps for tighter shots? Should I use both? Leave Schoeps on a mike stand for ambience and boom the actors with the CS3e? Or is the Schoeps the way to go all the time (except for noisy locations)?

Thoughts? I've looked through the forums and have seen partial answers to some of these questions, but I don't think anyone's ever asked this directly.

All the best,

Sawrab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you know you will get tight coverage in a scene then I'd say it's alright if the wide shot sounds "wider", i.e. more diffuse. That's called perspective and to some extent this is the ideal way to do it. You shouldn't change mics during the same scene, since the color of the sound will change and that is very audible whenever there are cuts. If the Sanken sounds good to you on the wide and the tights, stick with that one. If the Schoeps sounds close enough go with that one. If you don't need lavs don't use them. If the wide shot is so wide that your boom mic sounds too diffuse (let your ears be the judge) then mix in the lavs. It's all trial and error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" What I really want to know is if I should CS3e all the time. Or should I use it for wider shots? Use Schoeps for tighter shots? "

it is all up to you! yes, yes, and yes.

" Should I use both? Leave Schoeps on a mike stand for ambience and boom the actors with the CS3e? "

if you really want to, but err... not so much...

" is the Schoeps the way to go all the time (except for noisy locations)? "

that too... yes.

the rules are: there are no rules.

and, in the end: do what sounds good

we discuss this stuff endlessly here on jwsoundgroup.net, and the decisions are subjective and personal.

you say you are mixing, but are you also recording ISO's ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would go with what Christian says above, for the most part, but I think the topic title (your question) is at one and the same time very broad yet very specific. I think this is why there has never been one direct answer given. I will add that the entire discussion assumes that you are dealing with a single camera shooting each shot. The entire equation changes, of course, if you are doing a scene that will have multiple perspectives all at the same time (the oft mentioned "wide and tight" style of shooting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would go with what Christian says above, for the most part, but I think the topic title (your question) is at one and the same time very broad yet very specific. I think this is why there has never been one direct answer given. I will add that the entire discussion assumes that you are dealing with a single camera shooting each shot. The entire equation changes, of course, if you are doing a scene that will have multiple perspectives all at the same time (the oft mentioned "wide and tight" style of shooting).

I think for Breaking Bad the production mixer uses the CS3e because of the show's 2-camera set-up, and MKH-50s for the show's "closer coverage" (quote).

http://soundandpictu...n-breaking-bad/

This is interesting but the boom microphone will still be quite distant, won't it?

If you know you will get tight coverage in a scene then I'd say it's alright if the wide shot sounds "wider", i.e. more diffuse. That's called perspective and to some extent this is the ideal way to do it. You shouldn't change mics during the same scene, since the color of the sound will change and that is very audible whenever there are cuts. If the Sanken sounds good to you on the wide and the tights, stick with that one. If the Schoeps sounds close enough go with that one. If you don't need lavs don't use them. If the wide shot is so wide that your boom mic sounds too diffuse (let your ears be the judge) then mix in the lavs. It's all trial and error.

Do you think it's possible for the post-people to match these mikes through EQ and whatever magic they do? Definitely impossible to switch microphones during the scene? I have heard a lot in this forum of switching between the CMIT and MK41 (though I don't have a CMIT), though those are pretty close in their sound I am aware.

Yes you're right. Sometimes the boom sounds a bit diffuse to me.

" What I really want to know is if I should CS3e all the time. Or should I use it for wider shots? Use Schoeps for tighter shots? "

it is all up to you! yes, yes, and yes.

" Should I use both? Leave Schoeps on a mike stand for ambience and boom the actors with the CS3e? "

if you really want to, but err... not so much...

" is the Schoeps the way to go all the time (except for noisy locations)? "

that too... yes.

the rules are: there are no rules.

and, in the end: do what sounds good

we discuss this stuff endlessly here on jwsoundgroup.net, and the decisions are subjective and personal.

you say you are mixing, but are you also recording ISO's ??

The idea with the mike stand thing is that...since we mix lavs in with booms...why not just another boom that sounds tighter but roll off as much as possible (to avoid phase cancellation and comb filtering) but just keep the frequencies that help intelligibility, kind of like the way lavs are used. Of course, lavs are omni and really different perspective--which might help when they are mixed in. What about mixing CS3e with a BLM or CUB? Something like that.... I like the way Schoeps sounds for everything but the high frequencies and intelligibility in wide shots (which lavs seem to be good for, except for the whole clothing noise thing).

I've wondered sometimes if we can pick up room voice echo/ambience versus location noise/ambience and if there's a signal/noise ratio for that. Does that work out? Can we pick up more echo for the voice versus traffic noise? Schoeps actually seems to clean up better with iZotope, I think, when I have worked with it in some post stuff I've done. I mean that it handles more noise reduction better. Not sure why this is. Maybe because it picks up everything so clean in its off-axis?

I really record everything with ISO. I'm just asking when I get that 664 later and move on to bigger projects. KInda just starting and doing low budget stuff. Been at sound mixing for a month or two....

Love the responses,

Sawrab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really record everything with ISO. I'm just asking when I get that 664 later and move on to bigger projects. KInda just starting and doing low budget stuff. Been at sound mixing for a month or two....

Love the responses,

Sawrab

I think most of the answers to your questions will begin to come to you after several more months of mixing.... or not. Most of the things you are asking about are very fundamental and there is no amount of description on how everybody else is doing it that will move you any closer to understanding these things. It kind of forces people to come up with sweeping statements like "never change microphones in the middle of a scene" or "always use the Sanken outdoors" or "lavs will always sound worse/better" etc., etc. You have asked questions that really cannot be properly answered here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I've wondered sometimes... "

feel free to try it...

I think most of the answers to your questions will begin to come to you after several more months of mixing.... or not. Most of the things you are asking about are very fundamental and there is no amount of description on how everybody else is doing it that will move you any closer to understanding these things. It kind of forces people to come up with sweeping statements like "never change microphones in the middle of a scene" or "always use the Sanken outdoors" or "lavs will always sound worse/better" etc., etc. You have asked questions that really cannot be properly answered here.

I see. Thanks for the help. And...I think I understand now. It's an art, isn't it?

Happy mixing!

Sawrab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see. Thanks for the help. And...I think I understand now. It's an art, isn't it?

Happy mixing!

Sawrab

There certainly is some artistry involved, things that cannot be easily quantified or described. What we do is a fairly complex combination of disciplines, technical knowledge, practical execution and artistry. It cannot be learned in a month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true. I have been recording sound to some extent for maybe years now, but only recently have I tried to pursue it in a more professional manner. Notice the professional microphones that I have just recently acquired. But it seems professional microphones are not what makes the sound man, but the years of experience.

Certainly I have much to learn.

It sucks, too, that all of the projects that I have finished in the last few months haven't finished editing and I can't see the results of the choices I make!

I take the advice with humility of course. I feel like I get taken down a peg by the pros all the time, but that's good. I just want to get better.

Sawrab

(I have to go now. Will be back later. Thanks for the help everyone.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a feature film, one in which you've hired Mr. Wexler to mix, you've hired him to provide his experience and technique to the recording of the initial dialogue. From experience, I know that Mr. Wexler, prefers camera perspective sound and only employs radio mics when the logistics of the filming of a particular scene call for them to be employed.

That's interesting. I never thought about it like that. I just figured one just wired actors for safety in every case. You have a point though. I remember one short film I did a loong time ago. I had boomed and wired everyone, you know to give the production "choices", and the director had used the lavaliers for everything! It drove me nuts. Sounded so...like lavaliers. Gave me a headache to listen to it. Sometimes I wish I could take away even the choice.

It's my belief that many people get used to, or like, the close proximity sound of a lavalier and rely on them more than they should. What you have the benefit of learning, on your small projects, is what sounds best to you. It's been said on this forum many times, trust your ears, but you first have to develop your hearing so that you'll know good sound from bad sound, distant from close.

It's got to be the low budget thing. Locations always too noisy. Untreated windows. Echo-heavy rooms. Being a OMB, it's hard to put up sound blankets or fiberglass (if only I could bring either with me) to help with the acoustics. Plug up windows? Acoustic tape? What can I do to make that boom mike work?

On a feature film, one in which you've hired Mr. Wexler to mix, you've hired him to provide his experience and technique to the recording of the initial dialogue. From experience, I know that Mr. Wexler, prefers camera perspective sound and only employs radio mics when the logistics of the filming of a particular scene call for them to be employed.

It's weird how I can dig the sound of Breaking Bad, which sounds tight and sharp (and processed through noise reduction) like CS3e and lavaliers I think, and Jeff Wexlers' films like Fight Club or We Bought a Zoo, which tend to have a more open, rich sound. I know he says he likes to use Schoeps and DPA microphones.

I personally don't advocate the purchase of equipment when just starting out, but many do here and will tell you so shortly after my post. I feel it's better to rent and expose yourself to the variety of microphones and recorders, that are available, then make a decision based on your experience, not just buying some piece of equipment because you read that it's a great mic, or recorder.

I just got tired of productions giving me their crappy equipment. It's what I meant by "doing sound to some extent for years" from my previous post. I've often been recruited to do sound for productions since I'm more savvy at it than others. But I just got tired of using an ME66 or CS1 or NTG1/2 indoors and ME2 lavaliers with G2 systems. I guess since I was doing it all the time, I should make it sound better. At least for me. More enjoyable that way.

Finally, you really aren't looking forward to " I can't see the results of the choices I make!" you should be looking forward to hearing how the recording you made goes with the image the camera department shot.

Exactly! This is part of the problem with it. I can hear the sound in playback on the computer, but I can't tell if it fits the movie or not. I may have some of the image for a reel, but I certainly don't edit the movie myself. It's that moment where the story meets your work. Looking forward to it.

Sawrab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never wired everyone just because. I only wire when required for the shot(s). I've been doing TV for the last couple of years, and don't do it there either. In fact most TV mixers I know don't do it. "Breaking Bad" and "Mad Men" and the like are an exception. The camera style prohibits booming a lot. Love the style. Must be tough for those sound guys.

Regarding the OP, you can change mics during a scene provided the shift in sound perspective is accurate to the shift in picture perspective.

If you like the CS3 for the wide master and like the CMC641 for close ups, and the change sounds natural, then it's fine.

You do have to think differently if they insist on wide and tight. And TV/DVD sound tends to require a bit more presence than theater sound. Just the nature of the medium.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never wired everyone just because. I only wire when required for the shot(s). I've been doing TV for the last couple of years, and don't do it there either. In fact most TV mixers I know don't do it.

Robert

Just curious what kind of shot do you use wires on? Is it a noisy location thing? Crazy-wide shot? Wide+tight 2-camera shot?

Regarding the OP, you can change mics during a scene provided the shift in sound perspective is accurate to the shift in picture perspective.

If you like the CS3 for the wide master and like the CMC641 for close ups, and the change sounds natural, then it's fine.

I actually have done some tests at home and I think the CS3e and 641 cut fairly well. I mean...in a general sense. They're not crazy far apart, though not as close as CMIT to 641. My issue is more with the shift in how the room tone is heard on the two mikes.

However, I think I know exactly what you mean. If the Sanken is say (out of 10) a 6 in closeness in the long shot and I switch to the 641 in the medium and it actually sounds like a 3 or 4 (a lesser number being more distant) then it's definitely not going to match. I should stick with the Sanken with the medium then, being careful not to get too close so I can match it with the 641 when I get to the closeup. Sounds like an interesting idea.

You do have to think differently if they insist on wide and tight. And TV/DVD sound tends to require a bit more presence than theater sound. Just the nature of the medium.

Yes I have noticed this as well. So we definitely have to provide that presence on set with lavaliers and such, yeah? Versus films which sound a lot more with the lows and richness. Less intelligibility but more warmth.

Sawrab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is part of the problem with it. I can hear the sound in playback on the computer, but I can't tell if it fits the movie or not. I may have some of the image for a reel, but I certainly don't edit the movie myself. It's that moment where the story meets your work. Looking forward to it.

Sawrab

This is part of the problem with the whole way people are learning their craft, how to do their job in today's world. When I started out (a long, long time ago), key crew members always went to DAILIES which were screened the next day after shooting. This was the first opportunity to "see" the sound that I had recorded the day before with THE PICTURE. Every day I went to dailies I learned a little more about what worked and what didn't. So, when finally done with production on the movie, I had a much better idea of how to do my job. But the learning didn't stop there --- whenever possible, I made a point to visit the picture editing room to gain a better understanding of how things cut together; then, of course, sound editing, dialog pre-dubs and the final mix when possible. Most of the things I have just mentioned are not even accessible to most of the sound mixers starting out today. Ask 10 new sound mixers under the age of 30 what "dailies" are and they won't even have an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is part of the problem with the whole way people are learning their craft, how to do their job in today's world. When I started out (a long, long time ago), key crew members always went to DAILIES which were screened the next day after shooting. This was the first opportunity to "see" the sound that I had recorded the day before with THE PICTURE. Every day I went to dailies I learned a little more about what worked and what didn't. So, when finally done with production on the movie, I had a much better idea of how to do my job. But the learning didn't stop there --- whenever possible, I made a point to visit the picture editing room to gain a better understanding of how things cut together; then, of course, sound editing, dialog pre-dubs and the final mix when possible. Most of the things I have just mentioned are not even accessible to most of the sound mixers starting out today. Ask 10 new sound mixers under the age of 30 what "dailies" are and they won't even have an answer.

This is absolutely true. Definitely feel the gap.

Sawrab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my first couple of jobs, I requested a copy of the dailies and listened through speakers to scenes I felt I had trouble with. Not quite the same as projected, but helped me A LOT.

One valuable lesson I've had over the years is that problems we hear in headphones are often much less severe in a dailies environment. I can recall situations where I just gritted my teeth and thought, "well, I did my very best," and later heard everybody was more than satisfied with the results. So listening through speakers does give you a very different perspective.

It's awful to me that certain traditions like the concept of "dailies" are being lost among young filmmakers.

I've wondered sometimes if we can pick up room voice echo/ambience versus location noise/ambience and if there's a signal/noise ratio for that. Does that work out? Can we pick up more echo for the voice versus traffic noise? Schoeps actually seems to clean up better with iZotope, I think, when I have worked with it in some post stuff I've done.

Location sound is so heavily dependent on acoustic issues and background noise, it's hard to come up with a universal solution. I can say that if I'm confronted with a very sound-hostile environment, I'll put wireless lavs on everybody actor in the scene and do the best I can to juggle it, while also keeping a boom up. My goal is to give the editor as many options as possible. The problems are exacerbated by multiple camera coverage -- particularly wide & tight, cited in the Breaking Bad interview elsewhere -- and lavs may be the only practical situation there, particularly on TV budgets and schedules.

In a controlled situation where we had decent acoustics, I'd have absolutely no problem going with just one or two booms with Schoeps 641's or Sennheiser 60's or 70's (depending on interiors or exteriors).

Izotope RX to me is only a solution where you have a steady-state noise problem like traffic rumble, air conditioning noise, or fan noise marring the mix. I have seen cases where they've used it to minimize erratic problems like waves crashing on a beach or even background conversations in a restaurant, but it's not ideal for that. To me, tools like iZotope are band-aids, trying to get marginal sound to be acceptable. It's not going to take bad sound and make it good, let alone great. And they will not solve problems with reverb in a room. That can only be solved by fixing the room and/or bringing the mic in closer, but it's very much an "it depends" situation.

BTW, if your current shoot has a post supervisor or a sound supervisor (or at least a re-recording mixer), you should have a conversation with them about your concerns and get an idea on what they expect with dialogue coverage: how to handle overlaps, off-camera dialogue, sound perspective, and so on. I have to admit, I see an awful lot of projects these days, particularly network TV, where they just use lavs 100% of the time, and it can sound very phony. But there are also ways of taming the lavs to make them sound reasonable, plus they're often a better alternative than ADR (at least in terms of time and money). And as long as it works and tells the story, I don't have a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" . But it seems professional microphones are not what makes the sound man, but the years of experience. "

it is great that you recognize this, but from further reading, you still seem to be fighting actually believing this!

There's one big problem with years of of experience, that you have to wait years to get them ::).

Nah, the equipment's just a bonus. Some old friends of mine have told me that it seems more like it's for me than for the job. I'm starting to think I'm just some kind of audiophile.

Sawrab

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying this thread, it's fascinating to hear how everyone works in different ways, but also why - the reasoning behind techniques used. I used to worry that i was 'doing it wrong', but it seemed to sound ok. Then i worked for quite a few very experienced mixers, saw them all do it differently, and heard it all still sound great. Then the penny dropped - trust your ears. Yup - i started really listening then and haven't looked back.

Dailies - we got them at film school and it was a horrifying - yet as Jeff points out - crucial experience. Things that i had heard with the cans on, straining to hear every db and hz seemed to mellow enormously, but simple hums and changes of background and atmos suddenly leapt out at me. After film school i never got to hear my stuff, until it went out on tv. I spent a few years working in isolation, almost never hearing the results of my recording until months later and it had a strange effect on how i worked; although i wasn't getting the most out of hearing my work i had enough of an idea of how it should and shouldn't sound, and so would get really uptight and frenzied about keeping it all clean and consistent. This didn't do much for my learning curve or my stress levels ('I wonder if this will sound ok' is not a great place for a mixer to be is it?) but i have to say my stuff did sound pretty good! Anyway, i now make a point of going to as many dubs and dialogue edits as i can. It depressed me at first as i realised how much of my work was never used, in fact often never even passed on to the post people - i started taking my own drive of iso's with me to help fix bits! Now i know some on here think that is overkill and not part of a recordists job, but it really helped me make some good friends in post which has been to my great benefit. It's been one of the most important things i have done to improve as a recordist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" There are some mixers i know that would see using radios as a failure, but that inflexible attitude seems to be dying, plus i suppose radio mics sound a lot better than when i first stared using them. "

that used to be the attitude, and the technology was not as good as it is now, which is a factor.

" Is that because they shoot wide so much, and wide and tight? "

wide and tight, lack of adequate (at least from sound's POV) coverage, availability of multi-track, and being defensive are all factors...

and, of course, sound crews that provide all the additional toys at the same old rates..is often a part of the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...