Sunday, 23 November 2014

Finding a solution

Recently, I was asked to be the sound recordist for a shoot in East-London, for a filmmaker I have worked for previously. My standard procedure is to find out as much about the shoot and base my approach from what I can gather. Normally, I will use the standard boom/shotgun microphone arrangement as the super-cardiod directionality of the microphone allows for a more focused pickup and is good for ambient sound rejection...not to mention it is industry standard and widely used in production sound at all levels.


However, whilst testing the equipment prior to the shoot I discovered, to my frustration, that my newly acquired shotgun microphone was faulty. I went through the appropriate checks to determine whether it was in fact a technical fault or simple stupidity on my part;

  • XLR connected properly? 
  • Phantom power on? 
  • Positioned close to sound source? 
  • Gain adjustments? 
  • Audio interface fault? 

Sadly, it seems that there was an internal fault as the only achievable output was a lot of hissing, buzzing and the faintest hint of dialogue, unlike all the other microphones that were checked and that produced crystal clear audio.

This left me with a decision to make as the shoot was an 8am start and there was next to no time to replace the microphone having only just got it. There wasn't really any other choice but to go with the closest possible alternative. I decided to use a large-diaphragm condenser microphone for two simple reasons: dialogue is best recorded with a condenser as they typically have a better response to the higher part of the frequency spectrum. The other deciding factor, which was out of my control, was that it was the only freestanding condenser available to me - the others being embedded in portable recorders.



This isn't the most desirable arrangement as that microphone doesn't offer as much ambient rejection than a shotgun microphone will, but as it is normally used for vocal recording it was the logical choice. To add to the potential issues, the location chosen for recording was a very large space and one that had little in the way of acoustic treatment; it would give most echo chambers a run for their money.


The fortune in this situation was the choice of camera shot*; it was quite a long shot that gave a basic perspective of the overall room size. Thus any natural reverberations picked up in the audio should seemingly match the environment on a psychological level. It wouldn't sound out of place, but it does limit the creative flexibility when editing. My preference is to get as clean a signal - clear, crisp and void of any unwanted artefacts - as possible regardless of location and then add to it in the edit. This is obviously best achieved in an acoustically treated environment such as a recording studio, but it doesn't mean a clean signal can't be captured in an environment with more reflective surfaces. This is where shotgun microphones perform well, giving you that extra bit of ambient rejection that can make all the difference when editing.

*This also required a further compromise as the microphone had an area that it couldn't be placed in as it would have been visible to the camera. It ultimately ended up being further away from the performers than would normally be desirable, especially considering its lack of ambient rejection when compared to a shotgun microphone.

The moral of the story here is an obvious one: 'check your equipment regularly for faults'. Although, an equally as important element is knowing your alternatives, workarounds and any conceivable combination out of the equipment that is available to you. It's always better to be prepared and have time on your side, but knowing what your options are when agreeing to a job should be at the forefront of your mind in the event of any faults, issues or breakages that may occur in the time leading up to the recording.

No comments:

Post a Comment