Mark Foley's article on capturing event audio

[HankCastello]

Well, it's happened again!  Reading my favorite magazine, I came across an article about capturing audio for weddings that had me shaking my head and afraid that newcomers to our industry might read this and go forth with misleading information, doing work that would further muddy our image.

I know that Foley's been around awhile and I can't believe he would purposely write this.  I am left wondering if he was perhaps pressed for an article, and having little time, banged one out in a hurry which was then edited to further warp its meaning.

So our new, front page story is a critique of sorts, on Foley's article but its main purpose is to set straight any newbies who might have come away from this month's issue of eventDV with some bad ideas regarding audio capture.

Please read and comment..
http://weddingvideodoneright.com/index.php/Articles/Shooting/How-to-get-good-and-consistent-EVENT-AUDIO

[mliebergot]

Hank while I agree that Mark could have taken the article further, I think the gist of the article was for the basic novice who wants to get better audio.  Thus the omission of multiple wireless devices etc.

I know Mark's normal recording setup and he wouldn't try to recommend this to others as the cost is too expensive.  He delivers his DVD's in 5.1 surround sound stereo and uses an Edirol R-44 4 track recorder, with either wireless and live mic or all live mic feeds to obtain his uncompressed audio recordings.  He tales feeds from the soundboard in many cases because his receptions mainly have live bands with an audio engineer to get his feed, and not DJs who don't even know how their board is setup.  If he doesn't take a board feeds he will mic the pa stacks separately, one mic on woofer, one mic on tweeter and one mic facing out towards the crowd for crowd reaction.  All of these feeds are mixed down seamlessly for a perfect mix every time.  He also uses small recorders such as Marantz PMD620 either with or opposed to wireless.  He prefers non-wireless because he records to mini DV tape via FX1, which the audio quality is inferior as HDV audio is compressed more so than DV audio was in the past.

He was actually writing an article to be published soon on recording 5.1 surround sound, in which I guarantee that he would touch on micing multiple sources as you suggested.

Just out of curiosity, why don't you contact the writers prior to your article, and give them a chance to respond with maybe a followup article written to clear the air, before you publicly criticize them online.

I'm not saying that Mark didn't leave some things out, but I still think he offered good advice for novices who want to get better audio than simply using their onbaord camera mic, or thinking their shotgun mic wil work well from 15 feet away.

[HankCastello]

Thanks for your post.  I strongly disagree with your opinion on this article. 

I feel that Mark's advice would easily lead a novice astray, and that's why I had to respond. 

Right before posting the article, we contacted Steve at event DV and notified them.  We made it clear that we would expedite a member account for Foley so he could respond on our forums if he wished and all our articles allow short comments to be posted by non-member guests.  Steve said they would notify Foley right away. 

[HankCastello]

Just out of curiosity, why don't you contact the writers prior to your article, and give them a chance to respond with maybe a followup article written to clear the air, before you publicly criticize them online.

I think that protecting novices from bad advice is more important than protecting an author's ego.  Magazines generally have a three-month lag time before new content is actually distributed.  To allow bad information to go uncorrected for several months could do an awful lot of damage.

I would strongly suggest that tech magazines like eventDV, hire a technical advisor to approve articles before they are published.  This would not only protect novices who use these publications for learning, it would also protect authors' egos.

If that is not possible due to budgetary constraints, I am sure a group of experienced videographers would volunteer to review material for event DV, before they publish it.  You could put my name on that list.

[HankCastello]

Excuse the multiple posts, but I can't let this one go either -

All of these feeds are mixed down seamlessly for a perfect mix every time.

That is a strong statement even for a sound tech who travels with a band and knows every instrument intimately.  (I just checked with a soundman friend of mine).  To do a live mix at an event where you don't know the band, you don't really know the venue and you certainly don't know exactly what will happen and when - well, that's just playing roulette with your production!

A post-mix is the best way to handle events like weddings.  That way you can properly handle "surprises" and "issues".  Once you blend all the sources into one mix, it's like getting married - "For better or worse."  You can't pull out one source (say a brother giving a toast) and lower/raise/de-noise it, etc.

Thank goodness Mr. Foley didn't also advise live-mixing for wedding events, or my counter-article would been even longer!

If you would care to take any issue(s) I raised in my article and argue its merits, I will be happy to debate it, but a general defense of Foley without addressing the issues is not helpful.  No one meant to say that Mr. Foley is un-American; doesn't like apple pie or anything like that - just that his article about capturing audio at events could do more harm than good.

[HankCastello]

And finally,

He prefers non-wireless because he records to mini DV tape via FX1, which the audio quality is inferior as HDV audio is compressed more so than DV audio was in the past.

For any newbies following this thread, whether wireless or non-wireless is irrelevant so far as what recording medium you use.  You can send either to a solid-state recording device or to tape.

As to whether that tape is dv or hdv is totally irrelevant (audio-wise) so far as wedding video (or any other kind of event video) goes.  (Added later:  this is true even though hdv audio has only a quarter the bandwidth of dv.  Might matter if you're making a CD but not for event videos, most your viewers couldn't tell the difference!)

I would appreciate if Mr. Foley's defenders (if there are others) limit themselves to specific issues addressed in the relevant articles and not introduce more nonsense and more bad information, which then requires more corrections.

[mliebergot]

As to whether that tape is dv or hdv is totally irrelevant (audio-wise) so far as wedding video (or any other kind of event video) goes.

Totally inaccurate.
HDV audio is more compressed than DV audio is.

When the HDV codec was created, the developer had to account for more video information being recorded to tape.  As a result the audio codec used is more compressed than PCM audio (.mp3 based audio) recorded to tape.
The result is less headroom for your audio.  As a result errors while recording, such as clipping have even less chance of being recovered in post.  Also, since there is less information, there is less chance to  thicken up the audio in post.

As a result of this, recording to another audio sources, such as audio recorders, at a higher bit rate and codec, such as .WAV, will yield better results for your overall audio.

So if you are recoding to HDV tape, and want superior and the best quality audio, your best bet is to record to another source, such as audio recorders and sync in post.  After all this is what Hollywood does anyway.

[HankCastello]

Nonsense.  I don't even bother recording string quartets in wav format.  When we first got our FX1, I had three other videographers here comparing to VX2100s and nobody even noticed an audio difference.

I'm all for getting the best quality we can out of our wedding/event audio, but when your viewers/listeners can't even tell the difference, there's no sense in flogging that horse.

To go from saying it's OK to record vows, quartet, readers, etc. from a built-in mic on a digital recorder placed near a podium, to saying that 400k is not good enough for event audio, is somewhat incredulous.

..so YOU'RE the guy who keeps bringing up Hollywood?  (See controversy post in general topics)

[HankCastello]

more on hdv audio..

..here's what eventDV had to say about hdv audio while reviewing the Sony Z7 (an hdv camera) -

Some reviewers have tested Sony (hdv) camcorders and found the audio frequency response and noise floor less than what you’d expect on a pro camcorder. Let’s hope that Sony built these two new camcorders to quell the concerns of any audio purists in the field.

If they think that Sony's hdv audio (that has the same limits of all hdv) will make audio purists happy, I think your wedding customers will be pleased, IF that audio is captured by mics that were close to their sources.  Now, back to the real subject please.. 

[BillGrant]

Hank,
I have no real opinion on this matter other than to say advising a newbie to use up to 7 audio sources can be as counterproductive. I agree that the minister and groom should be miced as well as musicians and readers. I use Irivers for everything but the groom, but I would not suggest newbies go the extent that you suggest here. It can be frustrating to deal with all of those sources in post, and I dare say that newbies are probably not getting paid enough to make it worth their while. 
I have, however, even in my newbie state never done ANYTHING that was suggested to me in a magazine or online article without understanding it 100%. I suggest that no one do that as well. I do live in a world of OPINIONS and not necessarily good and evil. I have known of Mark for years as a complete audio guru, and think that omission is not necessarily misleading.
My 2cents...
Bill

[HankCastello]

Bill brings up several points.  Let's see if I can sort them out here..

[to use up to 7 audio sources can be as counterproductive. I agree that the minister and groom should be miced as well as musicians and readers.]

Minister; groom; musicians and readers?  OK, that's at least 4 audio sources (unless musicians and readers use the same mic, which rarely happens).

So you're saying that it's OK if the FOB's voice is a little "froggy"?   I suppose you could ask him to stand very close to the groom and not look away from him, but then he isn't looking at his little girl, is he?

I think it's one thing to give the proper advice to a newbie and quite another to take it upon ourselves to decide what he may or may not find "frustrating".  I say, give him the right advice and let the chips fall where they may.  And that advice is this:

Any audio source that does not have a mic within twenty-four inches or closer, will not be captured crisply and clearly.  Period.  You may consider it "adequate", but you can't argue that it is optimal.  If anyone cares to debate this point, frankly I'll be surprised.

I think what we're talking about is whether a newbie can have some good sound and some poor sound in his videos.  Well, that's up to the videographer and his client.  My point is that experienced videographers shouldn't be writing articles in respected magazines that give poor or unclear advice to novices.  I do not apologize for that opinion.

I have, however, even in my newbie state never done ANYTHING that was suggested to me in a magazine or online article without understanding it 100%.

Is this to infer that it doesn't matter what is said in event DV articles because novices can't be steered wrong?  Maybe Mr. Grant was never steered wrong, but I don't think you really want to argue whether or not people can be steered wrong by articles like the one written by Mr. Foley, do you?  Are you saying that when bad, incomplete or hazy advice is given, nobody should step up to the plate and try to correct it?  Maybe we should be more concerned about the author's feelings than any misconceptions a newbie may come away with and what affect that could have on our industry?

I do live in a world of OPINIONS and not necessarily good and evil.

So then it is merely my "opinion" that you can't get good audio for a wedding video with just a single digital recorder's built-in microphone?  Do you REALLY believe that?

I have known of Mark for years as a complete audio guru, and think that omission is not necessarily misleading.

Does it matter whether Mr. Foley is "a complete audio guru" or not?  What I think matters is that bad information is going to novices.  When bad information is written, does it matter whether it's written by a guru or an amateur?  If Alfred E. Neuman had written the Theory of Relativity, would it matter today that it wasn't Albert Einstein?  (quantum theory aside, of course!)  :-)

and think that omission is not necessarily misleading.

So you're saying that if a newbie reads Foley's piece, he'll come away understanding that anything that doesn't have a mic nearby won't sound crisp and clean?  Could you kindly point me to the place in his article that clears this up?

Guys, I'm sure Foley's a good guy and all.  Probably a great wedding videographer too.  That's not the point.  The point is that people read event DV to learn and to get better at our business.  Mr. Foley's article does not help in that regard.  In my opinion, it does much more harm than good and that's why my hackles are up.

[HankCastello]

I need to address an issue I fairly skipped over in my article - Foley's advice to never change your recorder settings or use it for anything else, once you have captured good audio with it.

Come on now.  Have you ever heard sillier advice?

You should get to know your equipment, including digital recorders, well enough to use them under a variety of circumstances because that's what wedding / event videographers cover - a variety of circumstances, often fast-changing circumstances.

I've seen bands and djs vary their volume widely during an evening.  If you preset your controls, you may have a disaster on your hands, because who has time to monitor the recorder during a reception?

The solution is that often advised against feature - the ALC.  Automatic level control can mess up audio when you have a fairly quiet venue and a speaker who often pauses.  During pauses, the volume level can increase the ambient noise to unacceptable levels.  But at a reception, the music, etc. rarely pauses and besides, clipped audio is a bigger fear than high ambient levels.  Set your recorder to ALC and you'll be alright.  You'll never have clipping and that's your biggest worry (other than not having audio at all and having "fuzzy" audio because your mic was too far from the source).

No, I don't use ALC on my camera mics, because I can monitor them readily.  But when I mic the loudspeakers, it's always ALC and I've yet to regret it.

[BillGrant]

Hank,
Are you conversley advising that newbies should learn all they need to know from a one page article? If not then the ommission of all of the details is acceptable. I am not defending Mark Foley, I am retorting to your expressed opinion on your message board. You have a right to say this here, just like Mark has a right to say what he said when asked. I never have advocated one sound source, and I think 4 is way different than seven. Honestly, I don't use my minister Iriver feed unless there is something wrong with the groom's wireless. I have never had a second thought about what the FOB sounds like one way or another. You mean when he says "her mother and I " ? I have no trouble with the way that one phrase sounds. You didn't address my opinion that most newbies aren't being paid to produce a stellar, compressed, normalized soundtrack. They are being paid starting wages and advice like this wouldve been frustration for me to read when I was a newbie because of the mountain of work that exists at that level anyway. I worked for another company for a few years before starting my business, and the majority of my practices come from what I learned there. Point is, there are 1000 ways to skin a cat and they all can't be summed up in a one page article. Therefore ommissions aren't misleading.
Bill

[HankCastello]

You didn't address my opinion that most newbies aren't being paid to produce a stellar, compressed, normalized soundtrack.

I did address it and said that it was between the videographer and his client, but it is irrelevant in a discussion about whether a how-to article did more harm than good.

[mliebergot]

Hank, I'm not goign to respond to your reply to me in this thread, as I feel that all that will come of it is a revolving difference in opinion.

This will be the last time that you see me post on your forum, as I don't feel comfortable making posts in a place where the environment always seems to be argumentative by it's host.  I'm sorry to say this, but your postings and reviews always seem to be heavy handed and negative in many ways, and in my opinion not a productive way to teach.  I am from the school of having respect for ones point of view, even when there is a difference of opinions.  As such I try to take a more diplomatic approach to to resolving differences or pointing out flaws.

Feel free to delete this post and all of my previous posts from your website. I'm not saying that you do this at all, but feel free to do so if you wish.

I wish you and all of your members the best in the future and God Bless.