Mark Foley's article on capturing event audio

[HankCastello]

Sorry you feel that way, and sorry to see you go.  But don't mistake this for being a matter of opinion.  I haven't seen anyone say that in their opinion, telling newbies to only use a single mic/recorder backed up by a single mic/wireless is the way to go.

So far, the conflicting opinions seem to be saying only that we should allow experienced videographers to give bad advice to newbies - but you aren't telling us why that should be so.

It seems to me that to truly defend Foley's article, you have to defend his advice to use a single mic for an entire wedding, backed up by one other single mic.  Are you defending that advice?  I think not.

[ampsonic]

Is the article in question available online? I'm a newbie and I'd love to read it and see what I get out of it.

Now someone is going to tell me to buy a subscription.....

[HankCastello]

The article as posted on eventDV.net is not quite the same as printed in their magazine, but you can find it here:
http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/News/Feature/Sound-Decisions-How-to-Get-Good-and-Consistent-Audio-for-Your-Events-52722.htm

I suppose the heart of what we're talking about is:

For the weddings I shoot, in addition to the wireless mic placed on the groom (which I use only for sync purposes), I also use a flash-based digital audio recorder. In the past I've used IFP Series iRiver recorders. The IFP Series iRivers, which are no longer manufactured, were good low-cost recorders. However, they had some drawbacks. One, they recorded in the highly compressed MP3 format. Two, there wasn't a usable signal monitoring of the recording process. I currently use the Marantz PMD620 recorder. It's a very small form-factor recorder and, coupled with a good lavaliere microphone, is capable of superb 24-bit PCM audio recording.

What is the consistency trick with any of these devices? Once you have successfully set up the recorder and microphone combination and have captured good audio, never change the settings or use it for anything else.

Since he says he uses the groom's lav for synch only, if I am reading this right, he is saying to use a single mic for the wedding ceremony.  That is bad advice.

Also, he comments about 24-bit PCM audio.  Trust me, when recording voice or even music for events, an mp3 recording works just fine.  It is much better to record in mp3 and enable your recorder to go extra time, than to record in wav and have it run out of file space before the event ends.  Try recording in wav, then record the same thing with the same mic using a good mp3 setting.  Play back.  Hear a difference?  Neither do I - not even after I alter the sound with software (though subsequent reediting of compressed audio may result in noticable quality loss).

And lastly, what's this about never changing settings or using the recorder for anything else???  Silliness.  It is a must to set your recording levels to your speaker.  Some ministers really boom out and others speak more moderately. Same with the couple.  You must set levels to match your sound source.

Get a subscription!   

[HankCastello]

and this -

What if you shoot an event in which you have to record a small group of musicians? The Zoom H2 with its configurable internal microphone is a very good choice. It's capable of recording at 24-bit PCM quality and can be easily attached to a microphone stand and strategically placed among the performers. Again, for consistency, once you have captured a successful recording, lock down the record settings.

1. Zoom H2's (or any other) internal mic will not do nearly as well as a decent mic like a Shure handheld (under $100).
2. Again, the 24-bit PCM is irrelevant for event videography.  Maybe if you're in the studio, but not on location.
3. About locking down record settings - if you're shooting a live event (i.e.: you can't yell "Cut!"), never lock down your audio settings for the mic that picks up the band or DJ.  Go with ALC.  The reason we normally avoid ALC (increasing ambient during pauses) is moot during live events like receptions and the greater risk is clipping.

Now, some may say these are "opinions" and there's no right or wrong.  Well, the article is titled "How to get good and consistent EVENT AUDIO" and we may suppose that novices will read this article to learn.

So, do we want eventDV, the most respected magazine in our industry, telling novices to record wedding audio with just one or two mics?  Maybe that's all they can afford, and I understand that, but to have an experienced professional tell them this is how you do it, through a respected medium like eventDV, is something different entirely.

I wouldn't have a problem with Mark's article if he had written it to say that every important sound source should have a mic within 24" or less, "But if you can't afford that, then do it like this.."  But that isn't the way he wrote it.

[ampsonic]

From my read through of this online article, it sounds like you are both trying to convey the same message.

I think you nailed it when you say that it's probably a better article for pro's looking for best practices. When he says "A $50 microphone placed 5' away will sound immensely better than a $500 microphone placed 50' away. If you want good, consistent audio from the microphone on your camera, try to get as close as possible to the sound source." I think he is using 5' feet as a purely hypothetical number, designed to illustrate that closer is better. I'm sure you'd agree, however you would appreciate that he point out that even 5 feet isn't close enough for the best sound quality.

As for the 1 microphone for the event, I didn't get that impression from my read through of the article. He speaks to having mics close to sources and what to do for musicians.

So, we can probably agree that Mr. Foley knows how to produce quality sound, he simply should be careful to include key details in an article like this, as some of his audience may not know some of the things he takes for granted.

[osbornes5]

Wow. I am getting in late on this deal and cannot possibly address everything here so let me just fire this in and be a fence straddler since I am practicing to run for public office.

I agree with Hank's points about sound and I have seen him mic an event. He does it waaayyy right. I don't do it to his level but I am improving and adding new gear all of the time. I intend to add a new Senn before I shoot another wedding and more as time goes along. Hank is committed to good wedding video (which at this point should go without saying that that includes audio) but what's more, Hank is committed to helping others and in particular newbies. I have known Hank probably longer than any other regular poster on this site. Hank used to regularly post on another site until he started this site and maybe some of you remember him from there. I suspect that Kevin Shaw might remember this because Kevin has been around since the dawn of time and I think I remember seeing Kevin post there. That's where I met Hank. I saw he was from my home state and e-mailed him with a question. I said that he seemed (from his many posts on the site) like the kind of person who like to help new videographers and asked if he would be willing to let me bounce things off of him from time to time. I got a response unlie anything I ever expected and he has been a constant source of assistance ever since. That was several years ago. His track record has not changed. At any rate, Hank is committed to helping folks. I speak from experience and from watching him with others. I can tell you that as far as I know Hank is in the red from operating this site. If you figured fifty cents an hour for his time he would be as far in the red as your government is getting ready to be. He is in it for the training and help and the betterment of our industry and its image...end of story. But he is especially in it for developing new videographers the right way. Go back and look at past posts, all the way back to the earliest days of this site and you will see that. In a deal like this where it could lead newbies down a wrong path and in turn detract from the industry as a whole you can expect Hank to speak out...loudly. I was not surprised to see it at all

However it sounds like much of this could have been avoided with one simple addition to the article. "This is part one of a three part series". I think the problem arises from the fact that there was not enough room for Mr. Foley to address every relevant and necessary point. In the process of fitting it into his alotted space much had to be left out. It seems apparent from the personal accounts of those who know him and attest to his abilities and practices that Mr. Foley is a knowledgeable pro who knows how to mic an event. Of course there seems to be some other points of possible disagreement that might not fall under this category (like the ALC). I don't think you could properly cover this topic in less than three articles and possibly not then. I think it is necessary to note on this subject that there is an aceptable level of entry and then there is a target level of attainment and several levels in between. We have taken this point of view in other areas such as HD v. SD etc. However, to do this and denote all of the necessary points just makes for a great deal of info. Even to just have noted the fact that there had to be omissions and that this was just a starting point might mave made it better. Again I am not currently addressing any of the other points of contention about which there seems to be disagreement.

[kwshaw1]

As usual I agree with some of Hanks points, but after reviewing the article online I think I see how he and Mark are having a disconnect about it. Mark's premise (as stated in the first paragraph) was to discuss some of the finer points of video recording technique, rather than provide a detailed treatise for capturing audio at a wedding. As written Mark's article is somewhat disjointed or random in nature and hence not a good beginner's guide, but other than that some of the comments may be useful to some readers. Mark even sounds like Hank on one point: "A $50 microphone placed 5' away will sound immensely better than a $500 microphone placed 50' away." Surely Hank will agree with that?

Regarding MP3 audio, I'll agree that it's adequate for event videography if used carefully, but it's not a reasonable statement to say that anything better is irrelevant. Higher quality recording formats are always preferable regardless of whether anyone notices the difference, because they give you more overhead to edit down to your finished product. I use HDV audio and an MP3 recorder myself and don't feel it significantly affects my work, but I wouldn't tell anyone not to bother with PCM recording if they can arrange it. Plus PCM/WAV audio is easier to edit than MP3 because it's less compressed, and easier for some editing programs to synchronize to the rest of the sound track.

My biggest beef with the online version of the article would be the very first sentence: "Getting good wedding and reception audio is relatively easy to accomplish." In my experience that's not true: if anything getting good audio is one of the hardest things about shooting a wedding - and that's where Hank comes in. Hopefully people here can learn something from Hank's comments and then go back and try to learn something from Mark's article, after taking into account what the article is trying to communicate.

[Waldemar]

If you want to get into a religious war, make a finite statement regarding the "right" way to record audio.

Recording audio is far more difficult than recording video.  There are lots of reasons for this.  The best teacher is to record a live event with one microphone, then edit out the unwanted audio in a quality audio editing application.  My guarantee is you will have a horrible master recording as well as a useful learning tool.

From my point of view, which is 23 years as an audio engineer in the meetings and conventions industry focusing mostly upon public speaking, not music performance, there are 6 primary parameters:
1.  The best performing microphone will be the one closest to the sound source. A cheap mic will perform better than an expensive one, provided it is properly placed. 
2.  Use as many microphones as is practical.  The job responsibility is to record. The production budget is the limiting factor. It might be your inventory of audio recording equipment or your client's budget (more gear costs more). 
3. Isolate sound tracks for post mixing. That's not realistic most of the time, because wedding clients are not familiar with professional production techniques, so make intelligent choices about grouping microphones for later mixing in post production.  Whatever your choices boil down to, remember the on-camera mic has only two values:  First is to provide a reference audio for syncing multiple camera video/audio tracks in post.  Second is to allow access to ambient room noise where applicable.
4. Listen to other's opinions, then CAREFULLY ANALYZE in relation to YOUR PROJECT.  Then, choose your tools, plan, and execute. 
5. Deal with what you recorded.  Make it sound best as you can.  Learn from what YOU perceive as a mistake.  At this pont, don't listen to other opinions.
6. Hey, this is a live event, and you CAN NOT CONTROL everything. 
7. Rest assured, you will produce good audio, but you will also recognize you could have done better.

[osbornes5]

Hey, this is a live event, and you CAN NOT CONTROL everything.

Truer words were never spoken.