mono or stereo location dialogue

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:33 pm

"mono compatibility could be an issue" - you can test you stereo
arrays(s) to make sure that it won't be

"both vision and audio editing needs more scope than a fixed stereo/head view of the world" - good point, but you can adapt the stereo images of the recorded files with good software like Waves, in post

"Effects and Folly" - as in youthful folly

"applying a compressor to a stereo audio file where the dialog is the focus is going to be very hard to keep consistant throughout the movie" -
not everyone likes to use compressors in either mono or stereo

"a dialog replacement in stereo will make life hard for the audio editor to get things to blend in with the main track"- not sure what you mean
by replacement

"recording in stereo doesn't make things better ... just because it's in stereo" - I agree with you on that one

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:12 pm

we may not be on the same wavelength here ???
try google with some of the audio for film and audio for video technical terms and definitions
http://www.library.fordham.edu/itservices/postproduction.html
see the last line

Quote:

Folly stage and sound effects processing, ADR-looping, and full music production and scoring.

folly
effects
dialog replacement (ADR)

http://www.imdb.com/Glossary/A
Automated Dialogue Replacement
from the above glossary site

Quote:

ADR, Dialogue Looping, Dialog Looping, Looping
The re-recording of dialogue by actors in a sound studio during post-production, usually performed to playback of edited picture in order to match lip movements on screen. ADR is frequently used to replace production track of poor quality (e.g., due to high levels of background noise) or to change the delivery or inflection of a line. ADR can also be used to insert new lines of dialogue which are conceived during editing, although such lines can only be placed against picture in which the face of the actor speaking is not visible.

as for compressors
mostly in audio for video you use a compressor because you need to ... not just for fun ... even when you don't like to.

I'll leave this for now cos it looks like I'm in the wrong direction ?

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:03 am

Foley: "sound effects added to a scene in post-production"

Folly: "In architecture, a folly is an extravagant, useless, or fanciful building, or a building that appears to be something other than what it is.
The term comes from the fact that such structures have often been dubbed "[name of architect or builder]'s Folly", in the sense of foolishness or madness."

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:04 am

Foley: "sound effects added to a scene in post-production"

Folly: "In architecture, a folly is an extravagant, useless, or fanciful building, or a building that appears to be something other than what it is.
The term comes from the fact that such structures have often been dubbed "[name of architect or builder]'s Folly", in the sense of foolishness or madness."

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:43 am

aracu,
I think I see the joke (foley and folly). Foley is named after the man Jack Foley. He walked looking at a movie being played back and added his footsteps and props in sync to picture. Folly is trying to convince you that you should record in mono. Laughing

Remember the tools we all have to use these days allow us to do nearly anything we want. It just the fact that if I'm mixing I don't want stereo tracks from the field. If the Production Sound Mixer wants to split out different characters lavs on separate track, that's fine. Also a second track can be recorded lower for when there's shouting, noise etc.
Once again, ask your Re-Recording Mixer and see what he/she wants.
It's them who have to make your tracks sound good!
By the way what have you mixed? Any IMDB links?

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:04 pm

Those are the first definitions of the words used in the thread that come up in google, no joke or specific double meaning intended. You are absolutely right, that all decisions have a lot to do with who you are working with. In a forum though, there is little potential harm in speculating on ways to go about doing things. You asked me what I have mixed…I have been asked lots of times to “fix” accumulated wide ranging problems in recordings of dialogue, add sound design, compose music, and do the final mix, for films, as one unified task, most of them indie low budget ones. If you want I will e-mail you short mp-3 files of examples.

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:01 pm

dr.sound wrote:

I think I see the joke (foley and folly).

perhaps it was a bit too cryptic or subtle ... or something
I was probably in a ... mood ... ? Rolling Eyes

although foley is correct some like to right it as folly ... I guess for fun and in a similar way to vocals and vox
... vox for me is really Voice Operated X(switch)
anyway, back to the topic

seriously for dialog ... mono
even if you do record an additional long mic in stereo of the hallway or stairwell
but
do give the audio editor a close mono dialog mic to work with

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:20 pm

I will go to some stereodialogue anonymous meetings at the local
church.

Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:18 am

I think there is a misconception about the difference between mono and
stereo. Depending on how narrow the stereo angle is, it can be
virtually indestinguishable or have only a subtle difference compared to
it's mono version, and still sit in the middle of the mix in a very similar
way as a mono file. Recording dialogue with a stereo mic, especially if allows the angle of it's capsules and polar patterns to be adjusted, can have a possible advantage over a mono mic in that it doesn't have to be moved around as much between actors speaking. If the stereo quality
of the recording destabilizes the mix, it can either have it's stereo
angle reduced further by using Waves Stereo Imager, or it can simply
be converted to mono.

Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:12 pm

I'm reading with great rib tickling humor this interplay here. Since most of our modern-day, state-of-the-art digital recording equipment has multiple audio track capability, one can record both a mono lav and in an MS stereo microphone track, alllllllllllllll simultaneously. WHAT A CONCEPT!

Then whoever the program mixer is will have a multitude of options to choose from, after all their mixers have more than eight inputs these days.

Problem solved! In all probability the program mixer won't be 18?

Still young at 50
Ms. Remy Ann David

Moderator Joined: Apr 13, 2006 Posts: 129

Just track in 5.1 so the mixer's placement work is done - the camera crew won't mind dodging the array in the middle of the scene. Wink

Seriously though, I agree with other posters here, mono is a lot easier to edit and mix. As Remy suggested, it wouldn't hurt to track a stereo mic/pair too, but it will have to be the same for the project. I've done this in the past, but always ended up with the closest mono mic for dialogue. You can always create ambience for the scene effectively, but it's really hard to take it back out once it's on a voice track.

Regards,
Dedric

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:37 pm

You are right, in that a stereo recording of dialogue made with
a typical wide stereo image does not work with a standard
film mix. But try sometime a stereo recording with two
hypercardioid capsules set to a narrow stereo image,
compared to one mono capsule of the same. The stereo version
has far less fluctuation in volume and degree of reverberation
(with the dialogue of moving actors) than the mono one capsule
version, the same amount of background ambience, and if the
stereo image is narrow enough it will sit in the mix the same
and will not sound like "stereo". If it is narrow enough it will sound
the same (as it sounds in "stereo") if converted to mono.

This topic sponsored by: