live mixing for video?

[gnomatron]

Over the summer I'm spending a couple of weeks running audio to go with video; the mix is being used mainly to feed two remote PA systems tied to bars in other rooms in the same building, but also may eventually make it onto dvd.

 

It's a stand-up comedy gig, so as well as a feed from the FOH desk I have an ambient mic to play with, and possibly some other bits'n'bobs.

 

Basically, I was wondering if anyone had any hints'n'tips? I've never done any mixing intended for recording before, or anything involving Video. I do have a heap of experience doing FOH for stand-up, though. I get the feeling I probably shouldn't be riding faders if I can help it, but what's the best way to handle the ambient mic? I obviously only want crowd noise when they're laughing.

[IanG]

It's a stand-up comedy gig, so as well as a feed from the FOH desk I have an ambient mic to play with, and possibly some other bits'n'bobs.

 

Basically, I was wondering if anyone had any hints'n'tips? I've never done any mixing intended for recording before, or anything involving Video. I do have a heap of experience doing FOH for stand-up, though. I get the feeling I probably shouldn't be riding faders if I can help it, but what's the best way to handle the ambient mic? I obviously only want crowd noise when they're laughing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Firstly, make sure your audio and video chains are in sync. If there are vision mixers etc. in the video chain you will need compensating delays in the audio to get everything looking right.

 

Also - get a good place to mix away from the direct sound from the venue.

 

An easy way of cleaning up the audience sound is to put an expander over the mic - not too agressive, or you'll hear it coming in and out, but enough to push down the background ambience down when there isn't laughing. The pros ride the faders but this can be a lot of work for smaller events. Make sure you don't get too much PA or performer sound in the ambience mic or you'll have interesting phase problems - a couple of shotguns facing outwards from the stage should do.

[david.elsbury]

Make sure you don't

A) clip the recording device, digital clip sounds horrible

B) under-drive the recording device, else you will have to fix it in post and bring the levels up, along with the background hiss.

;) :)

 

I would suggest running thru a nice tube comp just before your recording device. From what I understand, most TV doesn't really have that many dynamics at all. Decent monitoring in an acceptable room should help you suss this one.

[Mr.Si]

When editing the video, as an instrument is zoomed in on, it should come more forward/Prominent in the mix.

[p.k.roberts]

When editing the video, as an instrument is zoomed in on, it should come more forward/Prominent in the mix.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd have to hugely disagree with this; if you cut to a close up of an instrument because it's playing a solo, it would tend to be more prominent anyway, but what about, say, an 'arty' shot of an individual violin in a string section. You simply wouldn't expect it to be more prominent in the mix. Generally, the visual grammar does not need to be linked to the audio in a music performance (just think about the nightmare of dealing with stereo imaging if you tried to relate sound to picture!).

 

As to the original question, think carefully about the placement of the audience mics with relation to the PA. As previously mentioned, gun mics can be used, but figure of eights can also be very helpful if you can get their 'dead' sides towards the PA speakers (this was a very common technique in TV studios with live audiences).

[paulears]

I tend to agree with Si - When the Beeb were doing their simulcasts of the proms on BBC2 and radio 3, it was common practice to have the radio mix and a separate mix following the video, focussing the sound to match the images. Listening to the radio mix in stereo was a novelty then! Listening to the tv mix and having the french horns suddenly pushed was very odd.

[Mr.Si]

When editing the video, as an instrument is zoomed in on, it should come more forward/Prominent in the mix.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd have to hugely disagree with this; if you cut to a close up of an instrument because it's playing a solo, it would tend to be more prominent anyway, but what about, say, an 'arty' shot of an individual violin in a string section. You simply wouldn't expect it to be more prominent in the mix. Generally, the visual grammar does not need to be linked to the audio in a music performance (just think about the nightmare of dealing with stereo imaging if you tried to relate sound to picture!).

 

 

As a general rule of thumb, not for every shot, that'd be wierd from a sound perspective.

 

It was what I was told, and it makes sense to me.

[p.k.roberts]

I tend to agree with Si - When the Beeb were doing their simulcasts of the proms on BBC2 and radio 3, it was common practice to have the radio mix and a separate mix following the video, focussing the sound to match the images. Listening to the radio mix in stereo was a novelty then! Listening to the tv mix and having the french horns suddenly pushed was very odd.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The reasons for separate radio and TV mixes were largely 'political'; in practice one tended to find the TV mixes on the whole just a bit 'closer' but not 'following' the video as previously described.

[Jivemaster]

Separate sound for radio and TV goes back to the media's need foe different commentary. A radio commentary has to describe the pictures a TV commentary doesnt/shouldn't.

 

For recording for editing to DVD can you record a guide mix and a set of tracks for later mixing down all at good levels.