Audio Levels

Sort of a continuation of this post

The hits just keep coming with this guy; let's talk levels for a moment. I'm going to be talking to production tonight and want to make sure I have my facts straight and I'm not talking out of my behind. I've gone through the audio for the first couple days and the levels are pretty low around -42 to -30db and occasionally peaking around -24db. This is occurring for both the boom and lavs. Shouldn't the levels be around -12db?

I'm not just talking about Wide shots where the boom can't be near the actors either, the same thing is happening in Mediums and O/S, and it's not framed in some artistic way, the players heads are near the top of the frame, so the boom mic if placed properly should be giving a pretty strong signal and I imagine the lavs should be as well.

The boom mic, sounds okay when boosting the signal, but clearly with the boost, noise is being added. The lav on the other hand sounds pretty bad with a boosted signal.

> I've gone through the audio for the first couple days and the levels are pretty low around -42 to -30db and occasionally peaking around -24db.
> This is occurring for both the boom and lavs. Shouldn't the levels be around -12db?

Not necessarily. It depends on what you're mixing to -- -12dB tone should get you peaks around -6dB. A -12dB peak would probably mean mixing to a -20dB reference tone, but if your dialogue is consistently at -12dB, I'd think it's too hot for -20dB. -30dB sounds too low -- the signal-to-noise ratio would generally be pretty bad there.

You should also check to make sure he's not adding bells and whistles on his end. Many recordists don't understand that the goal of a field recording is not to get a finished product -- it's to get things as neutral and clean as possible. Some of them, for example, add compression and EQ on their end, thus colouring the sound and creating problems for the post-production mix.


www.derekmok.com

generally field recordings are pretty low.
MUCH lower than a finished film.

this is to protect against any crazy peaks, like someone yelling,
or a door slam
i digital, if they overload, it's really bad and un-recoverable.

i dont know the numbers, but i'll have a look at what they were on my last film when i can


nick

Nick, I'd be curious to what your levels were.

hi, Joe.

just checking now, across a few days:
conversational dialogue is generally hitting around -18,
occasionally going up to -12


hope that helps,
nick

> conversational dialogue is generally hitting around -18,
> occasionally going up to -12

Yep, that's mixing to -20dB, which is generally good enough for low noise on dialogue and also keeps dynamic range. If dialogue levels are -30dB, then no matter how clean the signal was originally, by the time you boost it to acceptable levels, the noise will be very prominent.


www.derekmok.com

Exactly, -18 to -12db is totally acceptable.

When I asked the mixer about the -30db levels, he said the reasoning was headroom to avoid peaking (uhh- okay we don't need that much headroom) and that equipment/staging was in the way of getting a better mic placement for a stronger signal ( I could see this for the Boom, but the lavs, placed on the actor's body were low as well)

Obviously I was not satisfied with his answers.

"and that equipment/staging was in the way of getting a better mic placement for a stronger signal"

so the audio will be too wide, even off-mic?

friends were working on a film recently with a very bad sound recordist.
they tried all they could to get better sound, but that didn't work
they tried convincing the producers to get someone else, but that did work either, (sound recordist had been paid in advance!)
THEN
the editors played some scenes for the producer & director.
when they heard the bad sound, and understood that entire scenes would have to be ADR'd,
then they replaced the sound recordist.


if that is to drastic, then is it possible to line up a good recordist you might know to have a word with the inexperienced one you have?


nick

Yes, I have had a word with the sound recordist, things have improved but still not to where I'd like to be,
now it's a case of me, sort of having to conform (not in the editing sense) to his work methods.