Make a video like Mahoganysession's

[P_K]

Originally Posted by hifipistons

Thanks guy. Im thinking of going to this direction:

http://www.sam-mallery.com/2010/12/u...mera-dslr-mic/

Now my question is: is windscreen for Zoom enough to eliminate the wind sound in case I want to record in the park? What's the difference between H4N and its older version? Money is a big issue for me so i dont want to waste it on unnecessary upgrading features.

that's a pretty nice link. i wouldn't recommend you to plug the H4N into the camera. the audio converters of the H4N are much better than the ones in the camera. what he suggests is to plug the audio line out into your camera, which means that you are using the converters of the camera, which are quite poor.

it is much better if you take your video and the audio recorded by the H4N and you sync them in your computer. it is quite easy to do and you can do that with every video editor (even with the free ones).

i recommend to edit your audio with audacity (free) and then sync it to your video (and remove the audio from the video file). the results will be much better

[P_K]

Originally Posted by el_kabong

Yeah, I tend to agree. I'd still love to know how they got the audio. I sent the link to an engineer friend for his take. He's the one that had mentioned the nicer shotguns, which you might see paired with a nice camera. Of the top of his head, he'd also mentioned something like a pair or two of the Crown PCC series floor mics ( http://www.crownaudio.com/pcc.htm) or some kind of low mounted omni.

yeah, they are pretty interesting mics, but i think that it is more likely that they used the shotguns and the omni (or at least an stereo) to get the ambient noise

[P_K]

Originally Posted by bagpipe

I don't know anything about video cameras but I have a question on the video itself. At around the 0:43 mark when the "percussion" kicks in, is that actually just one guy clicking his fingers and clapping his hands together? If so ... wow! Sounded so much like a drum machine of some type I was amazed when the camera panned over and it was just a dood.

that is why i mention the audio post-production. it seems obvious to me that they compressed and eq'd the hand percussion. probably they had a mic pointing at his hands to get a nicer take to be able to mix and edit it afterwards

[bagpipe]

I just watched this Mahogany Session of Gary Clarke Jnr doing a song - happened to be the next one in sequence after the Bastille one. Listen to the very begining where he's tapping his hell on a rock - no way is that the recorded sound of him actually tapping his heel. And then everything else kicks in and the relative volumes are correct? I agree with earlier posts that there are mucho post-processing tricks going on here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgtcrkI7R58

[KevWind]

The first vid was recorded much like the studio picture with an overhead boom and probably the same or simular 5 mics arrayed and pointed at each individual musician. The sound is not from any camera mic.
Also yes the sound was remote recorded multi track and then later dumped into a DAW for mixing. Then synced to the video.

In fact the sound of the guy tapping his heel on the rock could very well be the actual recorded sound with the right kind of mic, but yes obviously mixed and probably EQ ed and compressed before being synced. Not really understanding the phrase "post processing tricks" . If you mean the music is mixed after the video shoot is done then yes but it's not "trickery" it's pretty standard professional music video technique.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by KevWind

The first vid was recorded much like the studio picture with an overhead boom and probably the same or simular 5 mics arrayed and pointed at each individual musician. The sound is not from any camera mic.
Also yes the sound was remote recorded multi track and then later dumped into a DAW for mixing. Then synced to the video.

In fact the sound of the guy tapping his heel on the rock could very well be the actual recorded sound with the right kind of mic, but yes obviously mixed and probably EQ ed and compressed before being synced. Not really understanding the phrase "post processing tricks" . If you the music is mixed after the video shoot is done then yes but it's not "trickery" it's pretty standard professional music video technique.

Ah, A voice of reason!

The truth might be a mix of diverse techniques, and if you check out this Michael Kiwanuka vid you'll plainly see the vegatation reacting to strong wind and the same time you can hear it in whatever mic was used to pick up the audio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7NEy938nWY

[KevWind]

Actually the sound in both those Mahogany sessions vids is pretty dry (in other words not a lot of processing) And matches the video editing stylistically fairly straight forward , single camera no cuts and only some fade in and outs. As someone already suggested there is possibly some judicious but sparse use of EQ and Compression but very little if any Reverb etc. . If you bump up the volume you will hear a fair amount of extraneous background noise which means the sound used in the video was recorded on location. In fact in the Gary Clark Video at 1:54 and 1:57 you can hear a child shouting somewhere off camera but all and all the sound is really just an example of what good (most likely high end) mics, preamps (with good signal to noise specs) , good converters and mixing skill bring to the table.

[P_K]

sure! this videos try to pretend that they are really spontaneous and as real as possible. i'm sure that all the sounds are recorded in the location at the same time but it is not spontaneous. the equipment involved is pretty nice and the sound technicians are professionals and knew what they were doing.

videos like this one are a problem for musicians in general. they pretend to be natural. the audience finally thinks that all the musicians should sound like that. you can hear comments like: you can see! there is no trick! there is no production. the truth is very different. this videos are as scheduled and almost as produced as any top40 videos, but with less make-up and less cameras. the biggest difference is that the sound and video is recorded at once in a single take (but i'm sure that they choose the best take from several that they did)

[P_K]

Originally Posted by hifipistons

Thanks guy. Im thinking of going to this direction:

http://www.sam-mallery.com/2010/12/u...mera-dslr-mic/

if you finally do want to put the recorder on the camera like in the link, i recommend that you don't use the autofocus of your camera (unless you have a special ultra-silent lens - quite expensive). if you use the autofocus, you will get a lot of noise coming from the lens. it is better that you focus first and then switch off the autofocus. if you have one more person to use the camera, he could focus manually.

i prefer to have the recorder out of the camera. this way you can get a better placement of the recorder to give you a better sound and still use the autofocus (if you need it)

[el_kabong]

From my pro engineer friend:

"Probably a 'stereo' mic near the ground - don't hear any 'ground slap'. The stereo perspective stays constant with camera movement, so its not a camera mounted mic. it sums to mono as a single point stereo mic would,. definitely not an overdub. You can hear a peak limiter working like most cameras limiters do."

By the way, I don't think any comments regarding post-production (including mine ) were meant in any disparaging way. Certainly, compression and eq are pretty much de rigueur. My friend's observation about the peak limiter, as it turns out, may be a big part of what I was hearing. And, clearly, my studio monitors aren't that good if you're hearing background noise.

For me, the technical puzzle is still the quality of the sound with (apparently) more distant mics. Would love to know what they're using.