Poll: Monaural vs Stereo for Low Budget Feature films

[PatrickFaith]

I'm considering doing my low budget black and white feature film in Monaural (single channel audio). Couple of reasons, one is I like the monaural feel, it often sounds better on home systems, sounds better on poorly setup theaters and most importantly ... is way easier for me to do the sound on. I was wondering what others feelings are on the subject, since it's a big decision for me to go monaural. I am currently doing all my monitoring and daily mixes in monaural.

(this is my first time setting up a poll ... so bare with me).

 

[Christopher Mills]

If you are proposing to deliver a single channel film to a distributor, you will be hammered on how much they pay for it.

 

[Elsie N]

Patrick, how about a mid-side setup? Haven't done one (yet, it's on my to-do list) but my understanding is the "side" mic, using a figure 8 pattern, gives you the ability to move the ambient sound around from one side to the other. The "mid" cardiod or super cardiod mic gives you the center or primary sound.

I bought an older model Behringer B-2 pro mic specifically because it has the figure 8 pattern capability. I'll use a Rode NTG-2 for the mid mic. Probably won't use this on any feature but I plan on using it on the next short I do.

But I guess this doesn't have anything to do with pure monaural, so... never mind.

 

[PatrickFaith]

If you are proposing to deliver a single channel film to a distributor, you will be hammered on how much they pay for it.

I was worried about that. Also from some of the DCP & blu-ray guys, there are all these debates on the best way of putting sound from old movies into DCP and blu-ray (for special theater shows for like Kubrik's stuff, or doing like Woody Allen movies moved to blu-ray). Lot of the debates are around using the center channel vs the left/right channel vs left/right/center. I really respect your opinion, I am not actually recording in mono, so monaural was more of a mixing decision.

Patrick, how about a mid-side setup? Haven't done one (yet, it's on my to-do list) but my understanding is the "side" mic, using a figure 8 pattern, gives you the ability to move the ambient sound around from one side to the other. The "mid" cardiod or super cardiod mic gives you the center or primary sound. I bought an older model Behringer B-2 pro mic specifically because it has the figure 8 pattern capability. I'll use a Rode NTG-2 for the mid mic. Probably won't use this on any feature but I plan on using it on the next short I do. But I guess this doesn't have anything to do with pure monaural, so... never mind.

Great thought Elsie, I actually record using 90 degree ORTF setup with a center channel( two Neumann 184's for the ORTF using a SB-30, and a Neumann TLM 67 for center channel). I btw do the ORTF at 90 instead of 110(the "Holland" configuration), because I have found it easier getting a clean center channel at 90.

Sounds like both of you are suggesting going some type of stereo mode, when I do the ortf with center channel, it gives a bit of a 1960 french feel which I like a lot. Since I went through all the trouble of doing the sound in ORTF, I might as well at least do a R/L/C mix in avid, then do checks of it in mono. I appreciate the input. I bet from a distributor viewpoint, it sounds a lot sexier that the movie is done in a classic ORTF mode (it btw sounds real nice with headphones).

 

[Marc Wielage]

Be aware that mono is harder to mix than stereo. One reason is that dialogue intelligibility inevitably suffers, and other important elements of the mix tend to get buried more easily.

I suggest you get advice from your distributor and a good post supervisor (if not a good post sound mixing facility) to determine how much of a folly this could be in today's market. BTW, note that there's nothing wrong with doing a stereo mix that has limited perspective, no hard-panned effects, and very little surround material. I hear that kind of thing all the time.

BTW, I chuckled at the recent blockbuster release of Oz: The Great and Powerful, where the open is in B&W and mono (!!!), and gradually expands to slight stereo as it progresses, then moves to full surround just as the tornado comes in. And then goes to color and 3D once the wizard reaches Oz. Stereo separation (aka "spread") is something that can be used effectively as a legitimate technique, just like color saturation and a lot of other aspects of picture and sound.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Be aware that mono is harder to mix than stereo. One reason is that dialogue intelligibility inevitably suffers, and other important elements of the mix tend to get buried more easily. I suggest you get advice from your distributor and a good post supervisor (if not a good post sound mixing facility) to determine how much of a folly this could be in today's market. BTW, note that there's nothing wrong with doing a stereo mix that has limited perspective, no hard-panned effects, and very little surround material. I hear that kind of thing all the time.

BTW, I chuckled at the recent blockbuster release of Oz: The Great and Powerful, where the open is in B&W and mono (!!!), and gradually expands to slight stereo as it progresses, then moves to full surround just as the tornado comes in. And then goes to color and 3D once the wizard reaches Oz. Stereo separation (aka "spread") is something that can be used effectively as a legitimate technique, just like color saturation and a lot of other aspects of picture and sound.

Interesting enough I was able to ask a bunch of questions to the post house that did Oz (before the talk they did with RED at NAB). Since I am working in monochrome, I got a lot of inspiration from the oz opening sequence ... i didn't even realize the sound changed though (i really need to get that movie when it comes out in blu-ray).

I agree in that working in monaural is harder, but I was told it is good "training" for the ear and allows me to find problems on mic placement during shooting. I like your idea of a simple mix, so I think I will focus on a straightforward NOS with a center from my middle mic ... and see how that goes(I follow Michael Williams "zooming" approach somewhat fanatically since it is mathematically based - using for my NOS settings 30 cm and 90 degrees, I am aiming at a +/- 40 degree audio spread which is somewhat close to my 35mm fov). I don't have a distribution deal yet, which really will define how much work I can afford to be sent to a post house after I finish principle photography, fx and scoring.

 

[Elsie N]

Great thought Elsie, I actually record using 90 degree ORTF setup with a center channel( two Neumann 184's for the ORTF using a SB-30, and a Neumann TLM 67 for center channel). I btw do the ORTF at 90 instead of 110(the "Holland" configuration), because I have found it easier getting a clean center channel at 90.

Sounds like both of you are suggesting going some type of stereo mode, when I do the ortf with center channel, it gives a bit of a 1960 french feel which I like a lot. Since I went through all the trouble of doing the sound in ORTF, I might as well at least do a R/L/C mix in avid, then do checks of it in mono. I appreciate the input. I bet from a distributor viewpoint, it sounds a lot sexier that the movie is done in a classic ORTF mode (it btw sounds real nice with headphones).

This is very interesting. I think I will test this method at the same time I do the mid-side test. Thanks Patrick.

 

[Chris Henze]

Except as an exercise, I can't imagine how you could benefit from limiting yourself to Mono. I could see a debate as to the merits of 7.1 compared to 5.1, but this is so 1950's. Your movie will most likely be played on a stereo or 5.1, setup so wouldn't you mix to delivery? I think sources that have a single point of origin should be recorded in mono like voices and specific sounds and sources that surround us should be recorded stereo like room noise. During the mix you can decide how open the sound should be and adjust accordingly. In my opinion, after recording sound for 35 years, I'd say that even though it's as important as picture, many filmmakers don't pay nearly enough attention to how hard it is to do it right and if you are drawing attention to the sound techniques away from the story that can't be good.

 

[Christopher Mills]

Maybe I missunderstood your question.. recording v final mix?

Maybe I missunderstood your question.. recording v final mix?

So.. I think that the dialog is a lot easier to cut if it is multiple mono tracks. Also, much simpler to isolate the wanted signal (spoken dialog) from the unwanted noise (various location noises and non germane to your film sounds)

I can see recording other elements, such as environment and fx in stereo on set.

I worked on a sequence in Contagion that had a dialog mixer/recordist and a stereo ambient mixer/recordist, each with their own equipment.

Soderberg has worked this way on several films.

However, I do think your distributor or other outlet will have something to say in their deliverables of what mixdown format they expect at the end of the line.

Some of the sub-outlets they will resell to may reject a mono final project (German, Japanese, and other television outlets come to mind)

 

[Elsie N]

Patrick, Christopher's post started me thinking and I'm just curious if you envision your scenes being close, intimate ones? How would something like that come into play in your decision? Do you think stereo detracts from the intimacy of dialog? Would like to hear your thoughts.

 

[PatrickFaith]

Patrick, Christopher's post started me thinking and I'm just curious if you envision your scenes being close, intimate ones? How would something like that come into play in your decision? Do you think stereo detracts from the intimacy of dialog? Would like to hear your thoughts.

My film is G/PG , so I think I have a different focus then the big film sounds in a lot of films. So what I like to do is visualize the audience experience: what I picture on the sound side is some kid focused on the movie asking spontaneous questions, parent whispering directions, and the kid shouting/gasping back answers to the parent as the story unfolds. So what I want from sound is "a conversation" of quite questions, directive whispers and bright answers. This is for a g/pg movie, so what I don't want to see is some small kid in a big chair scared with loud noises, so I do not want the big blasting surround sound. Also kids watch movies on all sorts of devices, most of which are basically monaural (even if the device is stereo).

So.. I think that the dialog is a lot easier to cut if it is multiple mono tracks. Also, much simpler to isolate the wanted signal (spoken dialog) from the unwanted noise (various location noises and non germane to your film sounds). I can see recording other elements, such as environment and fx in stereo on set. I worked on a sequence in Contagion that had a dialog mixer/recordist and a stereo ambient mixer/recordist, each with their own equipment. Soderberg has worked this way on several films.

I really like the concept of doing the environment, fx and music in stereo (NOS). I really wish sound was talked about more on films, or perhaps it is and I'm not looking at the right places ... since I would love to see actual behind the seen setups of Soderberg doing this and his actual process.

Except as an exercise, I can't imagine how you could benefit from limiting yourself to Mono. I could see a debate as to the merits of 7.1 compared to 5.1, but this is so 1950's. Your movie will most likely be played on a stereo or 5.1, setup so wouldn't you mix to delivery? I think sources that have a single point of origin should be recorded in mono like voices and specific sounds and sources that surround us should be recorded stereo like room noise. During the mix you can decide how open the sound should be and adjust accordingly. In my opinion, after recording sound for 35 years, I'd say that even though it's as important as picture, many filmmakers don't pay nearly enough attention to how hard it is to do it right and if you are drawing attention to the sound techniques away from the story that can't be good.

From my perspective at least, I have found "sound" a bit of a black art. I mean when you talk with sound people on details, it is actually very hard for them to express concepts in words, while the process they describe is often hard to visualize. I also think since people have ears, they think they know how sound works, and only until we start recording and then listening do you realize serious gaps and errors occurred. It's kind of weird how fundamental sound processing is in human brain, and how little of it is really understood. My view on monaural, is similar to my view on monochrome, it allows me to focus on fundamentals. With what everyone has said on distribution though, I really think stereo is what I should go for.

 

[Elsie N]

My film is G/PG , so I think I have a different focus then the big film sounds in a lot of films. So what I like to do is visualize the audience experience: what I picture on the sound side is some kid focused on the movie asking spontaneous questions, parent whispering directions, and the kid shouting/gasping back answers to the parent as the story unfolds. So what I want from sound is "a conversation" of quite questions, directive whispers and bright answers. This is for a g/pg movie, so what I don't want to see is some small kid in a big chair scared with loud noises, so I do not want the big blasting surround sound. Also kids watch movies on all sorts of devices, most of which are basically monaural (even if the device is stereo).

...

I really like the concept of doing the environment, fx and music in stereo (NOS). I really wish sound was talked about more on films, or perhaps it is and I'm not looking at the right places ... since I would love to see actual behind the seen setups of Soderberg doing this and his actual process.

This brings to mind how a kid hears things most grown-ups do not. A cricket noise may be filtered out of a scene by a grown-up while concentrating on dialog, while the kid may hear the cricket first. That can provide an opportunity for a film maker or a challenge, when hoping to create bonding between parent and child via a shared movie experience.

 

[Marc Wielage]

It's kind of weird how fundamental sound processing is in human brain, and how little of it is really understood. My view on monaural, is similar to my view on monochrome, it allows me to focus on fundamentals.

I think if you hire professionals to record the sound for you and do the final mix, you'll find they do know the fundamentals. To me, the important things the director needs to know are "big picture" issues, like the emotion of the scene, how the story is playing, if the pace feels right, if the characters are believable, and all that stuff. The sound editors and mixers can take your general impressions and translate them into something that will work in theaters and for home video.

Consider this: there are all kinds of movies where lots and lots is happening in the soundtrack, but your brain has the ability to "filter out" different sounds and concentrate primarily on what you see. Making that happen in the mix takes effort, and it's also far easier (and more practical) to create it in post than to try to achieve it on the set. It's not unusual for even a relatively simple, small-budget film to have 40 or 50 tracks going at the same time. Huge Hollywood films often have hundreds and hundreds of tracks; I know of a recent epic fantasy film that had 1200 tracks going for some reels.

 

[PatrickFaith]

This brings to mind how a kid hears things most grown-ups do not. A cricket noise may be filtered out of a scene by a grown-up while concentrating on dialog, while the kid may hear the cricket first. That can provide an opportunity for a film maker or a challenge, when hoping to create bonding between parent and child via a shared movie experience.

Ya, i like to think of a film as a conversation, and with films that allow younger audiences there is a lot of room to work with in that conversation. How I do the sound design for my movie is weave three streams(actual stereo recordings), each stream is woven from two threads:
1) music stream - which has a single voice thread and an instrument thread that are composed/weaved (i only have a single voice and a single instrument ... i kind of follow the old greek approach on this) [i btw don't have any dialog in my movie]
2) environmental stream - consists of the room/spatial acoustics thread which is woven with natural noises (like birds in that space) thread ... this is also weave is organic
3) object stream - consist of the actor object noises (i.e. foot steps) which is woven to the natural objects which interact with the actor (i.e. door)

From a time viewpoint, the music stream goes back and forward in time events, environment stream is basically the area acoustics (3d space of between 10 ms to 5 seconds), and the object stream which is instantaneous (i.e. under 10 ms). The visuals are edited/qued to the audio streams (almost opposite to how most action movies are done, where music is queued to the visuals, but very common on animated movies that are primarily musical).

I think if you hire professionals to record the sound for you and do the final mix, you'll find they do know the fundamentals. To me, the important things the director needs to know are "big picture" issues, like the emotion of the scene, how the story is playing, if the pace feels right, if the characters are believable, and all that stuff. The sound editors and mixers can take your general impressions and translate them into something that will work in theaters and for home video.


Consider this: there are all kinds of movies where lots and lots is happening in the soundtrack, but your brain has the ability to "filter out" different sounds and concentrate primarily on what you see. Making that happen in the mix takes effort, and it's also far easier (and more practical) to create it in post than to try to achieve it on the set. It's not unusual for even a relatively simple, small-budget film to have 40 or 50 tracks going at the same time. Huge Hollywood films often have hundreds and hundreds of tracks; I know of a recent epic fantasy film that had 1200 tracks going for some reels.

My approach I think would be classified as "experimental film", probably only appropriate to my personal way of doing things, and possibly totally invalid.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Mixing well in mono is actually more exacting than stereo as there less to distract the listener. Also you need to monitor on one speaker not 2 ideally. Ensuring your stereo mix is also mono compatible is essential not only desirable, also any 5.1 mix needs to be stereo and mono compatible if the stereo and Mono mixes are derived from it rather than separate stereo and mono mixes being provided which may be the case with a low budget show. One easy way to achieve this on location is using MS mic configurations, if the M mic (referred to as Mid not Mono) is always correctly placed for perspective then the Side mic which creates stereo from the mic pair usually looks after it self. The mix always collapses perfectly to a good mono mix. The other thing to consider is most wild tracks seem to be recorded with a short gun and figure 8 mic these days and this is not prefered, Id try always to use a cardiod mic and figure 8 when possible it provide s a much better stereo image.

 

[Paul Russell]

Stereo, and I'd mix it in a proper audio software package like Pro Tools or Samplitude, not the abortion that makes up the sound component of Adobe Premiere. Mono summing is good to check for mix levels and emphasis, but stereo allows you to use placement for effect and additional clarity.
But if you don't have a good mixing system and environment, then all of this is moot.

 

[Allan Black]

Your characters may be stereotyped but always record their voices in mono for front/centre in post. You never know where and what sound system your movie will be played on. Music in stereo, sfx stereo, mix to taste. Unless you want to run with 5:1, then you need realtime pro help.
For 'Where Eagles Dare' years ago, they recorded the location voice tracks in stereo. Problem was they had reshoots and couldn't match the mic positions and distances to the voices.
They found this in editing and there was one scene where because of the cut, the voices on the screen were actually reversed. Too late! and it went out, frightened everyone into not trying it again.
Cheers.

 

[PatrickFaith]

I included a shot of how I do all my recordings.

Mixing well in mono is actually more exacting than stereo as there less to distract the listener. Also you need to monitor on one speaker not 2 ideally. Ensuring your stereo mix is also mono compatible is essential not only desirable, also any 5.1 mix needs to be stereo and mono compatible if the stereo and Mono mixes are derived from it rather than separate stereo and mono mixes being provided which may be the case with a low budget show. One easy way to achieve this on location is using MS mic configurations, if the M mic (referred to as Mid not Mono) is always correctly placed for perspective then the Side mic which creates stereo from the mic pair usually looks after it self. The mix always collapses perfectly to a good mono mix. The other thing to consider is most wild tracks seem to be recorded with a short gun and figure 8 mic these days and this is not prefered, Id try always to use a cardiod mic and figure 8 when possible it provide s a much better stereo image.

On wildlife tracks, I use those two mic's ... i tend to get a lot of birds with wind sounds ... this is my first time "micing" birds in the yard for ambient background. I do monitor in both mono and a stereo (with the middle mix added to both the side mics). I find i need to flip back and forth between these two modes or i get problems on placement.

Stereo, and I'd mix it in a proper audio software package like Pro Tools or Samplitude, not the abortion that makes up the sound component of Adobe Premiere. Mono summing is good to check for mix levels and emphasis, but stereo allows you to use placement for effect and additional clarity.
But if you don't have a good mixing system and environment, then all of this is moot.

I decided to just do basic add mixes in lightworks, then just output everything to whom ever will do the final mix (using aaf file format). I have given up on premiere, and not really sure what I will do for a final sound solution.

Your characters may be stereotyped but always record their voices in mono for front/centre in post. You never know where and what sound system your movie will be played on. Music in stereo, sfx stereo, mix to taste. Unless you want to run with 5:1, then you need realtime pro help.
For 'Where Eagles Dare' years ago, they recorded the location voice tracks in stereo. Problem was they had reshoots and couldn't match the mic positions and distances to the voices.
They found this in editing and there was one scene where because of the cut, the voices on the screen were actually reversed. Too late! and it went out, frightened everyone into not trying it again.
Cheers.

Thanks, will do. On the music, i do get a bit of voice on the sides, but I think mainly the voice comes through the middle. All my voice is on my music track, so makes it a bit easier.

I greatly appreciate all your suggestions and help! One of the good things of doing low budget is there is not a lot of people around, so allows me to do a lot of clean recordings and try different things ... and get a lot of "nature" into the tracks which I hope will make the film a bit more real.

 

[zak forrest]

go for it man. if it's good enough for stanley kubrick, and woody allen, then it should be good enough for you as well.

more info on the mixing of stanley's films and the conversion of mono to stereo here: http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

all except EWS and 2001 were in mono (reasons explained in the linked interview above)

 

[Allan Black]

No offence zack, but the op needs to be practical. If Mr. Kubrick was here today, he'd have an Epic and line up in the queue like the rest of us.
Cheers.