ADR/looping question

> The same model mic, not necessarily the -same mic-.
>
> John

Ditto. If it needs to match production sound in the same scene, this
is your best bet. I would even go so far as to say that if the
production track is lav, then ADR with a lav (unless you're replacing
the whole scene). I once watched a rerecording mixer struggle to make
ADR recorded with a shotgun match the production track that was all
lav. Sure, the shotgun sounded better, but it didn't match and in the
final mix its obvious that those lines are looped.

Brandon
 >> Stay informed about: ADR/looping question 

Neil Rutman wrote:

> Is it typical to use the same mic for ADR looping session as you used with
> the same actor in the field?
>
> Neil R
>
>
The same model mic, not necessarily the -same mic-.

John
 >> Stay informed about: ADR/looping question 

Thanks for your thoughtful post, David. It has also been my experience
that this technique works better than putting someone on a U87, which
sounds great in an ADR session but often leads to a tedious,
time-consuming, expensive process at the mix trying to get the lines to
match or, as you note, looping an entire 2-page scene because a few
lines had a bus over them -- no doubt frustrating to us and the actors.

I always note in my sound reports what mics are used -- down to the
brand of the lav -- for this purpose, but I am aware that this
information often goes unused.

I do know of one boom operator here in New York that now makes a living
almost solely doing ADR sessions, so hopefully, as you note, this
indicates this trend is growing.

Regards,

Noah Timan

David Waelder wrote:
> On 12/9/05 6:42 AM, in article d4KdnT-1s8RWCgTeRVn-iA.RemoveThis@speakeasy.net, "Neil
> Rutman" <neilrutman.RemoveThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > Is it typical to use the same mic for ADR looping session as you used with
> > the same actor in the field?
> >
> > Neil R
> >
> >
> Like almost anything else in this business, the answer is, "That depends."
>
> I'm a production mixer. I've sat in on a few ADR sessions (and even worked a
> few) so I speak from some personal experience but I'll defer to others who
> do this work daily.
>
> Most ADR sessions work with a microphone selected by the session recording
> engineer. Often this is the best vocal mike in the shop - a Neumann U87 or
> some other large diaphragm instrument with wonderful sound. And, sometimes
> the results of that selection are apparent on the screen. Viewing movies one
> can sometimes pick out the ADR just by the impossible warmth and intimacy of
> the sound. One recognizes that even the most gifted production recordist
> couldn't possibly achieve sound that clean and resonant in the practical
> location. Sometimes using ADR on one actor in a scene will force ADR on the
> entire scene to avoid a mismatch in tone quality. Clearly ADR does not
> really serve the needs of the film if its tone quality is out of sync with
> the scene. One sees this occasionally in both large, expensive productions
> and also in small films. I suspect that these decisions may come from a
> producer in love with the "big movie" tone rather than from the recording
> engineer.
>
> Some ADR engineers keep a "production" mike handy for ADR use. One engineer
> told me that he always used a Sennheiser MKH 416 for his recordings. It
> would yield a sound similar to what was recorded on the set and he was so
> familiar with its characteristics that he could adjust EQ to make it sound
> however he wanted. In his assessment, that familiarity, developed over many
> years, was more valuable than the subtle changes he might achieve by using
> different instruments.
>
> There is a style of ADR, more popular in New York than here on the Coast,
> that utilizes a boom operator swinging a match to the mike used on the set.
> This has many advantages over a more formal recording session:
>
> 1. By closely matching the sound from the location, it is often possible to
> "feather in" a few problem words without replacing a whole speech.
> 2. The actor is free to move in the session just as he (she) did in the
> scene. This can help match the tone and it also can help the actor get in
> the moment.
> 3. The results of ADR recorded this way can more closely fit with the
> dramatic needs of the scene. What is sacrificed in "quality" is recovered in
> naturalness.
>
> I don't know why it's not done that way more often. Or, perhaps that way of
> working is growing. It does cost a bit more because one must hire a boom
> operator for the ADR sessions - another person on payroll. I worked a few
> weeks on the ADR for Lasse Halstrom's "Once Around" and we used that
> technique. By substituting a few problem words with ADR it was often
> possible to save the production track.
>
> David Waelder
> (working e-mail is my name + wae, my server is earthlink dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: ADR/looping question 

When I do ADR, I tend to try and use the same model mic that was used
on production. It's not going to sound exactly the same as production,
because I'm not on location or on the stage when I do it, but anything
I can do to help make my life easier int he mix process I'll do.

-Dave
 >> Stay informed about: ADR/looping question 

On 12/9/05 6:42 AM, in article d4KdnT-1s8RWCgTeRVn-iA.RemoveThis@speakeasy.net, "Neil
Rutman" <neilrutman.RemoveThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> Is it typical to use the same mic for ADR looping session as you used with
> the same actor in the field?
>
> Neil R
>
>
Like almost anything else in this business, the answer is, "That depends."

I'm a production mixer. I've sat in on a few ADR sessions (and even worked a
few) so I speak from some personal experience but I'll defer to others who
do this work daily.

Most ADR sessions work with a microphone selected by the session recording
engineer. Often this is the best vocal mike in the shop - a Neumann U87 or
some other large diaphragm instrument with wonderful sound. And, sometimes
the results of that selection are apparent on the screen. Viewing movies one
can sometimes pick out the ADR just by the impossible warmth and intimacy of
the sound. One recognizes that even the most gifted production recordist
couldn't possibly achieve sound that clean and resonant in the practical
location. Sometimes using ADR on one actor in a scene will force ADR on the
entire scene to avoid a mismatch in tone quality. Clearly ADR does not
really serve the needs of the film if its tone quality is out of sync with
the scene. One sees this occasionally in both large, expensive productions
and also in small films. I suspect that these decisions may come from a
producer in love with the "big movie" tone rather than from the recording
engineer.

Some ADR engineers keep a "production" mike handy for ADR use. One engineer
told me that he always used a Sennheiser MKH 416 for his recordings. It
would yield a sound similar to what was recorded on the set and he was so
familiar with its characteristics that he could adjust EQ to make it sound
however he wanted. In his assessment, that familiarity, developed over many
years, was more valuable than the subtle changes he might achieve by using
different instruments.

There is a style of ADR, more popular in New York than here on the Coast,
that utilizes a boom operator swinging a match to the mike used on the set.
This has many advantages over a more formal recording session:

1. By closely matching the sound from the location, it is often possible to
"feather in" a few problem words without replacing a whole speech.
2. The actor is free to move in the session just as he (she) did in the
scene. This can help match the tone and it also can help the actor get in
the moment.
3. The results of ADR recorded this way can more closely fit with the
dramatic needs of the scene. What is sacrificed in "quality" is recovered in
naturalness.

I don't know why it's not done that way more often. Or, perhaps that way of
working is growing. It does cost a bit more because one must hire a boom
operator for the ADR sessions - another person on payroll. I worked a few
weeks on the ADR for Lasse Halstrom's "Once Around" and we used that
technique. By substituting a few problem words with ADR it was often
possible to save the production track.

David Waelder
(working e-mail is my name + wae, my server is earthlink dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: ADR/looping question 

every time we've done ADR, the production company that
hires us tells us what mics they want. 9 1/2 out of 10 times
they want a Senn 416 and a lav mic of some sort. we
record both and send them the Protools session and they
season to taste.

p.s. i'm relatively new to this group and i have learned so much
from all of you...thanks a million

marty in Austin
 >> Stay informed about: ADR/looping question 

On 12/9/05 12:02 PM, in article
1134157199.401446.202870.DeleteThis@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Noah Timan"
<this_isnot_it.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks for your thoughtful post, David. It has also been my experience
> that this technique works better than putting someone on a U87,
[snip]

hopefully, as you note, this
> indicates this trend is growing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Noah Timan

Thanks for your kind words. Booming ADR sessions enhances and supports the
work we do so I seize every opportunity to spread the word.

David
 >> Stay informed about: ADR/looping question