Kate Humble's Coastal Britain - where's the mic?

[The Elf]

I can't see where her mic is! However this is being done, I'm impressed!

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Yes, kudos to the sound crew this is exemplary. VO matches location dialogue, beautiful!

I think I see the body mic stitched into the neck lining of her purple jumper. Not seeing similar evidence in other outfits. But my guess is that's just because they're doing a great job. I use the term body mic because calling it a lav severely limits people's creativity about placement.

But this is how it's done. Body mic expert who is also a costume expert- or at least, knows all the tailoring terms for the different parts of a shirt or a jumper, and can collaborate with costume department. We must find out who it is (or the team) and express our appreciation!

Thank you, I can use this as an example for my students

[The Elf]

Yeah, I was also thinking of some clever apparel placement, but then the voices of the people she meets are equally as clear, and I have no idea how that is happening!

Maybe somebody here knows the person/people responsible and could perhaps consider a piece for the mag?!

[Mike Stranks]

Haven't seen this prog, but I have a friend in the States who does pro-level location sound.

The bits of kit - some purchased, some adapted - he uses to conceal mics and avoid 'rustle' is fascinating.

Of course the key is expertise, time and knowing what you're doing. Sadly, not always much in evidence on location shoots - especially by 'Production Companies'. Of course, budget is key, so often there is no sound person and the sound knowledge of those present is small.

I did some work a while back with a company that has, in the past, featured a lot on 'Bargain Hunt' and the 'Antiques Road Trip'. They had asked the production crew for advice on upgrading the in-house sound-system - esp wrt microphones and radio systems... they're from 'the BBC' right? They must know what they're talking about. Err... no...

[Hugh Robjohns]

The programmes I've checked list a dubbing mixer but not a location sound crew, sadly. However, I've asked on a UK broadcast sound forum if anyone there was involved, so I might be able to get the definitive chapter and verse in due course...

However, having skimmed through Episode 1 of this programme the production techniques seem entirely conventional to me.

The voice sound is obviously of a very close perspective at all times. Both Kate and all the planned interviewees (and all the I/Vs I've seen so far are clearly pre-planned) are definitely wearing radio mic transmitters and have personal (lavalier) mics taped inside the tops of their t-shirts or in similar positions on whatever they're wearing, as necessary.

You can often see the slight bulges and/or creases in the clothes if you look closely, and you can also hear the occasional clothes rustle as they move sometimes.

There is no need for a wardrobe department to sew mics in place -- although that technique is quite common in period costume dramas. It simply wouldn't be practical for a show like this. Instead, there is a fantastic range of self-adhesive mounts and windshields available these days from multiple suppliers, such as Rycote's Undercovers and Stickies which make lavalier mounting almost invisible when applied skilfully, and pretty noise-free. This covert mic placement is also helped considerably by the availability of ludicrously small (and in some cases, flat) mic capsules.

It's also worth noting that all the location dialogue has been quite heavily 'de-noised' too, by the sound of it, using old-school dynamic-EQ/expander Dolby Cat-43 style processing. You can hear the resulting noise modulation effect quite easily in most of the location dialogue, and especially so in the noisier environments.

Assuming a sound recordist is present, I imagine there is also a traditional 'dog-on-a-stick' (gun-mic in a windshield on a pole) available to capture the natural acoustic atmospheres (the personal mics won't pick up much), and that mic could also be used to capture any unplanned exchanges between Kate and passers-by during the walking sections, if necessary.

It's a well-made programme, but I don't see or hear anything here that could be described as exceptional or unusual in any way.

[The Elf]

However, having skimmed through Episode 1...

You can often see the slight bulges and/or creases in the clothes if you look closely...

I can't speak for episode 1, but if you get a chance to see the S2E4 I watched last night I would be interested to see if you could again see the mic's and/or transmitters in there - because I can't see a thing!

Given how appalling a lot of audio is on productions where the teams have much more environmental control I remain mightily impressed by this show! And for those involved:

[Hugh Robjohns]

In the opening piece to camera (2'45) I'd hazard a good guess that the unusual fold/bulge at the top of her blue t-shirt is where the mic is fixed under the material. I can't see a mic on the beekeeper, but it sounds like it's tucked inside the top of his red fleece. In that situation I'd often resort to tucking it high into the crease of the collar opening...

In a show like this the aim would be to make the technology as invisible as possible, so the whole point is that the casual viewer shouldn't be able to see any mics, wires, radio transmitters etc. And whoever was involved has done a great job. In S1E1 and S2E4 I did spot TX packs a couple of times, and some tell-tale mic bulges occasionally. But for anyone more interested in the scenery and discussions, they are invisible, as they should be.

But this is all pretty standard stuff and the bread and butter craft and skill of a professional TV sound recordist. I used to spend a lot of time on a week-long 'Introduction to Location Sound Recording' course at the BBC teaching this essential craft skill back in the 90s -- and the lavalier mics we used then were enormous compared to todays offerings, and things like Stickies and Undercovers were a hot new invention!

Perhaps today we have just become so used to seeing terribly sloppy, careless, unprofessional mic placements in low-budget shows that we now view proper, skilfully-made programmes as something rather special and unusual. How sad is that?

[shufflebeat]

Perhaps today we have just become so used to seeing terribly sloppy, careless, unprofessional mic placements in low-budget shows that we now view proper, skilfully-made programmes as something rather special and unusual. How sad is that?

That's progress for you, it's often difficult to progress in conflicting dimensions simultaneously, i.e., technical/commercial, hence - the Beeb dilemma, I suppose.

KH's CB is still pretty impressive, considering all that environmental interference prevalent in coastal areas, I'd like to have been a FotW at the initial technical discussions.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Perhaps today we have just become so used to seeing terribly sloppy, careless, unprofessional mic placements in low-budget shows that we now view proper, skilfully-made programmes as something rather special and unusual. How sad is that?

Yes, this is true. It was quite bad there for a while on Netflix with various independent productions. It's getting better though!

I only checked it quickly on laptop speakers. I didn't listen closely enough to spot the old-school NR, or for long enough to hear any rustle that is there. I would've thought Izotope or Cedar would be much quicker and therefore more cost effective than the Dolby box? A couple of hours training would get anyone up to speed.

I recently read a great article somewhere about theatre where they do have to put the mics in the costumes, it was fascinating and so specialised. I did not mean to imply that it was the only way . I merely went on my brief observation of one example in this production.

[Albatross]

Theatre techs sometimes place mics in the artists' hair.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I would've thought Izotope or Cedar would be much quicker and therefore more cost effective than the Dolby box? A couple of hours training would get anyone up to speed.

I've no idea what was used, just that I can hear noise modulation around the dialogue that is reminiscent of the Cat43's artefacts. They could have used any of a wide range of processing solutions, from simple dynamic EQ/expander/gates to an old Cat43 system, to a modern DNS1000, or any of countless plugin solutions.

The old Cat43 and modern DNS equivalenmts are extremely fast to set up and use -- much faster and more immediate than offline processing via RX and its ilk... but arguably not as 'inaudible' in action.

I recently read a great article somewhere about theatre where they do have to put the mics in the costumes, it was fascinating and so specialised.

Yes, when you have actors performing a couple of times every day for weeks or months on end, and wearing the same costumes every time, sewing mics (and TX packs) into those costumes (and wigs) is de rigeur for solid practical reasons.

But for a walk-up TV doco where the main presenter is going to be wearing different clothes every day, and the interviewees will only be present for an hour or two, that kind of thing just isn't practical (or necessary).

Sometimes the production team don't object to visible mics clipped on the outsides of clothes -- which is faster to rig and usually gives a better sound quality. Current affairs and news interviews are typically done this way, for example.

But for more fly-on-the-wall type programmes, it is usual to hide the mics. Personally, I much prefer the natural sound perspectives gained from using a boom pole (shot-gun mic) slung overhead above the camera frame. However, this is often just not a practical methodology for a whole host of reasons on fast evolving location shoots, and radio mics are really the only workable solution -- albeit often aided by the inclusion of some gun-mic atmospheres.

Amusing anecdote: I remember shooting a gardening series in the summer in the mid-80s with a new and nervous presenter. He was wearing a thin T-shirt and I found that the weight of the mic attached to the inside of the shirt caused it to sag and pull in an unattractive way, so I asked if I could attach the mic directly to his chest instead, using hypoallergenic tape. He agreed so that's what I did (carefully find an area relatively free of chest hair!), and it looked absolutely fine on camera. However, as we geared up for the first take I noticed a weird pulsing or twitching on my portable mixer's PPMs.

Suspecting some form of interference I called a brief halt to investigate... and quickly discovered that it was his heartbeat thumping away in his chest! It was too low a frequency to hear easily in the HD25 headphones, but the nature of an omni mic in close physical contact with his chest generated a remarkably high level of VLF which was easily seen on the meters (and heard on decent full-range speakers).

Thankfully, as he calmed down and became used to the experience the problem went away... plus the selection of an 80Hz high-pass filter!

Second amusing anecdote: I once (with permission) attached a lavalier mic to the little strap between the cups of a female presenter's bra -- purely as a means of (a) making it invisible and (b) while also separating it from her blouse to avoid rustles. This was a technique I had used often with great success...

The mic sounded great during the camera set up and rehearsal, but during the first proper take to camera she leaned forward and brought her arms closer together while handling an object under discussion... at which point everything went very muffled indeed...

I then had to explain to the director why I'd had to halt the take... it was one of the more embarrassing points in my location sound recordist career. (I solved the problem by moving the mic up to the top on one side of her bra. She found the whole thing hilarious, as did the rest of the crew -- aided no doubt by my youthful blushes!)

[Tomás Mulcahy]

I've no idea what was used, just that I can hear noise modulation around the dialogue that is reminiscent of the Cat43's artefacts.

You're being modest I think you've made the right call. I would think RX dialogue denoise would (a) easily work in real time in the editor/ DAW (b) be more transparent as you say and (c) be quicker to set up. I imagine a busy dubbing mixer has enough to be going on with than plugins that sometimes might not work due to an update or whatever. I lost the second season of a gig because the denoising took so long (this was 16 years ago using Waves) but to be fair the location sound was awful, we literally had to make it up. I could have been less fussy about it and worked faster

Those lav stories are priceless . I might use them as examples for students!

I prefer a shotgun or cardioid as well, I think everyone agrees it gives the more natural sounding presentation? I assume you've seen the diagrams of voice spectrum on the DPA website for different mic positions? The chest is probably the worst position. Of course the spectral issues can be corrected with eq or using a lav voiced for that position. But as you say, it can lack a sense of space.

My favourite example of dialogue with space is Season 2 (I think) of House of Cards (the Kevin Spacey one). They got this balance between his voice and the large, old money wood panelled room. The sense of entitlement, gravitas and psychopathy was right there! Not to take away from his incredible delivery. He is completely that character.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I prefer a shotgun or cardioid as well, I think everyone agrees it gives the more natural sounding presentation?

Yes. You get natural acoustic perspectives that way, which give far more natural acoustic clues for the listener. The sound of the voices change as people turn and move relative to each other, and you also have a natural ambience around everything. Even better with a stereo boom (assuming it's being poled well).

With lavalier mics, everything has the same flat perspective all the time, which just makes it hard work to listen to, and if the mics are placed differently on different artists, the mismatch between their tonalities can be brutally bad.

I assume you've seen the diagrams of voice spectrum on the DPA website for different mic positions? The chest is probably the worst position. Of course the spectral issues can be corrected with eq or using a lav voiced for that position.

Yes, a good friend of mine was involved in the research work leading up to those diagrams.

So going back to the disparate lavalier mic EQ issues, while they can. in theory, be individually EQ's to compensate for the placement (both for their body position and the muffling effects of clothes etc), doing so takes time, experience and relatively elaborate EQ facilities.... as well as for the individual mics to be recorded and edited separately.

The latter is much easier to do now than it was in my day, of course, but even so while a dubbing mixer might have the time and facilities to correct and match lavalier mics, a picture editor usually doesn't. That KH programme credits a dubbing mixer which is often an unusual luxury -- but the location sound clearly benefits from his/her attentions.

[The Elf]

I'm reading into this that the location sound person here has done a pretty cracking job - which is certainly my impression. Of course nobody but us geeks would ever think to praise such efforts, but it's good that such skills still exist - and I, for one, would like to doff my scruffy cap in recognition.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Yes, a good friend of mine was involved in the research work leading up to those diagrams.

Tell him thank you, I use them all the time (and always refer students to DPA mic university).