Issue 87 Archives — AudioTechnology

Microphones: Polar Response 1

Greg Simmons — Tue, 16 May 2023 06:53:49 +0000

Throughout the previous instalments we’ve covered a wide range of theoretical topics related to microphones. We’ve looked at how the different types of microphones work, we’ve dived deep into microphone specifications such as noise and distortion, we’ve zoomed out to consider the preamplifier and gain structure, and we’ve looked at common microphone ‘gotchas’ related to phase and comb filtering. There’s been a lot of theory and maths along the way, but it’s all valuable underpinning knowledge that informs and accelerates the practical process of microphone choice and placement.

There’s one more topic we need to discuss before we’re ready to put all of this information into practice. It’s a topic that is usually brought up early in most discussions about microphones, but it has intentionally been left until this point in this series because it is the keystone of the bridge between microphone theory and microphone application. Once we understand the theory of microphone polar responses we’ll have that keystone in place and we’ll be ready to cross the bridge to practical application.

ON-AXIS, OFF-AXIS, SPILL & AMBIENCE

No serious discussion about polar responses would be complete without a clarification of the terms ‘on-axis’ and ‘off-axis’. In this discussion we’ll be using these terms in their most objective sense, whereby ‘on-axis’ refers to a specific placement in which the microphone and sound source are directly facing each other and share the same central axis (otherwise known as having an angle of incidence of 0°), and ‘off-axis’ is used to describe any placement that does not fit the definition of ‘on-axis’.

The illustration below shows four examples of objective on-axis and off-axis relationships between the sound source and the microphone. In the first example the microphone and speaker are on-axis, in the second example the speaker is off-axis to the microphone, in the third example the microphone is off-axis to the speaker, and in the fourth example the speaker and microphone are off-axis with each other. Although the speaker, microphone and speaker-to-mic distance remain the same in all four examples, the differing angles between them mean that each of the four examples could have a different tonality and the microphone might also require differing amounts of gain to achieve the same perceived level.

In practice we use the terms ‘on-axis’ and ‘off-axis’ in their subjective sense, whereby ‘on-axis’ refers to any angle whereby the sound source is obviously in front of the microphone; the tonality remains acceptable and there is not too much room sound or spill from other sound sources. For most directional microphones this means anywhere close to 0° and/or within the polar response’s Acceptance Angle (described later in this instalment).

In this subjective context, ‘off-axis’ refers to when the sound source no longer sounds as if it is in front of the microphone – the tonality is not acceptable, there might be too much room sound or spill from other sound sources, and generally it doesn’t sound right.

Boom operators on film and TV sets are particularly attuned to subtle changes between on- and off-axis sounds in the subjective sense – their job is to keep the dialogue as clear and distinct as possible (i.e. on-axis) as the actor moves around the set, keeping the microphone as close as necessary to the actor without letting it enter the frame (i.e. become visible on-screen). It looks easy until you try…

When a sound from one instrument arrives in another instrument’s microphone it is referred to as ‘leakage’. In most cases it is equivalent to the fourth example in the illustration above, where the leakage has come off-axis from the sound source and has arrived off-axis into the microphone. If the leakage has a negative effect on the overall sound, such as making it ‘roomy’ or ‘boxy’ and/or introducing comb filtering, it is usually referred to as ‘spill’. If the leakage has a positive effect on the overall sound, such as enhancing the tonality and/or adding a sense of ‘space’ or ‘size’, it is often referred to as ‘ambience’.

We’ll understand more about the relationship between polar response, spill and ambience after we discuss ‘off-axis response’ in the next instalment of this series.

POLAR RESPONSE

Dynamic and condenser mics are typically described by the following parameters in the following order: diaphragm size, diaphragm type, polar response, and method of transduction – as shown below:

For example, Neumann’s KM184 is a condenser microphone that uses a single diaphragm with a small diameter, and offers a cardioid polar response. It is best described as shown from left to right on the table above: small single-diaphragm cardioid condenser. The ‘small’ refers to the diaphragm’s surface area, of course, not the microphone’s physical size. For example, Shure’s Beta52A is a physically large microphone and it would be easy to assume it has a large diaphragm, when, in fact, its diaphragm is approximately the same size and shape as the diaphragm used in their Beta 57A handheld vocal microphone, making it a ‘medium’ diaphragm. The Beta 52A is a physically large microphone because it houses one or more large resonating chambers that contribute to its characteristic sound and suit its specialisation as a kick drum microphone (as explained in the instalment about Dynamic Microphones.)

We’ve already discussed diaphragm parameters and transduction methods in previous instalments, so let’s get on with the remaining part of the description…

What Is Polar Response?

A microphone’s polar response shows us how the microphone responds to sounds arriving from different directions, and is one of the most vital aspects of microphone choice and placement. It is, essentially, a graph of microphone output level vs angle of incidence, in other words, it shows the output level of the microphone for the same sound at the same distance but from different directions.

The concept for measuring a microphone’s polar response, and therefore understanding it, is simple. The microphone is placed in front of a speaker in a free-field environment (i.e. an environment free of reflections, such as an anechoic chamber), so that the only sound reaching the microphone is coming directly from the speaker.

The speaker is placed at a set distance in front of the microphone, and angled so that the speaker’s cone is facing directly into the microphone’s diaphragm. In this placement, the plane of the speaker’s cone is parallel with the plane of the microphone’s diaphragm, meaning there is no angle between them – in other words, the angle between them is 0°. Furthermore, the central axis of the speaker is aligned with the central axis of the microphone, and the speaker is then said to be ‘on axis’ to the microphone.

A 1kHz sine wave tone is reproduced through the speaker at a consistent SPL, and gain is applied to the microphone’s output signal until it reaches a level of 0dB on the meter. This forms a point of reference, as shown below.

Knowing that a 1kHz sine wave arriving on-axis to the microphone produces a level of 0dB, we’re now ready to see how the microphone responds to sounds arriving from other angles. From this we can derive the microphone’s polar response.

The concept is simple: keeping the distance and signal the same, the speaker is slowly moved around the mic in a large circle, from 0° to 360°, and any changes in the metered level are noted at their corresponding angles around the mic.

If we were to plot the microphone’s output level (in response to the same sound arriving from the same distance but at different angles of incidence) on a Cartesian plane graph (i.e. a standard graph of X and Y coordinates), it would look similar to the graphs below:

The graphs above show two different polar responses, each plotted on a Cartesian plane graph. The horizontal axis represents the angle of incidence, from 0° (on-axis to the front of the diaphragm) to ±180° off-axis (i.e. totally behind the diaphragm), while the vertical axis represents the output level of the microphone. The top graph shows the omnidirectional polar response in red, and we can see that the microphone’s output level remains consistent at 0dB regardless of the angle of incidence. The bottom graph shows the cardioid polar response in red with 0dB at 0° (on-axis), falling to -6dB at 90° off-axis and to theoretically nothing at ±180° off-axis.

Although the Cartesian plane graphs shown above are correct, they are not visually intuitive. If we are plotting a graph based on circular movement around a central point (e.g. a microphone), it is visually intuitive to plot the results on a circular graph where each measurement has an angle and an amplitude rather than an X and a Y coordinate. This is known as a polar graph. It consists of a series of concentric rings, with the outer-most ring representing the highest amplitude and the centre of the rings representing the lowest amplitude.

The illustration above shows how the polar graph is used to represent a microphone’s polar response. The on-axis point, or 0°, is usually placed at the top of the graph. The outer ring represents 0dB (the highest value) and the point in the centre of the graph represents -30dB. Moving from the outside ring towards the centre, each successive ring represents a drop of 5dB until we reach -30dB in the centre which, for most practical microphone rejection purposes, might as well be -∞dB.

Some visual elements have been added to the graph above for clarification and/or demonstration purposes. The gold line in the centre represents the microphone’s diaphragm, and we can see that it is facing the 0° point on the graph. Any point within the graph represents an angle of incidence and its amplitude. The gold dot at the top indicates that at 0° (on-axis) the microphone’s output level is 0dB, as it has been calibrated for. The green dot represents an amplitude of -5dB at 30°, the blue dot represents an amplitude of -10dB at 60°, the red dot represents an amplitude of -15dB at 90°, and the black dot represents an amplitude of approximately -18dB at about 135°.

The illustration below shows the conceptual process of measuring a microphone’s polar response; in this case the microphone is Shure’s SM57 medium single-diaphragm cardioid dynamic. Although the speaker has only travelled 240° around the microphone, we can already see the SM57’s familiar cardioid polar response taking shape (red), confirmed by the cardioid’s characteristic levels of -3dB at 60°, -6dB at 90° (both measured relative to 0dB at 0°), and a null at 180°.

The description and illustration above provide a conceptual explanation of how a microphone’s polar response is measured, and helps us to visualise how the microphone will respond to numerous sounds arriving from different directions – as would happen in a live performance or in a studio environment when there are numerous sound sources performing simultaneously in the same space, each with their own microphone, and with each microphone capturing leakage from other instruments at different angles of incidence.

It is impractical to rotate the speaker around the microphone (as shown in the previous illustration) when there is a much simpler way to do it: the speaker remains stationary, and the microphone rotates around the vertical axis of its diaphragm, as shown below. This is how polar responses are usually measured…

FOUR FROM EIGHT

If we examine all of the different aspects of the audio industry we find there are eight commonly used polar responses: omnidirectional, bidirectional, cardioid, supercardioid, hypercardioid, subcardioid, lobar/shotgun and hemispherical. As we’ll see in a forthcoming instalment of this series, each of these polar responses is ultimately derived from a combination of the omnidirectional and bidirectional polar responses, although some get additional help from acoustic modifiers.

Each polar response has four attributes that help us determine its suitability for a given application: acceptance angle, rejection null(s), distance factor and proximity effect.

Acceptance Angle

In an earlier instalment of this series we discussed a microphone specification called Sensitivity, which tells us how much signal voltage will come out of the microphone when an on-axis sound source is reproducing a 1kHz sine wave with an SPL of 94dB at the diaphragm. We learnt that to minimise the risks of noise and distortion from our mics and/or preamps we should use mics with high Sensitivity for capturing soft sounds, and we should use mics with low Sensitivity for capturing loud sounds.

The Sensitivity specification assumes the sound source is arriving on-axis to the diaphragm, i.e. the angle of incidence is 0°. We can think of the polar response as an off-axis Sensitivity measurement, showing how the microphone’s Sensitivity changes depending on the angle of incidence.

As we already know, the polar response measurement begins at 0° (on-axis) with the microphone’s output gained up to reach a metered level of 0dB. If the microphone has any directionality (i.e. it’s not omnidirectional), we will see a reduction in the metered level as we move the sound source away from 0° and around the microphone. The sound source hasn’t changed its frequency, its SPL at the diaphragm, or its distance from the mic. The only change has been its angle of incidence to the microphone’s diaphragm, and this has created a decrease in the microphone’s output level that ultimately represents a decrease in the microphone’s Sensitivity; we can say that the microphone becomes less sensitive when the sound source is moved off-axis.

We can think of the polar response as an off-axis Sensitivity measurement…

The Acceptance Angle specification tells us how far we can move the sound source off-axis until the metered level has dropped from 0dB (on-axis) to -3dB. For example, the cardioid polar response shows us that a cardioid microphone becomes 3dB less sensitive when the sound source is moved from 0° (on-axis) to 60° (off-axis) in any direction. This gives the cardioid polar response an acceptance angle of 120°, i.e. ±60° in any direction away from 0°.

As a rule-of-thumb, most microphones give their best performance when the sound source is located within their Acceptance Angle – we’ll understand more about that after we look at ‘Off-Axis Response’ in the next instalment of this series. All of the following polar responses have their Acceptance Angle shaded in green to make it more obvious. Note that more directional polar responses have narrower acceptance angles than less directional polar responses.

Rejection Null(s)

In addition to being most sensitive to sounds arriving at 0°, most directional microphones have one or more angles of incidence at which the microphone is least sensitive. These angles of lowest sensitivity often appear as deep notches or nulls in the polar response, and are called rejection nulls because they offer the highest rejection of incident sound. (The use of the word ‘null’ might seem extreme because it implies a complete rejection, which only occurs with the bidirectional polar response. It was the first of the directional polar responses, and every other directional polar response contains a bidirectional component, so the word ‘null’ remains valid.)

Understanding how to use a microphone’s rejection nulls is one of the most important aspects of microphone choice and placement. Anyone can point the front of a microphone at the sound they want; a monkey can be trained to do that, and therefore so can you. The real challenge, and reward, lies in choosing a polar response that allows us to aim the front of the mic at the sound we want while simultaneously aiming its rejection null(s) at the sound(s) we don’t want. Capturing more of the sound we want and less of the sound(s) we don’t want results in cleaner sounds overall and less work downstream. We’ll learn more about doing that in the forthcoming instalments of this series…

All of the following polar response illustrations have their rejection nulls (if any) indicated with blue arrows.

Distance Factor

The Distance Factor specification is a simple way of representing and comparing the directionality of different polar responses. As a broad generalisation, a higher Distance Factor means a higher on-axis directionality and, therefore, a narrower Acceptance Angle. There are some exceptions to this generalisation, but before we can understand those exceptions we must become familiar with the common polar responses – which we’re about to do. We’ll look at Distance Factor in detail in the next instalment of this series…

Anyone can point the front of a microphone at the sound they want; a monkey can be trained to do that...

Proximity Effect

The proximity effect has been discussed numerous times throughout this series. It refers to the well-known boost of low frequency energy that occurs when we get close to a directional microphone (typically less than 30cm), but it also refers to the lesser known loss of low frequency energy that occurs when we get further away from a directional microphone (typically more than 30cm). With very few exceptions, all directional microphones exhibit some proximity effect; the higher the directionality, the higher the proximity effect. The omnidirectional polar response has no proximity effect, the bidirectional polar response has the highest proximity effect, and the cardioid polar response sits in between them. We’ll look at the factors that cause the proximity effect in a forthcoming instalment of this series.

STRAIGHT EIGHT

With all of that important background information out of the way, it’s finally time to look at those eight most common polar responses: omnidirectional, bidirectional, cardioid, supercardioid, hypercardioid, subcardioid, lobar/shotgun and hemispherical. We’re going to start with the omnidirectional and bidirectional responses because all of the other polar responses are created by combining these two polar responses together.

Omnidirectional Polar Response

The prefix ‘omni’ comes from the Latin word ‘omnis’, meaning ‘all’, so an ‘omnidirectional polar response’ is one that responds equally well to sounds arriving from all directions.[/vc_column_text]

The illustration above shows the omnidirectional polar response; it’s the red circle going around the outside edge of the polar graph and indicates that for any given SPL and distance, the microphone’s output level will be the same regardless of the angle of incidence.

As we can see, the omnidirectional polar response has no directionality and therefore the concept of an Acceptance Angle is not applicable (N/A) because there is no point where the polar response falls to -3dB as required to define an Acceptance Angle. Similarly, the concept of rejection nulls is not applicable because there are no nulls or dips in the polar response. Also, because it has no bidirectional component it has no proximity effect: the low frequency response of the omnidirectional polar response remains consistent regardless of its distance from the sound source.

The omnidirectional polar response is the reference for Distance Factor calculations, which is why it has a Distance Factor of 1.

Bidirectional Polar Response

The prefix ‘bi’ is from Latin and means ‘two’, therefore a bidirectional microphone has two directions. Among other things, this means its polar response has two on-axis points.

The illustration above shows the bidirectional polar response, which is also known as a ‘Figure-of-8’ polar response for obvious reasons. We can see two lobes: one at the top of the illustration where 0° is on-axis, and one at the bottom of the illustration where 180° is on-axis. The 0° axis is the front of the microphone, and the 180° axis is the rear of the microphone.

Each lobe has an Acceptance Angle of 90°, which is the narrowest of any polar response except those using acoustic modifiers (such as the interference tube used to created the shotgun/lobar response). However, because it has two lobes it is capable of capturing a total of 180° of the sound field within its two Acceptance Angles (90° at the front and 90° at the rear).

In between the two lobes are two rejection nulls, one at 90° and one at 270°. These offer the strongest rejection of any polar response. If you placed a point source (i.e. an insignificantly small sound source that radiated sound equally in all directions) at 90° or 270° off-axis to a single-diaphragm bidirectional microphone in a free-field environment, the rejection of the direct sound would be infinite.

One important characteristic of the bidirectional polar response is that the rear lobe has the opposite polarity of the front lobe, as indicated with the ‘+’ and ‘-‘ symbols on the bidirectional polar response illustration above. A signal captured by the front lobe will be reproduced in the correct polarity, while a signal captured by the rear lobe will be reproduced with inverted polarity.

This polarity inversion for sounds arriving from the rear is what gives the bidirectional polar response its directionality, its deep rejection nulls, and, ultimately, its high proximity effect. In fact, these aspects of the bidirectional polar response give all directional microphones (with very few exceptions) their directionality, their rejection nulls and their proximity effect, because all of the standard directional polar responses consist of a blend of an omnidirectional polar response and a bidirectional polar response. We’ll learn more about these things in the forthcoming instalment about how polar responses are created.

The bidirectional polar response has a Distance Factor of 1.7, which means a bidirectional microphone can be placed 1.7x further from a sound source than an omnidirectional microphone but capture the same balance of direct and indirect sound.

Cardioid Polar Response

The word ‘cardioid’ is derived from ‘kardiá’, the Greek word for ‘heart’. It’s often used in mathematics and geometry to describe a heart-shaped curve, as shown in the cardioid polar response below:

As we’ll learn in a forthcoming instalment, the cardioid polar response consists of equal quantities of the omnidirectional and bidirectional polar responses. As such, we can expect it to represent a ‘happy medium’ between them. It has a wider Acceptance Angle than the bidirectional (120° vs 90°), but only a single rejection null (directly behind, at 180°) that typically offers more than 20dB of rejection. Note that the polar response falls to -6dB for sounds arriving from the sides (90° and 270°), which should not be surprising considering that at those two angles the bidirectional component of the cardioid polar response is not contributing anything to the microphone’s output signal – more about that in a forthcoming instalment. Similarly, because it contains only 50% of the bidirectional polar response, a cardioid microphone’s proximity effect is not as strong as it is with a bidirectional microphone. Both polar responses share the same Distance Factor of 1.7, meaning a cardioid microphone and a bidirectional microphone can both be placed 1.7x further from a sound source than an omnidirectional microphone to capture the same balance of direct and indirect sound. However, a quick glance at the cardioid and bidirectional polar responses shows that the indirect sound captured by the cardioid would be mostly coming from in front of the mic, while for the bidirectional it would be mostly coming from behind. In other words, both polar responses are open to the same amount of indirect sound, but from different directions and therefore with different tonalities and different levels (more about that in the next instalment).

Supercardioid & Hypercardioid Polar Responses

As we’ve just seen, the cardioid polar response uses equal quantities of the omnidirectional polar response and the bidirectional polar response. The supercardioid and hypercardioid polar responses are variations of the cardioid polar response that use a little more of the bidirectional component to increase their directionality, as evidenced by their distinctive rear lobes.

They both offer narrower Acceptance Angles than the cardioid, and both offer two rejection nulls. The trade-offs are, of course, more pickup from the rear due to the rear lobe, and a higher proximity effect due to containing more of the bidirectional component.

The supercardioid polar response, shown above, has an Acceptance Angle of 115°, and two rejection nulls: one at 120° and one at 240°. The rejection nulls are not quite as wide as the cardioid’s single rejection null, but they’re wide enough to be useful. Sounds entering the rear lobe from 180° are attenuated by approximately 10dB. It has a marginally higher proximity effect than the cardioid, because it contains marginally more of the bidirectional component. It has an impressively high Distance Factor of 1.9, meaning a supercardioid mic can be placed 1.9x further from a sound source than an omnidirectional mic but still capture the same balance of direct and indirect sound.

The hypercardioid polar response, shown above, has an Acceptance Angle of 105°, making it slightly more directional than the supercardioid, with rejection nulls at 110° and 250° respectively; they’re marginally narrower than the supercardioid’s rejection nulls but remain wide enough to be useful. Because it contains more of the bidirectional component than the supercardioid, the rear lobe is larger (sounds entering the rear lobe from 180° are attenuated by about 6dB) and the proximity effect is slightly higher. It has a Distance Factor of 2, which is the highest of all the polar responses shown here. This means that a hypercardioid mic can be placed 2x further from a sound source than an omnidirectional mic but capture the same balance of direct and indirect sound.

The two rear rejection nulls make the supercardioid and hypercardioid polar responses popular for live vocals, where two monitor wedges are used to provide the vocalist with foldback/monitoring. Aligning the monitors with the rejection nulls offers a considerable increase in gain-before-feedback, while the rear lobe faces out to the audience and has little chance of capturing any significant spill from on stage.

Subcardioid Polar Response

As we’ve already seen, the cardioid polar response contains equal quantities of the omnidirectional and bidirectional polar responses. The more directional supercardioid and hypercardioid polar responses contain a higher bidirectional component than the omnidirectional component, which is what makes them more directional while also giving them their distinctive rear lobes.

The subcardioid polar response (also referred to as ‘hypocardioid’ or ‘wide cardioid’) shifts the omnidirectional/bidirectional balance the other way, with less bidirectional component and more omnidirectional component. It is, essentially, an omnidirectional response but with less sensitivity to sounds arriving from behind. There are numerous variations of the subcardioid polar response; the one shown in the illustration above has an Acceptance Angle of 180°, no rejection nulls, and is about 10dB less sensitive to sounds arriving from 180° than it is to sounds arriving on-axis. Because its polar response is dominated by the omnidirectional component, it has very little proximity effect and a small Distance Factor of 1.2.

The subcardioid polar response is often favoured for capturing live performances of orchestral, chamber and choral music. It offers many of the characteristics of the omnidirectional polar response but with a slight touch of directionality to reduce the capture of audience and room noises. Perhaps counter-intuitively, it’s also often favoured as a spot microphone in orchestral situations because its wide Acceptance Angle means any leakage from other instruments is captured cleanly and hopefully becomes ambience rather than spill.

Lobar/Shotgun Polar Response

The highly directional lobar or shotgun polar response is commonly used for capturing dialogue in film, TV and video applications. This polar response is created by placing an acoustic modifier in the form of an interference tube on the axis of a supercardioid or hypercardioid microphone.

The amount of directionality is essentially determined by the length of the interference tube, and the resulting polar responses can often be less-than-flattering. For these reasons, rather than showing a polar response some manufacturers will simply refer to the polar response as being ‘supercardioid lobar’ or ‘hypercardioid lobar’, indicating the polar response of the microphone that’s being used (supercardioid or hypercardioid) along with additional directionality (lobing) created by the interference tube.

The illustration above is a theoretical/mathematical representation of a lobar polar response with a front lobe, a rear lobe, and two lobes out the sides that, in turn, create four rejection nulls. In this theoretical example the Acceptance Angle is narrow to the point of being unlikely. Due to the differing designs and interference tube lengths, it is difficult to provide figures for the shotgun polar response’s proximity effect. Its Distance Factor is often quoted as 3, which means a shotgun microphone can be placed 3x further from a sound source than an omnidirectional and still capture the same balance of direct and indirect sound. However, this is heavily dependent on the design and length of the interference tube.

The lobar/shotgun polar response can be excellent for capturing dialogue from a metre or so away outdoors or in a large open space such as a film set, but they can sound bad in smaller confined spaces due to how the side lobes and interference tube interact with sound reflections from nearby surfaces (when used in small spaces it is worth applying acoustic absorption to any nearby reflecting surfaces).

Small and/or short shotgun mics are often seen mounted on top of cameras for on-the-go vlogging purposes. This on-camera placement is good when the microphone/camera combination is held at an arm’s length and facing the presenter, but when shooting at distances that put the camera more than an arm’s length from the voice it is best to keep the microphone close to the voice by removing it from the camera and placing it on a microphone stand (Youtubers) or a boom pole (film/TV/documentary applications). The camera goes where the camera needs to go for the best visuals, and the microphone goes where the microphone needs to go for the best sound. The best placement for the camera is rarely the best placement for the microphone, and vice versa. It’s physics, not magic…

Hemispherical Polar Response

As with the lobar/shotgun polar response described above, the hemispherical polar response takes one of the existing polar responses and combines it with an acoustic modifier, in this case a flat surface or boundary. Microphones that offer a hemispherical response are often referred to as boundary microphones, Pressure Zone Microphones or PZMs (note that ‘Pressure Zone Microphone’ and ‘PZM’ are trademarks of Crown International).

The simplest form of the hemispherical polar response is created by embedding a microphone with an omnidirectional polar response into a boundary such that its diaphragm is flush with the boundary, as shown below:

The best placement for the camera is rarely the best placement for the microphone…

Crown’s PZM, based on a design originally licensed from Ken Wahrenbrock, takes a slightly different approach: rather than mounting the microphone so that its diaphragm is flush with the boundary, the PZM places the diaphragm slightly above the boundary but facing downwards into it, putting it in the ‘acoustic pressure zone’ that exists on the surface of a boundary. This also creates a hemispherical polar response.

The hemispherical polar response captures sounds equally well over a 180° range, but entirely rejects all sounds arriving from behind because sounds from those directions do not arrive on the boundary. It is, essentially, the top half of an omnidirectional polar response. In that respect it has no Acceptance Angle per se, and no proximity effect. Because it is only half of the omnidirectional polar response (sounds arriving from behind are blocked by the boundary), the hemispherical polar response typically has a Distance Factor of 1.4, which means a boundary mic can be placed 1.4x further from a sound source than an omnidirectional mic to capture the same balance of direct and indirect sound.

Microphones with hemispherical polar responses are designed to be flush-mounted on a flat surface such as a wall, a floor or a desk. This placement increases the size of the boundary and extends their low frequency response. They are commonly placed on conference room desks to capture what is being discussed without placing a microphone in front of each person. They can also be placed on the wall or window of a recording studio to capture a very useable room sound.

It’s worth noting that Crown has pushed the boundary idea further and created a range of specialised polar responses for different applications. The PCC160 (shown below) is an interesting variation that replaces the boundary-mounted omnidirectional capsule with a boundary-mounted supercardioid capsule, creating a half-supercardioid polar response. It’s often used for theatrical sound reinforcement where two or more are placed across the front of the stage floor to capture the sounds of footfalls (dancing, acrobatics, flamenco, etc.), or to capture large groups singing in music theatre applications where it is impractical to fit a lavalier microphone on every performer. If placed slightly forward of any floor monitors, and/or angled appropriately, the rear nulls can be used to increase gain-before-feedback considerably.

We’ll discuss boundary mics and their applications in further detail in a forthcoming instalment.

CONCLUSION

In this instalment we’ve looked at the eight most commonly used polar responses throughout the numerous aspects of the audio industry. Some of these are very well known (cardioid), some are far more popular than we would assume (every mobile phone contains an omnidirectional microphone), and others offer varying degrees of speciality that make them commonplace in some aspects of professional audio but unheard of in others.

In the next instalment we’re going to dive deeper into polar responses and their Distance Factors. After that we’ll explore the topic of ‘off-axis response’ which helps us understand why microphones don’t always perform as their polar responses would suggest.

Next instalment: Distance Factor

The post Microphones: Polar Response 1 appeared first on AudioTechnology.

Top 5: Luke Smith

Joe Matera — Tue, 16 May 2023 00:55:48 +0000

ARP MODEL 2600 SYNTHESIZER

ARP 2600s have been used on hundreds of classic records as a synth but for decades producers have been using them to run audio through. If you’ve got something that needs a bit of extra charm or you just need to make something sound cool, you can run it through the ARP and you’re almost guaranteed success. I think mine is a ‘71 model so it’s an original one. The signal path through the preamp and to the speakers is very special and I use it all the time.

The spring reverb has this unique out of phase effect so it makes everything sound 3D and spatial. I usually just mic up the speakers with SM57s and it’s good to go. The filter on it is outstanding, when you’re looking for something warm — or even some other sort of musical presence — it does it for you. It’s an amazing tool that you can use for so many things. It’s probably the most used thing in my studio.

STUDER 089 CHANNEL STRIPS

I have some 1970s Studer 089 pres/channel strips. I’ve got lots of really lovely preamps and I like to use different pres for different tasks as each have different characteristics. Some are thick and heavy, snappy and mid-range forward, slow and rounded, whilst others are very clear and hifi. However, the Studer pres have a unique tone, and punchy sound. When you plug in a mic the sound has this great vibe — a little bit like the old classic Neves — you just feel like they’re doing something awesome and musical to the signal. So, they’re great when you’re looking to capture every bit of energy in a performance, or if you want to just get a really cool sound on the drums. You can hit them a bit hard, and level them off a little bit, and in conjunction with the exceptional EQs they’re just really great tools.

ELEKTRON MACHINEDRUM

I decided some years ago, after messing about in the industry for a while, that rather than having five drum machines that I barely understood, I would just get one drum machine and learn it really well. So, I did that with the Machinedrum. I usually use the sequencer in it rather than programming it via the MIDI for the groove. Although sometimes I trigger sequences via MIDI. It’s got a real energy to it, and you can do live performances.

Once you know how to use it, it’s very intuitive. It feels a little bit like using a mixing desk and loads of outboard effects — you can ‘play’ it and capture a performance. It really comes alive if you’re treating the outputs through compressors, distortions, delays, etc. You can get something energetic or emotive — a tactile musical performance, if you will. Whilst I find that programming in the box is great for some for some tasks, there’s nothing quite like having a natural, impulsive performance. It feels like there’s this spontaneous charm, as opposed to the precision of laboriously programming for hours.

AEA R88 SERIES RIBBON MICROPHONE

The R88 is a stereo ribbon and the ribbons are mounted as a fixed Blumlein stereo pair. It’s a beautiful sounding mic. You can use it in mono if you wish too. It’s a great sounding, good value mic. You get two incredible ribbons, and you can put it anywhere and it’s always in phase, which is super important. It’s a simple task to create a beautiful stereo sound without having a lot of set up time. Just plug it in and it’s ready.

It also takes EQ and compression very well, should you need to do that. I’ve recorded whole bands just using the R88 on its own. You position people around it to get the balance you need, and as the ribbons are figure eight patterns it picks up in front and behind, so this is relatively straight forward. You can use it with mid-side techniques as well, which is really cool.

Sonically, it is full frequency but because of the ribbons it’s not overly bright or harsh in the top end. This is super useful as I think that we almost have too many things that are hyped in the top end these days, so it just fits really well. There’s something about it — when you pull the faders down you can still hear what it’s doing. It sort of ‘catches’ the sound, if you like, so you can record some percussion or some background vocals and if you want to pull them down in the mix, they’re still there — they don’t just disappear into mud. Just for the quality of the sound, ease of use and bang for buck, I think it’s an incredible piece of equipment. I use it on every session.

MARTIN 00-18E 1959 GUITAR

It’s got a magnetic DeArmond pickup built in as it was Martin’s first foray into electric guitars. Rather than sounding like the thin bridge-mounted piezos that lots of acoustics have, it has this proper old pickup that imparts a really stunning, thick sound. When you hear it via the pickup, you can’t quite tell if it’s an electric or an acoustic — it doesn’t have that twanging top end at all. It’s just got this beautiful tone.

It has a slightly V-shaped neck profile and plays beautifully. It’s always a real asset to have on any session, and if you’re looking for something a little different, you can distort it or put it through effects. Acoustically it sounds great too — it just has a vibe and it’s a joy to play. Most artists who use it want to keep it which is understandable, but I like it so much I take it home from the studio on weekends so it’s not going anywhere soon. Ultimately, if you’ve got a nice guitar and a nice mic, you can you pretty much nail most jobs.

The post Top 5: Luke Smith appeared first on AudioTechnology.

Freeze Tracks

Preshan John — Fri, 12 May 2023 04:01:16 +0000

Being chased by a belching elephant seal in sub-zero temperatures probably isn’t what Andrew Leeder had in mind when he first developed a love for location recording. It’s crazy where a passion for sound can take you, and the lengths one goes to to capture a rare sound.

Fortunately Antarctic elephant seals only move a few metres at a time before taking a breather, so Andy lived to tell this particular tale, which is just one of many unforgettable experiences during a months-long stint in Antarctica.

Andy’s journey with audio began with mixing, mastering and music composition. After studying a Bachelor of Sound Production at SAE Institute in Brisbane, he began working as a broadcast technician at BAI Communications where he cut his teeth as a skilled communications electronics technician.

“My main job was repairing electronics and making sure TV and radio stations stayed on the air,” Andy explains. “I got in through my skills in repairing microphones and channels strips.”

But as time went on, his passions followed a clear path to location recording and sound design.

“I love all the different aspects of music and audio, but what I get from location recording, especially out in nature, is this sense of peace. I can be there, do my job, and if I’m happy with what I’m capturing, this wonderful moment comes over me where everything is okay. You get some blissful and peaceful moments.”

Coupled with that is Andy’s passion for travel. “Ever since I left high school I’ve been a big traveller. I love that I can say that now. I was in India recently recording soundscapes in the desert for about a week. Again, such a wonderful peace comes over me when I am out recording natural sounds.”

The call of the elephant seal will doubtlessly be in Andrew Leeder’s Antarctic sample pack.

HEADING SOUTH

It was a golden opportunity. The Australian Antarctic Division posted a job listing for a Communications Technical Officer to work on radio and satellite communications on the Davis base over the course of a summer season. Andy applied, and his skills and experience in electronics won him the role. But he was most excited about his plans off-the-clock during his Antarctic stay, using the opportunity to capture the fascinating, peculiar, and largely unrecorded sounds of the frozen continent at the bottom of the globe.

And the goal? To build a comprehensive Antarctica sound library.

“If you Google ‘Antarctic sound library’, you don’t get much. I think there is a lack of really special sounds from Antarctica because it’s such a difficult place to get to. I want to help people be creative with some of these really special animals and sounds that you’re just not going to get anywhere else. So now I have 40GB of wonderful recordings that I’m currently processing to publish in a sound library.”

I caught up with Andy to learn more about his Antarctic adventures.

LIFE ON STATION

AT: What type of work did your Communications Technical Officer role in Antarctica involve?

AL: I was at a location called the Vestfold Hills on Davis Station. Everything we do there is to support science and research in Antarctica. There are frequent field trips out to do measurements of lakes, penguin counting, maintenance trips to field huts, things like that. All of these parties require radios, backup radios and safety communication systems to make sure everyone is okay, and we have check-in protocols in place so that the station leader and everyone on station know the people out in the field are safe.

On top of this there’s a satellite system on station for communications back to Australia. That carries all of our communications, the Internet, anything external to the stations goes through this satellite system. That needs to be maintained as a matter of importance because if you lost that all you have is voice communication via HF radios, which is much less reliable. Both of these systems are maintained by the station communications technical officer.

I want to help people be creative with some of these really special animals and sounds that you’re just not going to get anywhere else

AT: So you did all your location recording in between shifts?

AL: Yes, I would go out almost every day, every chance that I could because I didn’t want to miss anything. Things are constantly changing with the seasons there so there’s something different everyday.

I’d sneak out either super early in the morning or as soon as work finished and go on a five-hour mission to record the elephant seals again, or the emperor penguins, and it’s usually about a 12km round trip. I’m out there with my 20kg survival pack plus audio gear walking through the rocky Vestfold Hills covered in snow and ice. They’re also covered in these things called dikes which are dried lava systems that look like black highways running through the rock. It’s this landscape of brown rock covered in giant black lava roads that you’re walking through with ice and snow. Eventually you start hearing the belches of the elephant seals – they are so loud, you’re not going to miss them. They weigh up to 3600kg. I’d find a great place to set up and record them for hours before heading back to station.

What’s difficult is it’s so cold. The wind will pick up, my fingers are freezing, my face is all red and covered in snow, but as I’m going back there’s always little things that make me want to stop and unpack all my gear and set up again. I’d pass some skua birds circling overhead – they’re scavengers, and they’ll fly directly over your head just checking if you’re alive. Getting their cries is rare as well. Or I’d walk past some baby storm petrels and set the gear up to record their cries. They’re hidden amongst the rocks and you’ll never lay eyes on them because they’re hiding from the skuas. So it was this constant battle of going back to station and getting warm again, or staying out another hour and recording these beautiful creatures.

Andrew Leeder’s survival pack weighs in at 20kg so he’s choosy about his audio payload.

Andrew Leeder’s go-to kit includes a Zoom H8 recorder and a pair of DPA 4006s.

SOUND DECISIONS

Antartica’s summer climate of -15° to 5°C makes very specific demands of audio equipment. Batteries don’t last as long, small amounts of moisture quickly turn to ice, vibrations travel through ice for kilometres, and high speed winds can obstruct clean recordings.

These are struggles Andy knows all too well. With no retail stores nearby, every item of audio gear he took on the trip was selected carefully.

AT: What’s in the bag when you go out recording?

AL: Because I’m travelling long distances in the cold with 20kg+ on my back with three or four layers of clothes, I don’t want to carry too much. So I have a single Manfrotto stand which is very compact and light, about 1kg. It has studs on the bottom so it sits in the snow without moving and I can mount a pair of mics on a stereo bar on it. I carry two Aquarian H2d hydrophones for underwater recording, two DPA 4006 omni condenser mics, two DPA 4060s, a Zoom H8 with a backup SD card, two mic leads for my stereo setup, and a Zoom H5 backup recorder which I never had to use. I also have wind protection for the mics.

AT: Why did you pick the Zoom H8 as your field recorder?

AL: I was particular about which recording device I used. I talked with the guys at Dynamic Music and there was a shortage of F3 and F6 recorders at the time. What was available to me was the H8 – they were saying it’s been taken to Everest and were quite sure it would work out well. They got it to me at really short notice which was wonderful. It’s just super rugged – it survived Antarctica, it’s survived the desert in India. I’m very impressed with how it handles the conditions, the wind, the snow, the ice, the cold. Even wearing gloves all the time it’s responsive.

The H8 has six XLR inputs. I would use four max. I have some really nice recordings where I have submerged a pair of hydrophones off the edge of some sea ice – I walk over to the edge carefully and pop the hydrophones a few metres apart and a few metres down – and then I’ve also set up a pair of DPA 4006s. That lets me capture what’s happening below the ice and above the ice at the same time. I was able to get penguins coming out of the water, landing on the ice, and making some noises – you can hear things like their footsteps above and below.

AT: Tell me about your microphone choices.

AL: I didn’t want to go cheap on microphones and find the diaphragm starts to ice up or the electronics inside aren’t insulated well enough to stop the circuit board from cracking. The DPA 4006s are wonderful for soundscapes and I know they’ve been taken to Mars before so they’re going to do okay in Antarctica.

The Aquarian H2D hydrophones have a small capsule. They’re not super high end but they’re very rugged and that’s what I went for going into Antarctica. The Weddell seals make some absolutely crazy sounds underwater, it sounds like Star Wars down there. It’s like a sine wave sweep from 20kHz down to 100Hz and it’ll go for 30 seconds, they make these laser sounds, it’s insane.

The sea ice melts through the Antarctic summer and it’s about 1.5m thick in the location where I was. I was capturing the sound of it melting. I’d use this huge drill that’s about 2m long to drill down into the sea ice and pop the hydrophones in. You can hear lots of little cracks and every now and then these epic loud ones as the temperature of the sea water changes enough for the ice to crack.

The H8 was great for two main reasons. Obviously I was very impressed with its durability, but secondly, it’s a handy recorder. I had the standard Zoom XYH-6 mic capsule in my pocket as I was walking about to grab sounds I didn’t have time to set up for. If the H8 wasn’t a handy recorder I wouldn’t have captured the skua calls or some of these really special moments that I needed to be prepared for.

it was this constant battle of going back to station and getting warm again, or staying out another hour and recording these beautiful creatures

Andrew Leeder took every opportunity to get off base and record the local fauna.

According to Andrew the Zoom H8 has been sturdy and reliable in the extreme conditions.

POINT & SHOOT

AT: What’s your typical microphone configuration?

I record everything in stereo with my mics in omni set up in A/B configuration. I sometimes changed the capsules on the DPAs to adjust the EQ curve depending on what I was recording. Using omni means I can eliminate proximity effect and it’s brilliant for soundscapes.

There are very few places in the world where you can go and find zero unwanted noise – there’s always going to be some kind of human activity. Even in some deserts you’ll still hear noises of cattle or goats or a plane overhead – it’s super difficult to find a location like Antarctica where there is pretty much zero unwanted noise. That’s why the omni mics worked so well, because I didn’t mind where the sound sources were coming from, they’re all magic.

AT: That means the only noise-making factor is you?

AL: Yes, I’ll usually just be sitting there silently with a smile. But it was a challenge because if it’s especially cold or windy I’m wearing my wind protection, and anything that’s windproof is the noisiest thing on the planet. So I’d either sit there super silently or I’d go for a walk while the gear was recording.

AT: Do you use headphones for monitoring?

AL: Maybe 50% of the time. The reason I didn’t bring them sometimes is just because of their weight and because they’re fragile. Initially I would plug in some headphones to check the stereo field, check the distance from the sound source, maybe the height of the mics, but it’s something I did less as I got to know my equipment more.

AT: What was your most memorable moment?

AL: Probably the most surprising and fun moment was when I once left all the gear out recording while I went to have dinner on station. I came back about an hour later and there was a couple of penguins wandering about my gear – these Adelie penguins are really curious. As I was getting closer I could see the hydrophone leads had been shifted and one of the hydrophones had been pulled out of the water – I’d left it two metres deep and it was now three metres on the ice. And I’ve got all this recorded above the water and below. When the penguins are moving the mics the hydrophones are full of noise but you can tell there’s a little group of them and they’re just yelling at each other and having fun.

Andrew Leeder and his penguin buddies.

ANTARCTIC SOUND LIBRARY

Andy is in the process of cleaning up and collating his hours of Antarctic audio into a specially curated sound library which will be available on his website: www.outthereaudio.com.

“The sound library is going to be almost everything I have recorded. It includes things like Emperor penguins, Adelie penguins, Weddell seals, elephant seals, the birds of Antarctica like skuas and storm petrels. I also got the sounds around the station which are really cool. The satellite dome at the station is made up of something called Tevlar and it’s a bunch of irregular shapes that come together to create a dome that protects the satellite dish from snow and wind. Inside this dome sounds absolutely insane so I took an impulse response from inside the dome. I have lots of soundscapes like the Antarctic wind, the sound of the Antarctic ocean, the beach, the swell, ice cracking, walking on ice, walking on snow – I tried to get everything I could.”

outthereaudio.com
zoomcorp.com
dynamicmusic.com.au

The post Freeze Tracks appeared first on AudioTechnology.

Top 5: Paul Mayson

Gabriel Lewis — Wed, 10 May 2023 03:03:09 +0000

ADAM A77X NEARFIELD/MIDFIELD MONITORS

These are my home studio monitors. I just love them. They sound wide and super detailed, and better than almost everything I’ve tested. And they look pretty cool as well.

ASUS ROG STRIX SCAR LAPTOP

This is my production laptop. I take it with me on the road so I can produce anywhere, but I also use it in my home studio. It’s my go-to production engine for everything. It was originally a gaming laptop and has a really powerful AMD CPU, which is exactly what’s required to run big, complicated music projects that have tons of channels and stems.

SEQUENTIAL PROPHET REV2

This is the main synth that I use. I love the brand, and I love the sound of it. It’s incredibly diverse as I can use it for bass lines, synths, strings, and effects — anything I need, really. I like to combine it with some of my much-loved ‘house’ gear, such as the KORG M1, and the Roland TR-909.

SENNHEISER HD 650 OPEN-BACK HEADPHONES

These are my main headphones for production, and they replace my studio monitors when I’m on the road. They’re great because they are open-back headphones and sound very wide and detailed. At the same time, they’re very comfortable and not very harsh on the ears compared to other headphones. This makes them ideal for long sessions.

BEYERDYNAMIC DT 770 PRO CLOSED-BACK HEADPHONES

These are my closed-back headphones. They sound very crisp, but they also provide a lot more sub-frequencies than the Sennheisers as they are closed-back. I mainly use them to mix my kick and bass because of this. They also have a more detailed high frequency range so they’re great for spotting issues with hi-hats, or other high frequency elements.

The post Top 5: Paul Mayson appeared first on AudioTechnology.

AT Interview: Shinnosuke Miyazawa

Greg Walker — Mon, 01 May 2023 03:49:24 +0000

Starting his career as a trombone player in England, Shinnosuke Miyazawa now mixes music scores for big budget Hollywood movies thanks to his long-standing creative partnership with composer Thomas Newman. In the wake of the release of their latest movie A Man Called Otto, Greg Walker had a chat to Shinnosuke about his background and work with Newman, as well as their adaptation to a post-pandemic industry.

Greg Walker: What was your path into audio engineering and how did you come to be mixing audio for film?

Shinnosuke Miyazawa: My background is jazz and classical. I was educated in the UK in a boarding school where I played trombone in a classical orchestra, so I read scores and speak that classical language. When I graduated I was going to go to a music school in the UK, but unfortunately I had some medical issues so I had to stop playing trombone for two years and went back to Japan. I was also a bit fed up with trombone and I wanted to do something different.

Back in Japan I worked in a music production company and began studying saxophone at the same time. When I was about 23 I had the opportunity to take a scholarship audition for the Berklee College of Music in Boston as a saxophone player. I did well in the audition and got offered a place. I figured this was my last opportunity to pursue my music career so I went there as a saxophone player. I also had some knowledge of music production and engineering from the production company work. In my classes at Berklee my peers were people like Hiromi Uehara, a genius jazz player and Christian Scott, a trumpet player who’s now a multiple Grammy nominee. So it was all geniuses!

I played and practiced seven or eight hours a day but, you know, there was no way I could compete. So I had to stop and think about what I was going to do. Should I play the saxophone, which is fun, or should I pursue a music production and engineering path? I decided to put down my saxophone and studied music production.

I did a lot of sessions in Berklee. I did classical and jazz recording and some film score recording too. When I graduated I started applying for work to studios in New York, and of course I got no reply. I asked my teacher, ‘What do I do?’ My teacher said, ‘Well, why don’t you try Los Angeles?’ I thought, all right, I’ll give it a try. He introduced me to a legendary studio called The Village in LA. They did rock ‘n roll, pop, R&B and quite a lot of film work too.

So I went there and I was kind of surprised how much I liked L.A. It was sunny, there was a big ocean, sand and sky. I went to the interview at The Village and they liked me. They said, ‘If you ever move here, just let us know.’ They never promised anything though. So three weeks later I moved from Boston to Los Angeles and I contacted The Village and I heard nothing — for three months!

Shinnosuke Miyazawa in the studio.

GW: Oh, that must have been tough.

SM: Yeah. So I went around to all the other studios in LA with my resume. I knocked on every door in person. Everywhere. Conway, Paramount, Capital, the Record Plant, and I didn’t hear back from any of them. Three months later I got an email from The Village saying ‘Hey, come and work with us.’

So I went there and started as a coffee boy. I did that for maybe eighteen months, and six months in I was assigned to a mixing session with the legendary mixer Ed Cheney. Then I started doing more sessions with musicians. There were full rock band and vocal sessions. At that time there were a lot of film composers mixing at The Village because they had the Neve 88R console which has a great master panel for mixing in 5.1. It’s a sweet sounding console, especially for strings and acoustic instruments.

I was assigned to these mixing sessions, and because I spoke the ‘classical’ language and the ‘jazz’ language — which many of these composers speak — I was able to communicate well with them and they started requesting me. That’s how I met the composer Thomas Newman, and how I worked with him on the movie Wall-E. This was in 2006, and at that time I was actually the main engineer’s assistant’s assistant.

GW: Right. So what were those sessions like?

SM: Back then Thomas Newman sessions were very big. A lot of TV monitors for the bar count; lots of musicians; lots of takes. Nowadays we do all this at Thomas’ private studio but back then, at The Village, he would sometimes camp out for a week or so and do these ‘idea sessions’. Maybe four or five musicians in the studio, and we’d do a lot of taiko drums, percussion and electric guitars. He’d say, ‘Hey, this is what I have. Could you just give me an interesting sound? Or how about this kind of sound here, this kind of rhythm here? Try playing that shaker here’. When we do a movie we do a lot of that —throwing a lot of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

GW: That sounds like a really fun process.

Shinnosuke Miyazawa at the ‘Man Called Otto’ sessions with Thomas Newman

SM: Yeah it’s fun, though sometimes it’s an engineering nightmare because it’s a combination of tracks, then muting things and then rerecording again. We have to keep track of what we’re recording. Sometimes it’s quite crazy.

GW: So how did you progress from assistant’s assistant to being Thomas’ main engineer, mixer, and collaborator?

SM: During my assistant era from 2007 till around 2012 I was more in the background: patching things; watching to make sure everything was okay; setting up the console; and making sure Tom and the mixer were comfortable. Then around 2012 Tom asked me if I wanted to work with him more closely as a recording engineer and a creative partner.

At that time he didn’t like his writing set-up and he was getting ready to build his own studio. So somehow he asked me, ‘Hey, I don’t like my writing set up do you want to design my studio?’ So I ended up designing his studio and spending a lot of his money! That’s the studio we still use today. So that was the start of a very close relationship with Tom.

I’m still in charge of mixing, and also sometimes in the recording stage to make sure everything sounds right. I make sure all the recordings are translating his ideas. Because you’re recording so much material, it does get quite uncomfortable if the progress mixes aren’t done right. That’s a very important part of the process.

GW: Because you’re building a lot of layers?

SM: A lot of layers, and then subtracting layers, and adding layers again — trying different layers in the same foundation. Yep. His working method is very flexible and fluid which sometimes makes it difficult to keep up as an engineer because he’s always trying to be loose. He’ll want to go left, and you go left and you make it sound really nice. He’ll say, ‘Okay, this is great.’ And then he decides, ‘Oh, just go right.’ I just went left for three hours and now you want to go right? But that’s all part of how he works. He’ll let it sit for a few hours, or maybe even a few days. He doesn’t compromise when he wants to experiment. He definitely tries until the end to go in different directions. The production process is the repetition of that process, over and over until mixing.

Thomas Newman at the ‘Man Called Otto’ sessions.

GW: With A Man Called Otto, were there pre-production discussions about the the style of the music, and the style of the mixing for this particular film?

SM: The director Marc Foster and the editor Matt Chesse are very collaborative people. They’re very relaxed and I don’t think there was a particular style discussed, but I think Tom wrote a few demo cues. Mark really liked one cue, a pizzicato string thing. It’s a little bit light and comedic. That pizzicato sound ended up being one of the main drivers of the music in this movie.

The challenge we had was that although the message is still serious with this guy — who just lost his wife six months ago trying to commit suicide over and over — we still wanted to create a slightly lighter feeling. He’s a very repetitive, rigid, kind of systematic guy. I think that the patterning and phrasing in the music helps describe him, while also being a little bit light.

GW: Let’s talk about the attempted suicide scene with the shotgun. That must have been a challenging cue to mix as there’s quite a lot going on there.

SM: That cue started with this very chaotic loop which was created by a great musician called Steve Tavaglione. He played flute and saxophone for George Duke, George Benson and Prince… all the legends. He creates special sounds for Tom. He made this really interesting, confusing loop that kind of goes inside Otto’s brain.

He’s very confused by his situation, going back and forth between the present and an old memory with his wife at Niagara Falls. So I tried to keep everything narrow with the image down the middle. I didn’t expand it too much, so everything is focussed on him. When the scene hits Niagara Falls with his wife we see this huge open scenery, and from that point I really opened up my image to all the surround speakers. I used a lot of delays to create this kind of wave in the stereo image. I created a delayed reverb so the sound sweeps over the audience. When the wife is there I wanted to surround the audience with the strings and other orchestration.

GW: The score in general has a lovely warmth to it. How do you make sure that comes across in the mixing stage?

SM: Tom Newman generally uses very lush orchestration. I try to enhanced it by having a big, rich, low end. At the same time you want to hear the top end detail, but if you boost the highs too much, and get a lot of brightness, the music will conflict with the dialogue. When that happens it’s a natural response for the dubbing mixer to turn the music down so you have to be careful with the top end.

When I mix the score I always keep that in mind. I don’t lose too much of the high end, but I have to make it right. The high end of the strings and the low end of the strings are very important.

GW: This dual role that you have in A Man Called Otto — of editing the music and also mixing the score… Is that something you’ve done before?

SM: It was kind of an accident. I never thought I would be a music editor to be honest. I always had an interest in it, but the pandemic changed everything. When the lockdowns hit, because of the new limitations we really had to find new ways of working. After we did 1917 we were already experiencing a lot of changes in our production process, and then the pandemic started. Tom said ‘Why don’t you music edit too? I think you know my style and my intentions well enough to represent my music in the dubbing stage’. So we tried it and we got a great outcome.

Since then I’ve been doing both. It’s sometimes tough, physically, but it’s good because you have more control, and it actually makes both roles easier in a way. When a new project starts, I’m in every single meeting with the director and Tom. So I totally understand what Tom’s intention is. At the same time I understand what the director’s intention is, so I can mix with both perspectives in mind — which I think is a huge advantage for me. When I go to the dubbing stage, I know every single element of the music. And I know exactly how Tom wants to hear the music on screen — which is sometimes different at the dubbing stage, with the sound effects and the dialogue being refined.

My role there is to make sure Thomas’ intentions always translate. Because I’ve done the mixing it makes it easier to sonically understand what’s going on with the music. I can say ‘Hey, could you bring down the shaker a little bit because I mixed it too high.’ Or ‘I think we need to boost the low end a little bit here.’ So in that way, yes, it’s a great advantage.

GW: What about the songs in the movie? Are you doing the editing on them as well?

SM: We do, yeah. Sometimes I get an assistant to do that because usually picture editors do the initial edits on the songs. Sometimes they’re a little bit sloppy and not on tempo. A lot of times I don’t have access to the stems, just the stereo tracks. I don’t generally touch the end title song, but yeah… if we need to edit, we can edit.

I used a lot of delays to create this kind of wave in the stereo image. I created a delayed reverb so the sound sweeps over the audience.

Shinnosuke Miyazawa at Abbey Road Studios.

GW: What is your mixing set up in terms of equipment?

SM: Since the pandemic we use the ATCs. Tom has the larger ATC 100s in his studio, and I have a smaller room so I have the ATC 50s, with a subwoofer for bass extension, and PMCs at the back. I have a Pro Tools HD3 system with an Apple Mac Studio Ultra, which I just bought and really love. Thomas and I are networked via via Source-Connect. He can listen to my mixes at his studio and do approvals that way. It’s amazing.

That’s another outcome of the pandemic. Before, at a studio like The Village, Tom would have to come down there and spend half a day waiting for the mixes to come up. To check everything he’d have to commute, which is a nightmare in Los Angeles. Now I’ll do a one and a half hour mix session and he’ll be playing with his dog or doing some composition work at his home studio. I’ll text him, ‘Hey, I’m ready for you.’ Then we’ll go over it.

We’ll spend an hour or two on it and then I’ll go away and prep the next cue. The time he spends now is very efficient and he doesn’t need to travel all over town. I’m here almost every day of my life so I know exactly how it sounds in this room, and I know exactly how my mixes will translate in the dubbing stage because I’ve already done six movies like this.

GW: Coming from a jazz and classical background you no doubt bring a little bit of that aesthetic to your production work. It’s obviously a great fit with Tom’s compositions.

SM: I think we somehow share the same values in music. There’s a common link there which is the reason he trusts my sensibility. It’s been a wonderful journey. I never expected to have such a deep relationship with Tom, so it’s been great.

The post AT Interview: Shinnosuke Miyazawa appeared first on AudioTechnology.