Field recording

[Hovercraft]

I did indeed purchase rosin for the bow, so that hurdle is behind me.

[aonghus]

I like rain sounds. Like the sort in this Tarkovsky scene. Anybody have rain recording experiences that they’d like to share? I’ve used a Zoom H4, which is good but didn’t quite achieve the feel I was looking for. Of course, there are many variables, location, type of rain etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOG_2Nab12I

[papernoise]

Are you aiming for something that sounds like the rain in the youtube video you have linked specifically, or something like how it actually sounds in the film?

The reason I’m asking is that I think the sound in the video you have linked doesn’t really represent the actual sound in the film well.
I just remembered that Stalker is available as a fully legal (they say) and integral version on youtube here:

Now if you go to the same spot there, it sounds very different
The higher quality of the video reveals to me that it actually sounds like rain dripping into a big puddle, with some reverb due to it happening in a closed architectonic space.

Of course we need to take into consideration that the sound was recorded with the tech they had back then in Russia, mixed and processed likely on tape, then exposed to optical sound, then maybe transferred to some form of video, and then converted to h264 for youtube. Just to name the most important steps. In all those steps the sound was changed, coloured, distorted. Proof is the video you have linked where the bass rumble is pretty much missing, the noise has a phaser sort of sound and in general it sounds more like a small stream, than rain. While the official version is likely much closer to what you’d get in a movie theatre, it’s likely still not quite the same.

[aonghus]

True, that clip doesn’t really do it justice, but in the proper version it’s quite impressive sounding. I wouldn’t aim for an exact emulation as that’s not really my style, just using that as an example of sound design from the pre-digital era. I’ve tried recording rain on the Zoom recorder, the quality is good but not as ‘big’ somehow, I’m sure there are numerous reasons like the ones you’ve already mentioned. I guess sound designers don’t always use actual field recordings, as real location sounds can be quite subtle compared to ‘big’ cinematic sounds that you can create with studio trickery.

[dakota]

think less about the sound of the rain and more about the sound of the thing it is hitting. concrete? a window? tree leaves? pavement? a metal wheelbarrow? is there a wall nearby reflecting that sound? where are your mics in relation to the above?

[lanemeyers]

Hey folks. Here’s what I’ve used for a stereo mic setup into my Mixpre10-T. It’s a small paint roller handle, with tubing attached with hose clamps, and then two extended magnetic grabbers (used for picking up screws and what not). The DPA4060 stereo kit comes with these great little magnetic clips that attach wonderfully to the end of the magnetic grabbers. You can easily increase the stereo field by extending the grabbers which is fun, it collapses down fairly small, and costs about $20 to make.

[zoundsabar]

Just listened to your YouTube clip from the scene in Stalker. I can hear the rain sounds evolve in a few stages. The phasey sound that starts under the opening bursts of rain are hard to ID. And it’s odd that there is phasing since the film is mono, and so it’s not from a stereo to mono artifact. During that early period there are one or two loops of relatively simple drips in water in an echoey space brought in. The stormy opening sounds end and the drips in water continue, in their very artificial way. Then the initial bursts and the phasey noise die away, leaving the drips. It’s clear that these must have been loops of tape transferred to magnetic film or magnetic film loops brought to the mix. After they have run there are some slightly sparser loops brought in and the scene draws to a close. I couldn’t get the second clip posted by @papernoise to play for some reason, so I can’t say anything about that. I would guess the sound you like is the reverberant drips in water that could have been recorded inside an enclosed space, or had a chamber reverb added during the mix. I suspect that those distinctive dripping sounds were not recorded during an actual rain, but rather in an enclosed space in a controlled manner.

[rmro]

Nice, do you have a link to the roller you used.? Also what size bubblebee do you have, I used size 4 but they fall off a lot?

[vals]

@papernoise please consider that the function of sound in Tarkovsky (as also other aspects of his films) is not representative of a realist perspective but rather metaphysical. Take also in mind the water is a special element in his movies. It appears in various places beyond logic and in resonances that refer “other places” or “conditions”. He used various techniques to alter the nature of the elements in his movies, of course bound to the limits of the techniques and the technology of his time. Altered sounds and resonances is rather intentional and with purpose.
Also, without being supportive for the regime, I would be skeptical considering the soviet sound technology as inferior.
But yes again, it is the sound of the 70s…

[_mark]

think less about the sound of the rain and more about the sound of the thing it is hitting. concrete? a window? tree leaves? pavement? a metal wheelbarrow? is there a wall nearby reflecting that sound? where are your mics in relation to the above?

+1 for all this. The same with recording wind - the environment is hugely important.

Would love to put a collection of community sources rain / water sounds together if anyone is keen?

[papernoise]

but in the proper version it’s quite impressive sounding.

Yes I totally agree!

@zoundsabar Many of the strange things you noticed in @aonghus video are due to the heavy compression and maybe due to having passed through VHS before landing in the digital domain.
No idea why you can’t play my link, maybe there’s some copyright-related geographic restrictions?

please consider that the function of sound in Tarkovsky (as also other aspects of his films) is not representative of a realist perspective but rather metaphysical

I’m totally aware of that!
But in spite of this, we can just listen to the sound, just as sound. I think @aonghus question was more related to recreating a certain feeling or sonic quality, not necessarily the meaning or narrative function the sound carries in the film.
But, and this is where I’m totally with you, the narrative goal and Tarkovsky’s authorial vision certainly determined many aesthetic choices with the sound.

Also, without being supportive for the regime, I would be sceptical considering the soviet sound technology as inferior.

I guess I didn’t phrase that very well. My point was mostly that the sound in the film was recorded and processed with a very specific type of equipment, which is likely very different from what we might have. I don’t think the equipment was necessarily better of worse in the 70s, or in Russia. Hey a lot of the stuff they used back then might beat many of the modern counterparts, and often talking about “better” or “superior” is a completely wrong way of approaching the topic anyway.
It’s undeniable, though, that it might have had its own peculiar character, which is likely different from our modern digital devices.

Also, to get back to the previous point. While the technical aspects have their role, they only make sense in the context of what was Tarkovsky’s vision of how the sound should carry specific meanings (like the metaphysical aspects you mentioned), I’m sure many small decisions where taken, about how to record, layer, process the sound, which were driven by the author’s vision, that have defined how it now sounds in the film.

Which I guess opens up a very interesting discussion about what it means to record something (be it rain, wind or anything else). While the act of doing so might seem trivial – you’re just putting your mic in its direction and then you press play. The when and where make a big difference, as does the choice of position, microphone, etc.

[lanemeyers]

Mine is a really cheap lil thing but any small roller would work. Wooden handle would be nice. I might change mine at some point.

And my bubblebees are 5.0-8.0 mm it would seem.

The little magnetic extenders I got at Princess Auto (in Canada) but you can get them online.

[timp]

"You don’t make a photograph just with a camera.
You bring to the act of photography all the pictures you have seen,
the books you have read, the music you have heard, the people you have loved. "
Ansel Adams

“You don’t make a recording just with a microphone.
You bring to the act of recording all the sounds you have ever heard,
the books you have read, the music you have listened to,
the films you have seen and the people you have loved.”
not Ansel Adams

[abalone]

akhenaten
it takes a lifetime to make any work of art
it’s always right now

[ht73]

and within the right now
also conceived – a life:

“A very receptive state of mind… not unlike a sheet of film itself – seemingly inert, yet so sensitive that a fraction of a second’s exposure conceives a life in it.” – Minor White

[Davin]

What mics are they??

[eblomquist]

Does anyone have experience with the Shure Motiv MV 88 mic for iOS devices?

[LFSaw]

Friendly Organisms … and then we will see if we can be friends is an art-science project exploring ambivalent sites and their systemic interplay with their environment by sound and other means.

https://organisms.de/landingpage/

Their first larger body of work emerged around a four-week long expedition to Eden Project in Cornwall, UK.
Friendly.Organisms developed and studied methods based on, and most of them involving the act of listening.

One recording:

another recording:

all recordings:

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A"organisms%2C+Katharina+Hauke%2C+Till+Bovermann"

[standard_grey]

Hello! Sorry for the lag in reply… the mics are Lom Uši Pros

[jeffreypierce]

Yeah - I have one and I’ve made some great little recordings with it. It is pretty impressive for the size / price - but I be hard pressed to call it a truly “professional” tool.