Following his recent article about the rustling effects of different fabrics on lavalier mics, Paul Maunder, with the help of several industry professionals, explores whether the boom mic can be preferable over a lav mic.
I recently wrote an article comparing how prone to causing rustling various clothing fabrics are when used with lavalier microphones. I briefly mentioned in the article that using a boom mic can be preferable in many situations over a lav mic. To explore the subject in more depth, we asked a number of industry professionals about their experiences and preferences of working with boom and lavalier microphones. What are the pros and cons of each and when might either type be the best option both in terms of practicality and sound? Let’s find out what the professionals have to say…
Damian Kearns, Post Production Editor
Nothing beats a good boom mic for sound quality, perspective, and overall pickup. A well-positioned boom is nearly always my mic of choice, unless of course, it has been improperly gain-staged. Though I have decent quality lavalier mics in my studio, I don’t use them when I’m recording, opting instead to record interviews with shotgun boom mics.
The choice between lavalier mic or boom in my post audio work depends on which one sounds better and works better for a specific application. For instance, I love a boom for interviews unless too much of the room reverberation or other set noises are embedded in the recording. In this case, it’s nice to have the option of a well-placed lavalier mic that sounds a bit drier and perhaps a little more present in the lower end of a person’s voice.
If there’s a way to use both a lavalier and a boom mic together, I will sometimes opt with this configuration. Using the lav as guide, I employ Sound Radix’s Auto Align Post 2 to smartly sync a wandering boom to the tightly mic’ed lav. I once used iZotope RX to copy the upper frequency range of a boom mic over the upper frequency range of a muffled lavalier to fix it. So, as ever, my mic choices are determined by what I think sounds best.
Alex Gregson, Head of audio, 344 Audio
Boom mics give a sense of space and a naturalistic sound to the characters’ voices. This works well in the dialogue edit, but only if the placement and proximity is good.
Tonality of the boom microphone in my opinion is the biggest deciding factor in the success of voice recordings in the final mix.
We dialogue editors have a myriad of noise controlling tools and techniques but what cannot yet be fixed is if you have a lack of clarity or weight caused by improper mic placement on set.
Lav mics also follow this trend, if placed well (not buried or picking up rustle) they can be an effective tool for switching to/from the boom on wider shots, or being mixed in tandem to get perspective with clarity, but if the tonality is poor here too, you’ll never achieve that sweet, cinematic dialogue sound that we all love.
Nathaniel Reichman, Re-recording Mixer at Dubway Studios, New York City
One of the advertising directors I work for really dislikes the suffocating and dull sound of lavaliers and has asked me on more than one occasion to rescue boom microphone recordings that have high noise-floors or suffer from being too distant. Through this work, I came to appreciate the life and natural presence that an actor has onscreen when hearing their boom track. I have a great dialog editor whom I use for the long-form mixing I do (TV series, documentaries and indie films). But on occasion, he’ll make a pragmatic decision that the boom is too far away and he’ll cut to the lav for a scene or interview. Most often he’s right, but once in a while I fight to get the boom back in the mix, even if I have to use a touch of audio-voodoo like Zynaptiq’s Unveil to bring the boom a little closer.
I think the lesson for me has been to aim for the most natural-sounding dialog predub, even if it’s not squeaky-clean. We audio engineers can get obsessed with chasing the artificially clean dialog sound we hear in sound-proof booths with large-diaphragm condensers and close proximity. That sound is not natural. The real world has room and echo and hum in it, and that reality often tells the story better.
Dr Neil Hillman, Production Sound Mixer and Re-recording Mixer
The compromise position, before the days of radio mics on actors, was that booms would stay out of frame and the quid pro quo would be that directors adjusted the headroom of their shots to allow a microphone to be kept just out of the top of frame, at an ideal operating position for the type of microphone mounted at the end of the sound operators boom arm: be it attached to one of the magnificent ‘it flys-by-wires’ Fisher booms in a studio environment, or a handheld fishpole on a location set.
Fast forward to today, and it’s de rigeur to rig a concealed radio mic on each actor in a scene with little or no consideration from directors towards the need for a boom microphone to be accommodated at its optimum working position – and this, I suggest, has had a two-fold consequence. The first is a dangerous, blind assumption made by every other department on set, that the body-worn microphones are picking up everything the sound recordist could possibly need; whilst the second assumption is that because radio mics exist, the boom is some kind of old-fashioned shadow generator and something that’s not really needed in modern moving picture production. (Which is why you seldom hear audio perspective anymore. Irrespective of the framing of a shot, the sound remains relentlessly in close up.)
Mike Thornton, Former Production Expert Editor
Although I have retired now, this is a subject very close to my heart and a subject on which I have things to say. For me, the simple answer is boom every time. But as we all know simple is rarely simple.
The sound from a boom is always going to be more natural and give you a better sense of place. However, the use of boom mics requires the cooperation of the camera crew and the director. By this I mean shots need to be framed so that the boom can get in reasonably close to the contributors.
When it comes to drama, it was more often than not shot single camera, which meant that the shot could be framed to enable the use of boom mics, however, there has been a trend toward two or more cameras covering the scene from different angles often with a wide-angle shot in the mix, which makes the use of booms virtually impossible, and so required the use of lav mics to get the sound coverage.
The use of boom mics also requires skilled boom operators as booming and mixing is a tricky process. However, the use of radio mics, especially with multitrack location sound recorders, can do away with the need for skilled boom operators and productions can try and use a one sound person crew, to save money, especially on documentary-style content.
The use of lav mics also means they will need to be hidden under clothes, which makes mic rustle much more likely unless you have an extremely talented person fitting the mics and the cooperation of the wardrobe department.
One advantage of lav mics is you end up with one mic per person and that degree of isolation can help in the mix, especially if you have some actors who are quiet whilst others are loud. Lav mics will also give you the possibility of more individual processing, although rather perfect as lav mics are usually omnis and so mic spill from other characters will be there.
Paul Maunder, Freelance Post Production Engineer
I have experience of both the filming and post-production sides of the process. Having been on many shoots over the years, I can understand why lav mics often get chosen. They’re convenient and don’t necessarily require a specialist location sound recordist to use. Purely from a post-production point of view though, they’re usually not the best option, especially in drama. I’ve worked on a few low-mid budget films recently and I’ve spent a lot of time attempting to fix dialogue recorded on lav mics because it sounds too muffled or has clothing rustle all over it.
Boom mics, while requiring more skill during filming, give a much more natural sound in my opinion and cause fewer issues for me when it comes to the mix and sound more open. If you have the option, I personally recommend going with booms over lavs!
Sometimes I need to cut between a boom and a lav and I’ve found that EQ matching tools such as the ones found in iZotope RX or FabFilter Pro Q 3 are very useful to get the two mics sounding as similar as can reasonably be expected. Dialogue Match from iZotope takes it a step further, allowing you to match EQ, ambience and reverb, giving you an even better chance of a consistent sound between lav and boom.
Neil Wareing, Operational Head of Sound, ITV Studios, Coronation Street
Lav mics do have advantages depending on application, for instance in bright weather causing boom shadows or to reduce room acoustics in lively environments. When used appropriately and correctly they can deliver a clear consistent sound.
The disadvantages however are the potential introduction of unwanted noise through clothing rustle and external factors like wind noise and signal problems not to mention the removal of perspective, so every shot sounds exactly the same regardless of size.
Roger Guérin cas*mpse, Sound Designer And Re-recording Mixer
Having worked in most audio-related jobs, production sound has never been on my checklist. I wouldn’t mind the travel, but the conditions in which these guys and gals have to work in doesn’t call out to me. So I make use of their hard labours, yes I am a re-recording mixer (drama and documentary).
For years, I had to deal with the bad sounding, often hidden, lavalier or the inconsistent and/or far from the source, noise heavy boom. Obviously, the boom sounded better, but it wasn’t sample accurate, and you could hear the time differences creating comb filtering, weird « slap » and more.
So I would spend hours making the lavs sound decent, and the boom was set typically -15 dB lower, just to give it some « air ».
Thankfully, technology comes to the rescue, and now I am confident in making the boom equal power to the lav.
I am able to deNoise, deRustle, Dialogue Isolate, and sample accurately re-sync the lav and boom to a very usable - usually surprising - Boom-Lav combo.
We live in exciting times.
Conclusion
Well there you have it! It’s clear from the experience of the industry professionals that there is a strong preference for the sound of boom microphones over that of lavalier radio mics. As mentioned by some of the contributors, there are certainly cases where lav mics will be the most practical option due to either the way a shot is framed or when the boom might cause shadows on actors faces. All things being equal, a boom mic usually provides a more natural sound than a lavalier mic.
One thing that’s evident from the testimonies above though, is that there are now some amazing tools we can use in post-production to help with a variety of location sound issues. Still, let’s remember that it’s always better to capture the best possible sound on set so we can use these tools sparingly in post and hopefully get an excellent result for the final mix. Every stage in the production process is critical to a successful end result and it all starts with the sound captured on set. Consider the opinions above and choose between lavalier and boom microphones wisely!