Sound recording separation: When doing a simple interview recording, the camera sound is doing it's thing and normally does a great job copying the voices. Unfortunately another couple...

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

When doing a simple interview recording, the camera sound is doing it's thing and normally does a great job copying the voices. Unfortunately another couple started talking on the side and became recorded also. (two conversations at once)

Does anyone know of a program that will separate the voices, or reasonable so, to make it more understandable?
(The less expensive the better.)

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I used to have (Filter) equipment that would select the frequency, by sliders. (High medium low) one could select /boost one range over the others. Like Bass -Middle- Treble. That could help, but cannot promise.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

The usual solution is to get a mic on the subject, either hand held directly in front of the subjects mouth or a little lavalier clipped to the subjects shirt. The Audio-Technica ATR3350 is very cheap and still effective.

The king of professional audio software is Adobe's Audition. The king of free audio software is Audacity. http://www.audacityteam.org/ Audacity is complex. I've tried to learn a bit of it and it is going slowly!

whitewolfowner

GENorkus wrote:

When doing a simple interview recording, the camera sound is doing it's thing and normally does a great job copying the voices. Unfortunately another couple started talking on the side and became recorded also. (two conversations at once)

Does anyone know of a program that will separate the voices, or reasonable so, to make it more understandable?
(The less expensive the better.)

They make omni directional microphones, but the god ones are quite pricey.

Oyens

In theory and with very good audio equipment you could filter out the unwanted talking. In practice not really. Write it off to a bad experience and a lesson learned. Been there and not done that.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

GENorkus wrote:

When doing a simple interview recording, the camera sound is doing it's thing and normally does a great job copying the voices. Unfortunately another couple started talking on the side and became recorded also. (two conversations at once)

Does anyone know of a program that will separate the voices, or reasonable so, to make it more understandable?
(The less expensive the better.)

If your camera has a microphone input, it's a simple matter of buying an appropriate microphone for your type of use for under $25. If it doesn't, you're unlikely to get the quality you're looking for. >Alan

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

It's all about the microphone and placement. While audio post processing/filtering may help remove some background noise, it will be very difficult to seperate individual voices - the speech frequencies of multiple talkers (even if one is male and the other female) are just to close to filter effectively without unpleasant audiable artifacts. Your best approach, which has already been suggested, is to clip a lavilier mic directly to the subject's clothing. Lacking that possibility, choose a microphone with directional characteristics - typically a cardiod, suprcardiod, or hypercardiod pattern. Google microphone patterns for a more detailed explanation of each. The built-in microphones of most cameras are not adequate (and also pick up camera focusing motor noise), so an external mic is required for good results, and a wireless mic transmitter and receiver combination will allow you to work without the inconvenience (and potential hum pickup) of cables.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

GENorkus wrote:

When doing a simple interview recording, the camera sound is doing it's thing and normally does a great job copying the voices. Unfortunately another couple started talking on the side and became recorded also. (two conversations at once)

Does anyone know of a program that will separate the voices, or reasonable so, to make it more understandable?
(The less expensive the better.)

It is much more difficult to fix audio in post-production than to record it right the first time. The inverse-square law is your enemy! Sound dissipates with the inverse of the square of the distance from the source... i.e.; you have 1% of the sound volume at 10 feet that you have at one foot from the source! So the signal-to-noise ratio is very low. Noise, in your case, is an unwanted conversation.

You might be lucky enough to have recorded in stereo, but unless the microphones were directional, that's no help. If they WERE, just drop out the channel with the most unwanted conversation.

The thing about video is, the sound is really MORE important than the picture! It really pays to use either a separate sound recorder near the subject, or a microphone for each person, fed through a mixer, into either a separate recorder, or your camera, if your camera is one of the few with decent audio.

There are a few lapel microphones under $100, and a few mixers under $400 that will do the job. (Good sound isn't cheap.)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

bsprague wrote:

The usual solution is to get a mic on the subject, either hand held directly in front of the subjects mouth or a little lavalier clipped to the subjects shirt. The Audio-Technica ATR3350 is very cheap and still effective.

The king of professional audio software is Adobe's Audition. The king of free audio software is Audacity. http://www.audacityteam.org/ Audacity is complex. I've tried to learn a bit of it and it is going slowly!

A mic within three feet of the voice you want is always a good solution. The lapel mic is best, and a shotgun mic on a boom pole ABOVE the subject is acceptable.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

burkphoto wrote:

A mic within three feet of the voice you want is always a good solution. The lapel mic is best, and a shotgun mic on a boom pole ABOVE the subject is acceptable.

A lavalier is fine, but a shotgun or directional mic on a boom is actually better, but you have to have a stationary subject, a C-stand, or a boom operator.
It gives a more true sound. It's what they use on movies. >Alan

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Alan,

I'm sure you are right that, on movies, a mic on a boom is best. But the big "if" is being able to control the entire environment. On a movie set, nobody makes noise other than what is part of the movie. And, the framing of the actor can be such as to keep the mic out of the picture.

A lavalier gets closer to the subject in less controllable circumstances. Watch some TV news and check how often the lavaliers show up on the subjects shirt.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

bsprague wrote:

Alan,

I'm sure you are right that, on movies, a mic on a boom is best. But the big "if" is being able to control the entire environment. On a movie set, nobody makes noise other than what is part of the movie. And, the framing of the actor can be such as to keep the mic out of the picture.

A lavalier gets closer to the subject in less controllable circumstances. Watch some TV news and check how often the lavaliers show up on the subjects shirt.

You are right. For noisy locations, a lav is best. Hide the wire under the subject's shirt, and clip it about 4 inches below the chin. >Alan (video producer)

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

aellman wrote:

..... >Alan (video producer)

Alan,

Where do you work and what type, style of video do you produce? I'm a very rank ameteur but enjoy doing the best I can with consumer gear.

Bill

aellman Loc: Boston MA

I work near Boston. I produce and direct commercials and corporate videos.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

aellman wrote:

I work near Boston. I produce and direct commercials and corporate videos.

If I lived near Boston, I would beg to be a volunteer. a "go for", apprentice or whatever just to see how it is really done.

Do you have links to videos you can share?