In a few weeks I’ll have produced several pieces of audio drama, both studio recorded and field recorded.
Main Project: Time & Money (aprox 30 mins) – A hybrid, part 1 studio, part 2 field
Test Recording: Captive Minds (aprox 4 mins) – Field recorded version
Captive Minds (aprox 4mins) – Studio recorded version
The Discovery (aprox 3mins) – Studio recorded
John’s Body (aprox 3mins) – Studio recorded
The Accident (aprox 1min)- Field recorded
The Plan (aprox 3mins) – Field recorded
What would be an authentic way to determine which approach has worked better?
From a creating point of view…
What did the actors feel about performing in the field, compared to in the studio? Did they feel it enhanced their performance?
How did the recording process weigh up from one to the other? Is the extra time spent recording on location offset by the time you save in post-production?
From a consumer (listener) point of view…
Listeners will need to consume each drama in as similar conditions to each other as possible
1. on a decent set of over-ear headphones
2. Whilst not distracted by any other tasks, or visuals
3. Perhaps seated, indoors, and with eyes closed
What should the listener be looking for?
Authenticity – Perhaps, but what about the extremely fictional settings? For example, the conversation that takes place between John’s vital organs inside his body.
Believability – As above.
Immersion – Only fair to judge if listeners are consuming in almost identical ways.
Execution – The overall quality of the piece, from acting to production.