Robert Dewar

If you are using any kind of input compression while you're recording (think "automatic level control" kinda stuff), that may be making the distant kiddies jump out a bit more.  If not, then you have a few options, the first of which is to control the set noise, meaning, telling your neighbours to keep the kiddies quiet for a bit, which won't maybe go over too well, but professional work starts with getting a straight recording, and a noisy set, is a noisy set.

If you can't quiet the set down to record, you can perhaps replace some audio by getting a new recording later; for example, getting a new take of a babbling brook in the evening once the kiddies have gone in for the night.  That's not always possible for all projects, of course, so we're back to Option A again.

Failing that, you may be able to use some very carefully-applied equalization to reduce the apparent loudness of the specific background noises, if it's quite different from the audio you want to keep, spectrally-speaking.  Often, this will come down to spot-correction of each offensive bit in the track.  You may also be able to cut bits of "clean" background from other parts into the nasty areas, but that can be hit and miss, and requires some expertise to avoid the artifacts sticking out and becoming noticeable as a "bad" edit.  Other options get a little crazier and more technical, and the best ones these days rely on high-end software that's able to analyze the audio and selectively kill the background stuff by a combination of both frequency and dynamic targeting, so it can attack audio of a certain spectrum, and within a certain range of loudness in the file, only.... very sneaky, and impressive in what it can do, though it's a definite skill to set it up to get the best out of it, and it's generally available in the more pro rigs, which you can expect to pay real money for.  That said, if you're stuck dead, I do have such equipment, and I'll happily process some ugly bits for you, if I think they can be successfully cleaned up, and if it would really benefit your project.

If nothing else, the neighbourly background adds a wholesome community feel to the presentation... : )

Nice work, Raven!  Keep listening for the details... stop and fix each thing you don't like... and when you can't find anything else to fix, or you're just tired of fixing stuff, it'll be "done".  That's all the pro's do, is repeat that process to a very deep level over insanely small things.  It's often more a case of refusal to give up, than any set standard being applied.  Audio mixdown is much like a quote I once heard about poetry, said in a pained, despondent tone with a Bostonian accent... "A poem is never finished, only abandoned".

Hi, Nicole, and thank you for your reply.  Sooooo... is there a way to get a hugel BB without living in the US or Austria? : )  Substitute the grains, perhaps?  Need to check out BBVP... BB Variances according to Paul.  While you're there, you could check on my startup photo question, too.  Thanks for your help, Nicole.

Hi, Mike, and thank you.  Every time I've seen Sepp Holzer grains mentioned, they're not being shipped out of the country.  Can you/they/someone ship those grains to Canada?  If so, I could probably cope with the rest of it.  Thanks for your time.

Even more good advice.  Thanks, K.  I'm thinking I should toss in a caveat that I see raised, here.  If you do take more than one simultaneous track of the same audio subject, for example, the lav mic and shotgun simultaneously tracking the same person talking, that's definitely a good idea, but don't necessarily plan on running both sources together in your mix.  As was suggested, they are best used as a backup for each other.  Choosing the best of the two in whatever shot will give you the best audio you have for mixing.  Blending the two will very probably create a phase cancellation issue between the two, which can only be corrected by ultra-tiny shifts in the relative timing of the two tracks, and which, if it's there, and you don't know, which can and does happen, can actually result in some drastic quality changes or even the effective silencing of the mixed result, in mono.  Just a word of caution, there.

Just my two further cents' worth... the "Auto" setting, is using what's called audio compression, and that is what is turning up the background, if the foreground is quiet, in an attempt to automatically "level" the dynamic range of the audio track.  As Kerry stated, it's good for some things, but mostly a detriment, in my old-school opinion.  So, ideally, yes, run it on manual, for most applications, really, with some serious attention given to the mic placement.

For my part, I would not advise turning down the mic input at the camera, beyond setting a good maximum input level before clipping (distortion).  It is better set to an appropriate audio mix level in the mix/editing process, than at the camera.  Setting it at the camera locks in a low level in your digital audio which you cannot easily fix up later, and which may make the camera's input electronics appear louder as a part of the recorded sound, and regardless, at least in my opinion, the sonic performance of low-level digital is just plain bad.

Well... that was some good detail, Kerry, and a useful list of possible edits.  It's a big subject, no?  Ultimately, yes, it's a matter of addressing each point in the audio track that you want to improve on, and doing what's needed, spot by spot by spot. As with most fine things, there's not many really quick fixes on the road to nailing professional results, for the most part.  Also, there are many other possibilities available with pro editing gear, that just what's been suggested, as some of the finesse, filtration and manipulation abilities in the really upper-crust systems need to be seen/heard to be believed.  However, without that level of gear and the skill to operate it professionally, there are going to be spots where unsatisfactory compromises will be made, either through equipment limitations or just user skill level.  It's a chain of results, with each step impacting the rest of the project.  In the industry, there's the "Good Rule"... good gear, run by a good tech with good ears and a good idea of what is needed, recording a good performer with a good source in a good space that provides a good performance which is properly recorded and mixed by a good engineer into a good format... is good.  Everything else, is less than that.  Pro gear, is pro gear for a reason.  Likewise, consumer gear.  Beyond the gear, editing itself is a skilled art, not just a few generic computer operations.

Just for the record, in the scheme of things, no, Audacity isn't even vaguely pro, and no, most laypeople don't really know what professional level editing really involves, or can involve, or the value of a truly experienced ear and skill set in the process, though most folks with a computer figure they can do the job.  Technology and appearances can be deceiving.  It's a rather deeper rabbit hole than most would surmise.

So, given the large edit list posted, if you're up for it, go for the details and fix things up.  If you don't feel like you want to tackle this yourself, I'd be happy to help you though getting things straightened up, even if it's just a few of the especially frustrating bits, or some critical listening and coaching.

Yeah, actually, that's probably quicker and simpler and less expensive, for a workable result... I'm just a professional perfectionist... : )