Mono, Poly and other formats, track counts

[Jeff Wexler]

nvt said:

"The 824 allows 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 track counts -- as it's only an 8 input machine, that only precludes recording 3 and 7 track poly files.  It does seem a bit arbitrary, although in practice it's never come up as an issue."

It is probably a function of how I work and the jobs that I am on, I find that if I am recording anything more than 1 track (1 track only is what I do about 80% of the time) it turns out that I need to record 3 tracks. Also, these 3 tracks are never track 1, 2, and 3, it is almost always track 1 and then track 3 and 4 possibly.

I think now that we have changed the topic thread, we probably have nothing else to talk about! If someone more knowledgeable than me can chime in with the relative value of mono files vs. poly files (although I think I do know the answer and it isn't that poly files are silly) that would be good.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

In my little world, sending in a clutch of mono files w/o asking ahead would probably be ok.  Sending in a Poly (of more than 2 tracks) would probably cause fibrillation in editorial.

Philip Perkins

[Noah Timan]

It is probably a function of how I work and the jobs that I am on, I find that if I am recording anything more than 1 track (1 track only is what I do about 80% of the time) it turns out that I need to record 3 tracks.

A 3-track scenario is not uncommon for me either (mix and two boom isos).  I got complaints early on about these choking the avid so I just record them now as 4-track poly files and leave the last one blank.  It's not totally data-efficient, but the real world pain it causes seems to be zero on both my end and editorial's end (not so with the three-track poly files).

Also, these 3 tracks are never track 1, 2, and 3, it is almost always track 1 and then track 3 and 4 possibly.

I'm confused here...can't you just route your tracks you want them to go?

[Jeff Wexler]

I'm confused here...can't you just route your tracks you want them to go?

I could re-route things but I don't. Here is the setup (coming out of my Cooper 208): output A (main mix bus) goes to Input 1 to Track 1 on the Deva. This allows me to feed Track 1 the mix, post fader, of any of the 8 inputs on the Cooper. Output B (2nd mix bus - Cooper) goes to Input 2 to Track 2. This allows easy assignment of a Cooper input to the mix bus B with the pan pot. Inputs on the Cooper 1 through 4 are the 4 Zaxcom wireless (for talent or plant mics) and they go out pre-fader iso direct to Deva inputs 3,4,5, and 6. The 2 main boom mics go to Cooper input 7 and 8 (since I use input 8 as my main boom mic from Don --- usually the only mic we're using!). So, every mic that is plugged in, the wireless 1 through 4, the 2 boom mics 7 and 8, show up on the Deva meters pre-fader --- the Deva meters serve then like input meters which the Cooper does not have. Nothing will be showing on Deva track meters for track 1 & 2 until something is sent there subject to the input fader to the mix busses. You can see how it is very easy to have all mics available to go into the mix to track 1, as always, and then if any or all of those elements are needed as iso tracks I just arm the corresponding track. I may be using up to 3 mics but they are all being mixed to track 1 and I don't feel any need to split them out and record all 3 also as isos.

It is really much simpler than it is to describe, but that is the short answer as to why I don't reassign anything either via software or hardware during a typical day.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[takev]

Hello Jeff,

From a technical point of view a single polyphonic file is much less taxing for the computer to read and write than a lot of small files. This is especially true for slower media like DVDs or when working with high track counts (48 or more).

Cheers,

  Take