I'm not feeling ISOlated

[Mick]

I have a Deva V, with a Deva 2 as backup. Two separate and independent systems. I have the capability of recording eight separate tracks if necessary. Yet...given the choice, which I am, I rarely even bother to activate tracks three through eight. I'd like to think it was because I think the "mixing" buck, at least the "dialogue mixing buck" stops here. I am a mixer. I spent many years in the U.K. and in Miami mixing music, contemporary and classical, recorded and live,  for a living. I was a house producer at Phillips records (subsidiary of EMI) when I was in my late twenties, so I have a diverse background in audio mixing. Let me state unequivocally though, that my experience is mostly creative rather than technical. So, I repeat, I'm a mixer, not just a recordist.

It was all of this that flashed through my mind as I looked at the agitated meters of the six wires and two booms that were active in a scene today, and the caustic remark that almost passed from my mouth into the realm of unretractable when some bright haddock says to me...

"You should record everything to separate tracks and let post have the option to mix it later"

Tongue bitten and firmly in control I patiently explained to aforesaid haddock that "post" in the specific person of Phil Conserva, a very nice and extremely talented post supervisor/producer, and myself had conversed on that very subject on a multitude of occasions, the upshot of all of them being that no looping has ever occured as a result of iso tracks being unavailable. After season one when it became lucid that my crew and I knew what we were about, the "mixing" portion of production sound was be left entirely at my discretion. I have provided iso tracks on occasion when I've found myself in an RF intensive location, but other than for unavoidable technical reasons I've never arbitrarily recorded iso tracks "because I can." Let it also be known that I respect and applaud those that do for whatever reasons they deem germane.

What, you may well ask, is the point of all this...

Dunno, just having a moment...

Cheers

Mick

[Jeff Wexler]

What, you may well ask, is the point of all this...

Dunno, just having a moment...

Cheers

Mick

Thank you for that moment. I also lament the withering away of the craft of mixing (and by mixing I refer to what we do on the set not what someone else does later) and I also rarely arm additional tracks that I don't feel are needed. I attribute this to two things: my old school stubbornness in not wanting to give up mixing in favor of just "tracking", and secondly, the nature of the projects I work on really do not need multitrack iso recordings for the most part. From what I know, Mick is often in a different situation where the use of 5 or 6 wireless, 2 booms and so forth, would normally dictate little or no mixing in favor of tracking in most people's approach. I applaud Mick not giving up or giving in but I have to say that when put in the sort of scenes Mick describes, I DO arm the additional tracks "because I can" just as an additional layer of protection. I really don't tell anyone I am doing this and if someone asks "are you laying these all down on their own tracks" I usually evade even answering the question. I will still mix everything to one track, truly treating it as if that's the only track I have, but providing the option for someone later to have a go at it. What I diligently try to do, and this goes for dealing with everyone on the shoot including all of those in post that I can get to, is to make it very clear that the number of tracks available, the wireless mics in use and so forth, do not in any way guarantee a successful soundtrack, so don't keep hoping that since everyone "had their own track" all is going to be rosy.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

We've been over this so many times.....  The benefits of all iso all the time are often illusory.  Much more work is made for post by doing this.  If the problem with the sound for a shot is BG noise etc, the isos probably won't help you.  All those lavs are much more work to make into a decent track than a boom track, especially on a time and budget challenged project.  I am fortunate to work for people who very much do NOT want more than two tracks delivered most of the time--they want me to make the scene work so that they can spend their limited post time ENHANCING the scene, not wrestling a batch of set-and-forget unmixed iso tracks.  I usually come down to 2 tracks.  The guys who can really make it all work in one track have my props.  The guys who are required by contract to do all isos all the time have my sympathy. 

Philip Perkins

[Noah Timan]

my old school stubbornness in not wanting to give up mixing in favor of just "tracking"

But why, oh why, does it have to be one or the other?

In the 2-track days it was, yes.  With only two tracks you could either put the boom there and the wireless here, or Boom 1 there and Boom 2 here, OR you could make a mono mix, but you couldn't do both.  

The beauty of the non-linear multitrack age, for me, is not that we can now have metadata or have 24-bit as opposed to 16-bit or theoretically make telecine faster or any of that.  Those things are all great, fine, but the beauty is that we can now do BOTH things with regard to delivery.  We can make a mono mix AND we can deliver isos across the board for someone to theoretically mix later.  To me, that's having cake and eating it too.  While if (as it was in the 2-track age) we could only choose to either mix OR track I'd certainly think all of your comments had exceeding precedence, I don't understand the fear of providing isos (or the notion of "giving up the craft of mixing") when one IS providing a mono mix.

I don't know of an editor -- either a picture editor or a sound editor, on any budget level and given any chunk of time -- who is going to take the time and trouble to monitor and pick through three or six or eight iso tracks (let alone remix them) if the delivered mono mix sounds great.  

The mono mix is almost always delivered as the sole track to picture editorial, and I have not seen any picture editors who have wherewithal (let alone time) to load in isos if the mono mix is good.  That's all they have to work with, and in today's OMF age, that's really all the sound editors have too without a lot of hassle, despite what's in the BWF file on your discs (which are somewhere in the lab vault, probably, when the locked picture gets delivered).

It all harkens back to a good lesson taught to me by a post from our host probably a decade ago on RAMPS, where Jeff said (in another context, but applicable here) that if a track is regarded as "fine", they are going to move on in post without bothering to stop and raise the bar from "fine" to "great".  I have referenced that post numerous times on RAMPS (and maybe here too) in other discussions, because I feel that he hit on such a key point that is so necessary to bear in mind when judging on set what is going to be used later.  

I firmly believe it is still true.  In this context, what it means is that no one is going to take the time to put up six isos simply to massage an already acceptable (or great) mix, by way of completely redoing the mix and all the time and hassle that entails.

So, I feel that we can rest assured that if the mono mix that is transferred to dailies sounds confidently good, there is no need to fear that someone is going to remix your iso tracks later in its place.  I'm sure there are exceptions, but I believe they are rare -- just based on common sense and observance of industry practice.  Therefore I do not understand the idea that by supplying isos in ADDITION to the mix, we are giving up the craft of mixing.  On the contrary, I feel that we are instead (by providing mono mix + isos) WELCOMING back in the era of the mono mix, rather than getting farther away from it.  I think we were in deeper doo-doo in that regard when there were only two tracks to import.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  

In the two track age silly workflows were asked for like "put the boom on channel 1 and put the wireless mix on channel 2".  I got burned by acceding to that request several times with the Nagra IV-S or DAT machines, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.  I knew what we had on the boom(s) and I knew we made the scene sound great.  But then I went to see the movie.  Lo and behold, there was the lav mix, recorded as the "backup track", out on the screen.  

But the trouble with that workflow was that there was no way for post to practically delineate which track to use.  Scrawled notes in the sound reports that probably were never read and didn't reference the eventual cut did not help.  So it's great that now post is not transferring a two-track DAT to dailies (and subsequently the Avid, via telecine) but a ONE-track mono mix with our selection of mic or best efforts at a mix.

On the other hand, we all have had times when the mono mix wasn't good.  A boom op missed a cue, a mixer missed a cue, the blocking changed without warning, someone yelled this time where they whispered last time, an actor missed their mark completely and out of the range of the boom, the boom op went for a line that was supposed/discussed to play on the wire (or there wasn't time for discussion and we both assumed the other wasn't going to be there -- this happened to me this afternoon) and there was a phase problem or fidelity compromise, the director wanted to shoot the rehearsal and check the gate on an eight-mic shot where we weren't even allowed so much as a level check beforehand -- whatever, there are times when the mix isn't what we want.  It's comforting, if at least only in theory, that it can be redone later rather than have to be looped or dug for in alternate takes, even though I'm not sure anyone picks through isos as opposed to just looping even with it available.

and secondly, the nature of the projects I work on really do not need multitrack iso recordings for the most part.

That's a different story -- if you know you got it in one place there isn't really any benefit to providing other options later.  When I know I have it on one microphone I lay down one track, even if I wired talent to protect myself before the cameras rolled.  The wires never get used, either on the faders or on the bus assignments.  What happens in UHF stays in UHF.  I see no value in providing subpar options if you have the benefit of knowing in advance which option is best.  Sometimes I wire because I don't know what is going to happen on the day, but after a camera rehearsal I DO know what is going to happen.  If the sun is shining, one can take the raincoat off.

From what I know, Mick is often in a different situation where the use of 5 or 6 wireless, 2 booms and so forth, would normally dictate little or no mixing in favor of tracking in most people's approach.

Even if this is the case I still, and believe others also still, make a mix and give it their all to make it work.  I don't know of too many workflows (other than one reality TV show I filled in for a few years back) delivering solely isos without a mono mix was acceptable.  I'm working on a TV show now, and as often as not, we have two booms and three or four wires out there, and we rarely get a rehearsal (or a second take).  I'm glad the isos are there (though not really sure that anyone will ever bother to use them if they are needed), but I still do my damnedest to make sure the mono mix sounds as good as I can get it to.

This is already a long-winded post, but if anyone should want to hear me blather on more on this subject, a friend asked me to write an article on this subject last year.  In my usual penchant for brevity, it comes in three parts.  You can read it here if so inclined:

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/7479.html

Regards,

Noah Timan

[Doug Brandon]

Good info here guys.

Rich Van Dyke shared some of his [expert] experience in this area. He was one of three location mixers for the recent cowboy flick, 310 TO YUMA. Here's short passage from the posting '310toYumaADR' (how do I make this a direct link?) in the 'general discussion' main topic catagory field. [i added the info in the brackets]:

The director James Mangold insisted on the entire cast being wired, this was the simple reason behind Bayard's departure [bayard was on of the first mixers], he refused to just wire the cast when not necessary.  Jim [director, I guess] told me that he liked to mess with the mixes while editing the film, and wanted the cast wired.  As Joe told me [Joe Brennan boomed the entire show], we could provide whatever type of mix we wanted for dailies, just as long as we still wired the cast and put the wires on separate tracks.  This is what Stuebe [second mixer] and I did, and we got along fine with everyone...  [...lines removed here--trying to keep it simple...]

With the advent of multi track recorders I'm finding that more and more, we are no longer being hired for how well we mix our sound, but for how well we 'capture' the dialogue.  The mixing seems to be something done later.  However, that being said I know that much of my mix was in the picture, and I'm sure that a large amount of Bayard's and Stuebe's work as well, this all being the fact that Joe is a great boom op [yea Joe].

Doug

[Philip Perkins]

The film I'm currently on has an even different approach.  Due to the use of multiple cameras, the editors have asked me to provide specific mixes for specific cameras.  They mentioned in pre production that the last film, the mixer would only provide one 'mixed' track for the dailies.  The editors found that while the one mix worked for some cameras it was useless for others, and they spent time searching the iso tracks and making their own mix for the cameras.  This film is directed by Ridley Scott, who will set up at least two cameras shooting in completely oppostie directions, hence seeing two different 'scenes' within the one scene.  The pace we work at when Ridley is on set is mindbending.  I'm trying to figure out how many cameras there are and assigning different microphones to different tracks, or panning mics onto tracks as those cameras see what those mics are hearing.  I feel like the one armed paper hanger many times.  He also like to free drive cars with dialogue going on inside them.

Personally, I feel that the weather is changing and if you don't have a 'raincoat' or aren't willing to buy one or use one, you might just loose your job.  We can no longer dictate the way films are mixed or recorded, we can certainly offer our suggestions and offer our expertise, but I feel the age of multitrack recording has affected the way post production expects the sound to be delivered.

I certainly miss the 'good old days' of mono mixing, but evolution in the devices we record on has forced our evolution as to how we mix/record films.

One other personal issue I have with the 'iso' tracks is that I send them pre fader, which means that they are recorded without the benefit of whatever level or equalization I have used on my 'mix' track.  So when the 'need' is felt to access them, they must be massaged as to level and eq.

I did a TV series years ago with simultaneous action taking place in 2 or 3 rooms, and had to do a similar kind of mix--it was like flying 2 airplanes at once.  Hairy--I hope they appreciate how hard that is. Multitrack is easier than ever (and cheaper than ever via computer-based recorders) so I agree there is not much excuse for not being able to do this--I was more speaking of what the actual use is for those iso tracks and balancing how much extra work they are to do and utilise for everyone vs. how much they are ever actually used.  The prefade/preEQ iso thing has always sort of bugged me--I understand the arguements about the isos needing to maximize possibilites but also feel that, again, I'm creating a lot of extra work for post (which is sometimes me also) by having no EQ or even general levelling beyond trim on those tracks.  Maybe some of those digital boards (01V96 etc) allow one to do EQ and low rolloff prefade and that would be an answer to this.  On RAMPS Billy Sarokin described a number of very hairy setups w/ Mr. Scott on shoots in NYC, so we have an idea of what you're up against and we give it up to you.

Philip Perkins

[Jeff Wexler]

I think what I was trying to get at was the whole "chicken and the egg" thing regarding the techniques we are presently using, multitrack tracking, providing a "mix track", etc. Noah has very succinctly spelled out a whole lot of this and Philip has also echoed some of what I was saying. I appreciate as well what Rich adds since we are both old farts still working. When I talk about the craft of mixing going away (and Noah says we can still do both) I am thinking about how wireless mics and multitrack have enabled directors, camera people and even actors to get into a mode of moviemaking that I do not agree with. I don't really like the procedures and techniques we have to employ to work these sorts of jobs, but more importantly, I am not so thrilled even with the final result --- the movie itself (even after everyone has done their best work in production, camera, lighting, sound, direction, acting, and in post with the DI, sound editors with amazing digital tools, etc. In the old days, you could not shoot a project they way many wish to shoot today --- you would not have useable images or usable sound, you would be required to re-shoot things "properly" with traditional blocking, one camera, proper continuity, traditional screen direction, proper mic technique etc.

I know I am not making my point but the underlying thing is that we CAN'T really do both in the multitrack world because our mix track (used to be the only the track) will be made up of all sorts of elements that we need to mix that ultimately just don't work --- they really won't work well "on the day" when we are mixing our brains out to supply a credible mix (or mixes) for multiple cameras shooting multiple scenes in several directions all at the same time, and the mix will probably not fare much better in post when the post mixers have to fold it all down to one track.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Phil Palmer]

I can only speak from my own experiences, and for the last few years...I've been applauded for the iso tracks that I've been able to provide.  These have added to the ability of the Re-Re and Supervisors to have alternates to the mix track that I create on the day.  I would say that my mix track is used 90% of the time, if not more...but the option of iso tracks gives them a safety net when things get rough.  Which has been happening more and more lately.

I completely agree with Jeff that we don't film things the way we used to, and the way things are done today would not fly some years ago.  But that's the way things are, and we can adapt or move on.  I don't think we, as production sound mixers, can dictate how a production will operate.  I believe we can give our best shot as to how we would like to record the dialog on the movie that the director is going to shoot.  Not the other way around.  It's frustrating many times, and often does not yeild optimum sound recordings.  We adapt as best as we can, use the tools that we have available, and hopefully provide the mix that will make them (and us) happy. 

When I was a boom operator I had a heated discussion once with a very accomplished camera operator.  I was pushing the frame line to try and get some whispers and mumbles and was getting on his nerves.  I was dictating his frame line, and he needed to be able to move a bit.  He finally told me, I needed to adapt to his frame and not the other way around.  End of discussion.

It's sort of the same thing, in a bigger scale when it comes to the isos and mix tracks.  If we can provide all of it to make the final mix better.  Then lets do it...that's why we have the stuff...

~PWP

[Mick]

WOW! And there I was with a few minutes with no crossword so I thought I'd vent a little. I absolutely agree with everything posted on this subject which has exemplified once more that our differences are far fewer than our concurrences. I really do love new technology that facillitates our job, and because of that increased expedition of our chosen profession, I tend to cling to the one thing that made it fun in the fist place. Mixing. Being creative. I appreciate the availbility of alternatives to my version of the dialogue mix and I'm certainly not averse to supplying iso tracks when I think it's necessary. Noah and Richard's points are well taken and I guess the thing I like above all is that we're all out there with something to say which benfits all of us out there with something to say.

Now where was I....14 across...

Regards

Mick

[RPSharman]

14 across...monaural.  No wonder you started this thread!

I love to mix a mono track with the ISO back-up.  It allows me to be aggressive with my mix, sometimes taking chances for a better mix which I might not "go for" without a safety net.  Especially as one of the new guys, it creates confidence and comfort, which really helps me concentrate on listening without any fear of making a critical error.  When I was providing a two track mix, I found myself worrying more about wether or not I should split the tracks and what I should put on each track.  Listening to different things in each ear was distracting to me.  Now that I mix mono, I enjoy the job a lot more, I know what they will hear in dailies, and so far (from what I can tell) they use my mix almost all the time.

And as others have pointed out, editors and post audio crews would much rather not have to worry about the dialog track, and unless there is something wrong with it, they probably aren't going to use your ISO tracks anyway.

Robert

[Philip Perkins]

So the discussion really, ultimately, devolves not to the multitrack/iso issue but what the need for those tracks are a symptom of, and that is the sort of production that has become prevalent now: faster than ever, not planned out, ambitious visually and reliant on post production to make a workable dialog track and edit.  The camcorder ethos has spead upwards into the highest level production.  Partly I can see that some filmmakers find it liberating, partly I can see that some producers think there is a cost savings to be had, and generally I see that some departments see their jobs being made easier on an all-wireless-all-the-time sort of shoot.  Maybe there will be a reaction to this style, and certain old techniques will come back into vogue...someday.

Philip Perkins

[Noah Timan]

I still treated them like two mono mixes, unless there were multiple cameras and I chose to give each track a 'camera' assignment. 

I liked to work this way too during the IV-S and DAT age, but I was regularly asked by our post people during the "stereo" era to "split as much as possible" for post.  I fought it where I could.  Sometimes I lost and sometimes I won.  When there were only two tracks to work with it was always one thing or the other.  It wasn't like now, where we can do both things simultaneously.

On that film, I used a Deva V for the additional tracks needed and created a 'mix' on track 1 for telecine and the rest were for the separate mics.

Other than using a different recorder (that does the same thing), this is always my workflow these days, by choice.  It is becoming (if it has not already become) SOP for telecine to put the mono mix from track 1 on dailies and that is ALL that goes to dailies (and subsequently to picture editorial).  The picture editors load that track in along with picture from the dailies DVD and that's what they use.  IF there is a sound problem with the mix, then they may choose to load in the full poly file and use one of the isos, but if there is not a problem, the isos never even get heard, let alone used.  (98% of the time, I don't ever hear them either!)

It's easier for me to do that (rather than make two separate discs on two separate recorders) and I believe it accomplishes the same end result -- mono mix for dailies and picture editorial, and additional iso tracks to be loaded in at post ONLY if needed.

The film I'm currently on has an even different approach.  Due to the use of multiple cameras, the editors have asked me to provide specific mixes for specific cameras.  They mentioned in pre production that the last film, the mixer would only provide one 'mixed' track for the dailies.  The editors found that while the one mix worked for some cameras it was useless for others, and they spent time searching the iso tracks and making their own mix for the cameras.  This film is directed by Ridley Scott, who will set up at least two cameras shooting in completely oppostie directions, hence seeing two different 'scenes' within the one scene.  The pace we work at when Ridley is on set is mindbending.  I'm trying to figure out how many cameras there are and assigning different microphones to different tracks, or panning mics onto tracks as those cameras see what those mics are hearing.  I feel like the one armed paper hanger many times.  He also like to free drive cars with dialogue going on inside them.

It really sounds like those shows require a second sound crew.  I think it's insane to ask you to do three different mixes of three separate actions and actors for three different cameras all at the same time, and allowing you to focus on one thing at a time would probably improve the mix, subject it to less compromise, and consequently benefit the film.  Of course, getting them to budget for two sound crews is a challenge, but it is essential that we set the precedent this way.  I did two separate projects within the last year where I was asked to go back and forth in between takes from Set A (where my boom op was covering) to Set B (where my utility was covering) and it is a truly maddening way to work and leaves a ton of room for error.  I am very concerned about precedent being set where one crew of three is expected to shoulder this load.

As it regards telecine and mix workflow, I agree that your current adventures make it necessary to break away from the workflow described above, but I also believe that this way of working is still an exception to the general rule.

Personally, I feel that the weather is changing and if you don't have a 'raincoat' or aren't willing to buy one or use one, you might just loose your job.  We can no longer dictate the way films are mixed or recorded, we can certainly offer our suggestions and offer our expertise, but I feel the age of multitrack recording has affected the way post production expects the sound to be delivered.

If you're one mixer mixing three separate shots simultaneously, then yes.  But if you're doing traditional stuff with one or two or even three cameras shooting the same action, then I'm not so sure much changes, other than we provide them with a safety net in case something goes wrong with the mix.

I certainly miss the 'good old days' of mono mixing, but evolution in the devices we record on has forced our evolution as to how we mix/record films.

Here is the KEY point that I was getting at, and what I disagree with -- I do not believe the DEVICE changes, or SHOULD change, the way we work.  The ability to provide "backup" to a mix should not mean that we abandon the mix! 

The only thing that can change the workflow, imho, is the method of filmmaking.  As you note, one mono mix can't work for five different shots with different actors in them or different scenes altogether.  But as you also note from what you heard about Ridley's previous film, nobody wants to go thorugh and reassemble mixes from isos either, even when it would seem to be the only sane way to address the problem.  So providing "iso" tracks (and remember "iso" refers to "isolated elements" of a *MIX*) does not really address that either.

For most shows, the mono mix is still what ends up in the film, just as it was in the days of the mono Nagra or even optical stripe, even if one records seven other iso tracks that could (in theory) be remixed later.

One would hope that some filmmaking discipline would be the answer to the other conundrum, but we all know nobody's holding their breath for that.  Short of that, we need other sound crews to mix multiple shots of different things at the same time, just as we add other camera crews when needed.

[old school]

  Hey Mick, thanks for expressing a common mixer feeling at our now point in time. It sure started a nice train of thoughts. As Jeff n Phillip pointed out this is a reflection of many prior conversations about multi vr mono etc. Many great examples of work flows and jobs from the club here @jwsound. I think Phillips last post was a great description of my wacky commercial world where it all shows up sooner rather than L8r. My feeling is we need to be able to do it every way imaginable, and do it with a smile. Especially when we turn in the invoice. It takes education, a desire to try new ways, and the will to try and maintain some standards like we used to have. To me this is fun, and I have multiple work flow options, and the experience to go new or old school, and still get paid. I think the best way to do the job changes all the time.  If you take a job, your have to deliver it somehow. That is a job where we get to be creative. Have some fun, live a life, and if you get fired, well....... that sucks, but life goes on.

CrewC

[Noah Timan]

When I talk about the craft of mixing going away (and Noah says we can still do both) I am thinking about how wireless mics and multitrack have enabled directors, camera people and even actors to get into a mode of moviemaking that I do not agree with. I don't really like the procedures and techniques we have to employ to work these sorts of jobs, but more importantly, I am not so thrilled even with the final result --- the movie itself (even after everyone has done their best work in production, camera, lighting, sound, direction, acting, and in post with the DI, sound editors with amazing digital tools, etc.

This is an entirely different animal, however, than discussion of our workflow.  Believe it or not, there are still plenty of jobs that shoot in the normal way -- block, light, shoot.  (No, really!)  One scene, in one room, at a time.  It's different from the old days in that there are always two cameras in that room (I can't remember the last time I worked on something that only had one camera crew), but once you and your crew finangle what needs to be done to accomodate both shots (and it's not always wide and tight -- plenty of DPs and crews combine mediums and tights, tight and tighters, cross-coverage, or wide and widers, which are doable for us) there is a method, pain in the ass though it may be.  

What is different from my early days in the business (which are at least a decade and a half more recent than Jeff's and Richard's, but maybe employed the traditions of those earlier days) is that there are rarely technical rehearsals any more and there are often very few takes shot (in the interest of getting many pages for the day).  Sometimes the first pass we get at something is all that we get.  I don't always hate this as much as I probably should as a technician, because I do understand that performance can be a volatile, elusive issue and sometimes magic only happens once.  I have seen plenty of performances wilt due to the actors having to recreate the same moment over and over again in succession.  In the end, the audiences are going to see the movie because of the actors, not because of the track, and it doesn't do me any good to have sterling audio if it's playing to an empty house.  Part of the game is learning to develop the instincts and anticipate what people are going to do, so the first mix is still pretty good.

I know I am not making my point but the underlying thing is that we CAN'T really do both in the multitrack world because our mix track (used to be the only the track) will be made up of all sorts of elements that we need to mix that ultimately just don't work

Assuming one has designed the shot(s) well in terms of how it is going to be covered, why?  I'm not talking about multitrack to cover three sets -- I'm talking about multitrack to cover mixing mistakes borne out of not knowing what is going to happen before it happens when you're at the board.  This is also a result of lack of filmmaking discipline, I suppose -- no rehearsals, low take ratio and cramming multiple cameras into a small space in order to simply get more shots without really any design or thought to how the elements come together.  Yes, it wouldn't be necessary if, as in older times, you blocked it and rehearsed it before you shot it, and the camera ops had a clear idea of what they were going to do, and so forth.

--- they really won't work well "on the day" when we are mixing our brains out to supply a credible mix (or mixes) for multiple cameras shooting multiple scenes in several directions all at the same time.

I'll repeat my notion (that I put in my response to Rich) that I don't think multitrack is a credible answer in any way to recording two separate scenes simultaneously.  While it may be theoretically feasible technically, it makes no sense whatsoever from a working standpoint and will drive us to madness (or at least regular unhappiness).  One sound crew per one set is the answer I have for that.  I know that may not fly immediately with line producers, but I doubt there is another feasible solution.  One sound mixer doing three sets at once is a dumb idea for many reasons I suspect most of us already understand, and that has less to do with technology and workflow and more to do with simple common sense and an understanding of process.

[Noah Timan]

I apologize for repeating my opinions...I don't mean to be tedious.  I am just feeling like that despite the technical abilities that the new gear brings us and brings post, our abilities to pull off a good mono mix are STILL what get us hired.  I have seen a few incidences out here of people whose jobs were threatened or lost because their mono mixes weren't good, even though they provided sufficient coverage of the material on a bevy of iso tracks.  These mixers probably felt that because they had the dialogue on some other track, it was enough.  While that may have been true, Phil Perkins' points here about how difficult and time consuming it can be to load, reinterpret, reassemble and remix a bunch of isos on a packed post production schedule need to be taken very seriously.  I have heard the same song sung by the post folks that I know and work with.

Providing isos in place of a mix -- for many shows at least -- is not really enough.  While the format of filmmaking is changing, and there are exceptions to the rule, for the moment it seems were are still MIXERS, and our job is still to deliver a workable MIX.  I think it's very dangerous to confuse the fact that it is now technically possible to rebuild a mix later for the idea that it is EXPECTED that the tracks are going to be rebuilt later and the mix is subsequently meaningless.

[t.elder]

Providing isos in place of a mix -- for many shows at least -- is not really enough.  While the format of filmmaking is changing, and there are exceptions to the rule, for the moment it seems were are still MIXERS, and our job is still to deliver a workable MIX.  I think it's very dangerous to confuse the fact that it is now technically possible to rebuild a mix later for the idea that it is EXPECTED that the tracks are going to be rebuilt later and the mix is subsequently meaningless.

I think Noah is completely right that we are still expected to mix and that in many ways, the advent of multi-tracking has done little to change our job on many productions.  While most of the productions I work on are happy to receive ISO tracks, I think that they are happier not to ever have to listen to them, and happiest when the mixer delivers a great one or two track mix.  For that reason, I usually only supply ISO tracks when I think there is a good reason for them to use them later on.

One of my problems with ISO tracks is they are often redundant and time-consuming, and the irony that multi-track recording has come in at the same time that the overall pace of film production has become much faster.  Routinely wiring multiple talent creates a situation where the first team PA becomes a vital link to the sound team - no production wants to wait around while the sound crew wires everybody, no matter how much the idea of having everyone with their own wireless mic on their own track might appeal to some people.  It certainly doesn't appeal to any 1st AD's that I've met, and having everyone on the crew wait for us to finish doesn't appeal to me.

I've recently been doing some day playing as a third on a multi-character television show and it would be preposterous to try to wire all the talent and provide ISO's on every scene - there's barely any time for rehearsals, let alone wiring unless it's an absolute necessity.  Still, I feel like the sound team has been able to consistently deliver on one or two booms, using the coverage to get tighter sound - in other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Tim

[tourtelot]

As a few have mentioned, I am still mixing as best a mono track as I am able from all the sources in the scene.  But I do find that I can be more aggressive in my mix knowing that I have the sources iso'd to their own track.  It makes mixing complicated scenes fun again.  I am doing a TV series and I know that they will NEVER rebuild an entire scene from the isos; not enough time.  But if I clip a word in the mix, it is available as a pretty quick fix from the iso.  If someone off-camera overlaps where there has been no overlap before, and it's the "print," I know that the words are available in rerecording to make this a non-issue.  Multitrack has just taken the pressure of "the mix" off me and allowed me to do the job better.  Just my $.02.

D.

[Philip Perkins]

As a few have mentioned, I am still mixing as best a mono track as I am able from all the sources in the scene.  But I do find that I can be more aggressive in my mix knowing that I have the sources iso'd to their own track.  It makes mixing complicated scenes fun again.  I am doing a TV series and I know that they will NEVER rebuild an entire scene from the isos; not enough time.  But if I clip a word in the mix, it is available as a pretty quick fix from the iso.  If someone off-camera overlaps where there has been no overlap before, and it's the "print," I know that the words are available in rerecording to make this a non-issue.  Multitrack has just taken the pressure of "the mix" off me and allowed me to do the job better.  Just my $.02.

D.

I can see how the isos might help save a line from a fader that you didn't get open in time, but an overlap is still an overlap even if the offending mic is potted down--the line is still audible on all the other mics.  The time necessary to go find a line and then get it to work with the rest of your mix is not inconsiderable, so I wonder about how much of all this multitracking is about making everyone, including the production mixer, feel better about how fast the show is moving.  I can tell you that during the time that an assistant sound editor is looking for the iso line that the rerecording mixer or sound editor is attempting to fix the problem with the materials at hand (pull from another take of the mix, see if some combo of level and EQ change will suffice) and if they can make it even sort of work they will stop looking for the iso line except on high-end movies where there is more time.

Philip Perkins

[bcopenhagen]

As a different perspective to the veteran experience that we are fortunate to have on this board, I am relatively young in my career (only 10 years doing sound for film).  I see the ISOs as a way to experiment, to enhance a mono mix, or to provide a separate element that post-sound can tap (if they bother to look for it).  The goal is the same:  deliver the best mono mix possible.  But I have begun to explore different techniques, feeling more secure in the knowledge that the ISOs could be "resorted" to if my mix didn't work.

One example is using a room mic for an interior radio mic scene.  The high frame line, combined with a high noise floor forced me into using radios inside.  I let the boom op go at it anyway, but in my mix, I used the radios with a touch of the room mic, which was pointed at a wall, to put some perspective back into the over-present radios.  I felt safer knowing that, if that mix didn't work, each mic was available on its own, even the boom, if that turned out to have a better sound.  I was fortunate to have done both the production and post-production sound on that feature, so I was able to hear when experiments like this failed, and when they worked.  (on that shot, I used the mix).  With the advent of the latest Protools versions, it really doesn't take long to find the other available tracks, provided they've been properly loaded into the system.  It's literally a right-click pull-down menu in Protools, and the alternate tracks (visible with their metadata tracknames) instantly replace the mix track.

I think the issue regarding always wiring talent isn't black-and-white:  it is really very project-dependent.  We've heard a variety of possibilites here already.  When the director requests specifically that the talent be wired, I think we are given some reprieve if production has to wait on us.  When we have to be most alert to the need for wiring is when we (the sound dept) decide that it's necessary to wire to get a useable mix.  Then we have to be pro-active in making sure there's no "waiting on sound".

As an aside, it's great to hear news about the Ridley Scott picture, RVD.  I was to be the boom op on that job, but the mixer and I turned it down for personal reasons (bad timing to go on the road at that point).  It sounds like a challenge!

Thanks, everyone, for all your articulated thoughts.  It's always an education.

-Brian

[Mick]

Thanks to everyone that contibuted to this thread. I learned quite a bit which is always a bonus. I learned something about the different attitudes and personalities that we all have while maintaining basically the same overall work ethic. Steven Covey, in his great book "The Seven habits of highly effective people" said "begin with the end in mind" which is a credo that has commonality in all our work related goals. I learned that maybe I should be a little more flexible in my attitude to the job and take heed from some of the younger more tech-minded colleagues who have great ideas and new approaches with which to implement them. I'm admitting that you can teach an old dog new tricks although I still wouldn't know one end of pro tools from the other!

Oh and one last thing...some guys just know how to take all the fun out of posting here...

Regards

Mick

[old school]

Hey RVD, I thought Mick was referring to me. Glad to know it was you he was talking about.

CrewC

[Mick]

RVD et al...no offense taken or given. I'm actually going to preface my posts in future with a TIC heading, (tongue in cheek) or perhaps an FIM, (foot in mouth)... English humor is usually best absorbed when heard rather than read. We're all friends here with a common goal and I laud any and all efforts we make to share the mass of know-how we've all aquired over the years.

Sincerely

Mick

[Philip Perkins]

So here's a question for you guys doing isos all the time--do you ever do them post EQ/low rolloff/input limiter?  If so, on what console?  I'm limited to being pre-everything but trim and HPF for isos--I think I'd like them better if I had more control over them.  I guess this is why those who can afford to go with the new Sonosax console...

Philip Perkins

[Noah Timan]

I apologize Noah, I was not trying to say that you were tedious or redundant. 

Rich, no offense taken...I think I CAN be redundant so I was just apologizing to the masses for that!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and best of luck with the immense challenges before you.

[old school]

Hey Phillip, all the multi-tracking I do is pre fader. I can see a value for post fader eq, level, etc, but given the option I would still choose pre fader most all of the time. Any thing I eq on the set is minor, 99% of the time my dual mono mix is what is used, and I want all iso's to be up n on at all times, and if they unwrap the iso's to fix something, they can also use their ears to re eq/shape it as well. I think the option would be nice mostly for music recording, but i would like it for film/digital/whatever comes our way if it didn't cost more. My 2 centz.

CrewC