Post vs. Location Sound Conflict

[Marc Wielage]

I just had a curious run-in with a location sound mixer, and wanted to see if I was out of line here.

We're doing the dailies for a new indie (no names, please) -- all standard 35mm, small comedy, a few name actors. The first day the sound came in, all we got was a single DVD-RAM labeled with a sharpie -- no paperwork.

I asked the producer if he could ask the sound mixer to provide a written sound report, so we could check for wild lines, room tone, and so on, and make sure those got on the dailies tape. A few hours later, I got a response from the producer: "the mixer says he 'doesn't do sound reports.'"

Okay.

I also asked for head tone at the beginning of every disc. The mixer sent me a WAV file (1K at -12dB), and said this was what he'd be using every day. (From the file headers, I deduced that he was using a Fostex FR-2. Where the -12 comes from, I dunno; -20 and -18 are far more typical.)

The next day, we had a few technical issues, so I sent the mixer a short email, requesting the following:

"1) please jam the slate instead of using a wireless timecode receiver. The slate TC numbers are breaking up and failing every so often, causing delays in syncing."

"2) please give us an audio slate at the head of each take ("39-Apple Take 2"), in case we need to manually search for a missing piece of audio."

"3) in the absence of sound logs, please name each file with the scene & take ("39A-2"), which will help us as well as dialog editors later on."

I received a fairly irate email back, basically telling me he had no intention of doing any of these things. The mixer says he's done 66 features this way, and never had a complaint. He insisted that a jammed TC slate will drift (which is true to a degree, a frame or two a day, but we're used to it), and that if I wanted scene and take numbers, I could enter them myself.

Of course, during dailies, we're already imbedding metadata with all scene & take info and TC numbers (audio, video, and film keykode) into the final HD & SD record videotapes. But not having any clue of what's on each source sound roll is a little daunting.

I was kind of baffled by this response. So, to you pros out there: are we humble post-types completely out of line requesting things like sound reports, tones, audio slates, and so on? I concede that some (like Jeff) balk at naming files, but I have no problem with working with written reports, and that works fine for what we need. This is the first project I've worked on in more than 25 years where we've had this much conflict with a mixer, on issues that I think are some fairly basic, easy stuff.

For now, I'm not going to confront the mixer. As one of my bosses reminded me, it takes up more transfer time when these issues aren't taken care of, and we get paid by the hour.

--Marc W.

[Guest klingklang]

Are you saying he´s delivering sound without slates, lables, and sound report?! how is ANYBODY going to find ANYTHING later? He did 60 films like this? I´m impressed.

I partly agree on the usefulness of a tone on every disk. Since the times of head-allignment and tollerance of tape specs are gone. A 1k tone will always be identical EVERY day so why record it 40 times when you can use the first one all the time? AFAIK no one uses it because transfers are done digitally anyway (at least that´s the way it should be).

f.

[ProSound]

All the features I have worked on have had a max budget of 100k most less and alot of films I was the only person getting a  fair wage at all. But I always tried to deliver them the same quality sound as I would anyone else which always includes. Head tone at -18 or -20. Voice slates for every takes, sound logs and anything else they may require. I have horrible handwriting so on these super low budget thinks I make the production provide me a P.A and since alot of these features I am doing are more Like ENG work. I am mixing and booming out of the bag I make them write my sound report I once had a post sup tell me I had the cleanest handwriting for a guy he had ever seen .......

[Jeff Wexler]

I was kind of baffled by this response. So, to you pros out there: are we humble post-types completely out of line requesting things like sound reports, tones, audio slates, and so on? I concede that some (like Jeff) balk at naming files, but I have no problem with working with written reports, and that works fine for what we need. This is the first project I've worked on in more than 25 years where we've had this much conflict with a mixer, on issues that I think are some fairly basic, easy stuff.

--Marc W.

You are not out of line at all --- the un-named sound mixer is so far out of line I'm not sure he even knows where the line is. How he can claim to have done over 60 movies without head tone, without documentation, I find baffling as well. I know it is not your way Marc to get into a major altercation with this person (or maybe what has transpired already rates as this) I would be inclined to approach the production company and have them really lean on the sound mixer. It's onde thing to not be a team player but in this case it seems like he's not even in the same game.

Also, as for me "balking at naming files" I have improved in this area at least as far as normal (scene, take) metadata goes but I still don't give the tracks character names. One reason for this is of course because of the way Don and I work: if we have a scene with 5 characters in it and Don is getting it all with his microphone and it is going down on one track, all the names won't FIT on the one track!

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[RPSharman]

You are not out of line at all, and I am also baffled how this mixer managed to get through over 60 features this way.  But as you mentioned, this is a low budget indie recorded on an FR-2, so perhaps this is a clue as to why the unnamed mixer is still on these small projects after 60 features.  I have heard stories of another unnamed mixer who hands script supervisors blank sound reports to fill in, but that's another story.

I am a new dog, but I learned the old tricks.  I always turn in a sound report (one copy with each DVD).  I always head ID each sound roll, including tone, and I usually read off some TC too.  I do enter scene numbers in the metadata for the ISO/Boom Recorder files, because it's easy and you can change it even if you are already rolling.  On the 744T, I usually name the file DVDXX or EPXXXDVDXX for TV and note the "T" number on the sound report with the corresponding scene.  Boom Recorder does provide a detailed sound report on the DVD, and I know some mixers who have mutually worked out with telecine and post to use these, so no paper report was turned in.

You should email him again, cc the producer, and explain his practice is increasing your time in the bay.

[Philip Perkins]

I'm guessing this guy made a bad deal for himself, isn't getting along well w/ the rest of the crew/cast and has gone on "minimum commitment status".  Sound reports and the other "secretarial" aspects of production sound may not be anyone's fave aspect of the job, but why record sound that no one can find?  Most mixers on features are very into getting as much of their production sound into the movie as they can--and a way to help minimise ADR is make it very easy for the sound editors to find your alts and wild tracks.  I am an old school type--I believe that more info is better to the extent that it doesn't hang me up for doing the rest of my job.  The strict adherence to accurate reports etc came from jobs exactly like this--in film there is no "free guide track" as there is (or can be) in most video.  There are many ways to skin a cat on file naming and reporting, but not skinning that cat isn't really an option on a big project.  You (OP) have given the mixer a range of options for take naming, and if the guy refuses to help you then you MUST IMMEDIATELY go to the post supe (if that is not you) and let them know that they need to tell the producer to up the line item amount for dailies syncing, and really for DX cutting too--it is going to be a much harder job finding alternates etc..  THAT I'm sure will get someone's attention....  Very early in my career I was severely lectured on this subject by a crew of experienced sound editors, and this was in the Nagra/Pilotone days.  Voice slates, notes, sound and camera roll numbers, mate, or pack your bags.  Now that I work in post myself I vividly understand their point of view.

Philip Perkins

[curleysound]

Sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the bed every day for the past 60 features I feel that a major part of my job, and what makes me an attractive hire is that I communicate with the editor, transfer house, post audio, whoever is booked already, and compare and contrast what they are all looking for, and try to tailor my work to conform to what they are looking for, not the other way around. It's our job to get a good recording on location, sure. It's also our job to turn in a product that doesn't cost the production more because nobody knows what to do with it. This is comparable to handing in poor recordings that need ADR every day in my opinion. Hope  you don't have to deal with this too often!

Tom 

[Mick]

You guys said it all. RVD nailed it with regard to the relationship between production sound and post with" I'm further disapointed by the fact that there isn't a more 'team spirited' relationship between post and production.  Now more than ever we must work together to ensure our sound is processed as we want it to be heard.  I for one, always have a close connection to the post folks, and always call several times throughout a film to ask their opinion of my work, and what I can do to help them do their jobs more efficiently."

Exactly. I'd love to know who this person is because he/she has the potential to harm the reputation of most of the rest of us whose atittude is the very antithesis of his/hers.

Regards

MIck

[taylormadeaudio]

Dang!!!...

DANG!!! (I said it again)  What a tripper!  I'd go crazy if I didn't have sound reports -- for my own reference... can't imagine not turning them into post -- they summarize the day -- they let the other people (key word, people) involved -- the ones handling your work -- know what you were up against.  66 features w/o a sound report?  hmmmm....

I can sort of understand wanting to use wireless tx/rx for slates as opposed to jamming (for the stated reasons), but having used both methods for several years, I definitely prefer the latter -- you just have to be vigilant, make sure the AC's don't turn off the slate by accident -- re-jam after lunch... look at your monitor (if you have one) once in a while and have your boom op grab the slate and site read the #'s for you...IMHO, much less effort required than trying to maintain another reliable RF link...

We Sound Mixers do tend to draw certain stereotypes upon ourselves from time to time (probably because of incidents like this) but if the majority of us can go to work every day with a smile -- and reflect that onto others (yes, even when we're getting completely peeled)... if we can take the time to communicate with the Editors, with the Director, and yes, even with Talent  : )...  then I think we've done our parts to shatter those stereotypes.  It sounds like the old dog is on his way out anyways -- too many more encounters like that and he's liable to talk his way into an early retirement.

Exactly, as previously (and eloquently) stated... please don't let it reflect on all of us -- "a few dirty rocks can't soil the ocean which humanity is..."  (something I heard on a Sky Cries Mary album years ago)

--tt

[old school]

Hey Marc, your request was not out of line in the least. It was a routine follow up for what should be a standard operating procedure by our colleague. Maybe he's disgruntled like Philip suggested, or is a rank beginner who knows no better, but there is no excuse for not having procedure in place for others to use the recordings down the line and into post. This post boggles my mind. As for your boss, he is right, time is money, but I would save the e mail exchange with the mixer to cover your ass's when the producer gets the bill. Sounds like a tough job.

CrewC

[John Blankenship]

I find his post rather ironic.  Like many here I've used both methods, but IMO the main reason to use wireless is it makes logging easier.  With record run timecode, the out-time of one track is the in-time of the next.  Also, you can log T.C. while waiting between takes rather than needing to grab in-times and out-times in real time.  What an irony that he insists on using wireless and NOT maintaining a log.

I'm guessing that the person who originally taught this individual quit half way through the job.

This is an industry based on collaboration.  If this person doesn't wish to collaborate he should quit and sell insurance.

.02

John Blankenship

[Michael P Clark]

Perhaps this is his/her first FILM gig.

all the names won't FIT on the one track!

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

too funny!

[Noah Timan]

Hey Marc,

You were not out of line -- it's part of our job to make sure that everything goes smoothly on your end.

That said, I'm curious about something -- what do you use the head tone for?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not like your man -- I write a sound report out in a very detailed way, double that work by entering the track metadata on both the original and backup recordings, label each file with the scene and take information, voice slate the take myself if the 2nd AC is unintelligible, and so on.

But I am curious what part analog reference tone plays in our all-digital world, and how you use it specifically.

I also wonder about the value of the old-school head slate of, "Hi, this is sound roll X, specs X, Y, and Z, etc" when yes, those specs are exactly the same every day, and in my case are printed on the disc case, the disc itself, and the sound report.  I understood it in the days of 1/4" and DAT tape, but I question its value in today's world.

[Noah Timan]

Also, as for me "balking at naming files" I have improved in this area at least as far as normal (scene, take) metadata goes but I still don't give the tracks character names. One reason for this is of course because of the way Don and I work: if we have a scene with 5 characters in it and Don is getting it all with his microphone and it is going down on one track, all the names won't FIT on the one track!

I think that situation pertains to when different characters are arriving on different microphones, and the value of that information should be fairly straightforward.  If you're doing it all with one mic I think "boom" should suffice as a track listing.

[gpiegari]

Perhaps this mixer means he's done over sixty "projects", many of them never

completed and besides, with no lables, no one can call to request more info...

[Guest afewmoreyears]

I typed a huge response... then lost it at the last second.... F_ _ _!!!!

  Dont change scene and take.....  Scene is done once at the beginning of the day then the files are left to  record in order... File 1 then 2 then 3 etc....  SO EASY.... 

file name should look something like this...  Kngdy1    (Kong day #1)  Then, let the files rip one after another....

  Next day..... Kngdy2  let 'em rip again.......  I have NEVER heard one complaint doing things this way..... ever...

  On your report, put:

  scene  take      Notes                                file #

  301      3          2 ch. mix                          46

  Files then are recorded in the order they were done, one after another..... just like tape..... If you change the scene and take,  this will lead to a jumbled, random list of just files.... This makes finding something easier to do if all else should fail.... or someone remebers it was the take AFTER the fire alarm went off....

  Let telecine find the code.....

  Use jammed slates for anything but a doc shoot.....  PERIOD...

  Give scripty a TC reader and let them do the time code dictation if it is required.....

  LABEL the DISC, BOX, Final case.... EVERYTHING..... TYPED, not written.....  Come on..... always.....

  My other response was long and detailed.... got to go to dinner..... Later....

[Marc Wielage]

Are you saying he´s delivering sound without slates, lables, and sound report?!

The disc itself is labeled (roll number, production title and date), but that's it. No paperwork of any kind.

I partly agree on the usefulness of a tone on every disk. Since the times of head-allignment and tollerance of tape specs are gone. A 1k tone will always be identical EVERY day so why record it 40 times when you can use the first one all the time?

The only reason we ask for it is just to check that we aren't screwing anything up in dailies. In other words, it's to check our equipment. Ten or fifteen seconds is all we need. I also like to have a roll number "head slate" at the head of the DVD-RAM disc ("this is sound roll #12 for the production of BLANK FILM, from October 20th, Broadcast WAV files recorded at 48kHz, 24-bit, timecode is 30-frames non-drop. Reference tone is at -20dB." That's all.

We have to go through mixing consoles because of the problem of pulling down 48K files to 47.952 for film, so that's another reason for not always being able to do a straight-across transfer. If it's at 48K already pulled up (48.048), we'll bypass the mixing board completely and just go D-to-D straight to the VTR.

[Marc Wielage]

Also, as for me "balking at naming files" I have improved in this area at least as far as normal (scene, take) metadata goes but I still don't give the tracks character names.

My apologies, Jeff -- I didn't mean to single you out. I've seen your paperwork before (on HBO's 61*), and you're 100% thorough. I know that the dialog editors particularly appreciate it when the sound mixer notes on the reports when certain takes are bad for sound ("airplane noise," "wireless mike static," "actor off mike," etc.), even if they aren't circled takes. At least that warns the dialog editor later on that this take probably won't be useful.

BTW, we sometimes use the sound reports as a double-check for dailies projects in regards to circled takes. If it's circled on the sound report but not the camera report, it gets printed; same with vice-versa. I have seen many cases where the last take in a series was not circled on the camera report, but after seeing it, we realize that was most likely the best take, and sure enough -- it's circled on the sound report.

I'm encourged by the responses in this thread, and I'll just chalk it up to an inexperienced mixer. Life goes on.

[Marc Wielage]

Like many here I've used both methods, but IMO the main reason to use wireless is it makes logging easier.  With record run timecode, the out-time of one track is the in-time of the next.

I only balk when the timecode receiver on the slate (usually a cheap Comtek PR-72) breaks up and sends garbage numbers to the LED readout. I'd say at least 10-15% of the slates per day are doing this on this project, sometimes more.

They're using a Denecke TS-C, and I'm not sure if this one has a jam box on the back or not. I know all the newer Deneckes have the TCXO crystal, and those are pretty much bullet-proof. I have seen the old TS-1's drift up to 5-6 frames a day, and that can get a little annoying.

The two cases where I can see using transmitted timecode would be music playback (music videos, musicals, etc.) and possibly documentaries. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need a timecode log with the sound report, and in fact we have a department that can do that -- at additional expense -- which is useful for projects that don't use smart slates. Just the PNO number is fine, as far as the sound log goes. If it says file #32 is "scene 43A-4," then we know we can jump down 32 files and find it manually if we have to.

But the rest of the time, the receivers are typically so unreliable, we generally tell people not to use wireless rec-run timecode. If the slate doesn't move (like for a live concert event), then it's not a problem, since then the crew can guarantee the transmission won't fail, assuming all the batteries hold up.

[Jeff Wexler]

I have seen many cases where the last take in a series was not circled on the camera report, but after seeing it, we realize that was most likely the best take, and sure enough -- it's circled on the sound report.

Having worked in sound transfer myself (I was co-owner of Northstar Media Sound Services back in the ancient days of mag transfers off 1/4") I always make it a practice that if the last take is in fact NOT a print, I make a note of that on the sound report so there need not be any assumptions about it. It is so true, what Marc says, that if the last take is not circled it should be printed as it is probably a take that is needed.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Guest afewmoreyears]

I find his post rather ironic.  Like many here I've used both methods, but IMO the main reason to use wireless is it makes logging easier.  With record run timecode, the out-time of one track is the in-time of the next.  Also, you can log T.C. while waiting between takes rather than needing to grab in-times and out-times in real time.  What an irony that he insists on using wireless and NOT maintaining a log.

I'm guessing that the person who originally taught this individual quit half way through the job.

This is an industry based on collaboration.  If this person doesn't wish to collaborate he should quit and sell insurance.

.02

John Blankenship

John,

The only time to use a wireless TC to the slate is during playback.... or on doc shoots with rec run TC...  Otherwise,  Jam it and be done....

The slate can be in a helicopter and will remain in sync.....

  And again,  let scripty log the code.... "logging in and out times...."  Maintaining a log?...  I've  for one have NEVER done that....  not my gig... I like the effort though 

Noah,

  Heck, give a head slate file.... It takes two seconds... If they want info, and like on so many gigs, the notes and box are sometimes long gone.... they have it as part of that file package..... 

  I always ask, "don't you have the reports?, or the box? "  "No we don't have them"... is a common response.

Now they have SOME info....

 

[Philip Perkins]

I only balk when the timecode receiver on the slate (usually a cheap Comtek PR-72) breaks up and sends garbage numbers to the LED readout. I'd say at least 10-15% of the slates per day are doing this on this project, sometimes more.

They're using a Denecke TS-C, and I'm not sure if this one has a jam box on the back or not. I know all the newer Deneckes have the TCXO crystal, and those are pretty much bullet-proof. I have seen the old TS-1's drift up to 5-6 frames a day, and that can get a little annoying.

The two cases where I can see using transmitted timecode would be music playback (music videos, musicals, etc.) and possibly documentaries. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need a timecode log with the sound report, and in fact we have a department that can do that -- at additional expense -- which is useful for projects that don't use smart slates. Just the PNO number is fine, as far as the sound log goes. If it says file #32 is "scene 43A-4," then we know we can jump down 32 files and find it manually if we have to.

But the rest of the time, the receivers are typically so unreliable, we generally tell people not to use wireless rec-run timecode. If the slate doesn't move (like for a live concert event), then it's not a problem, since then the crew can guarantee the transmission won't fail, assuming all the batteries hold up.

TS-1s don't drift--they don't have TC generators in them.  We use them with Denecke SB2s (and formerly SB1s) attached to the back.  I've found that those TC generators have very little drift.  What might have been drifting was the RECORDER's TC, esp if it was an early model of HHB PDR1000 TC, before the clock mods were available.

For many years the TC standard for film shoots in the SF area was transmitted record-run code.  I did hundreds and hundreds of days on that system (w/ Comtek links) with very little trouble, it was very reliable.  I was careful about antenna positioning etc, and would usually "walk" the slate around a location like a walk test for a wireless mic to make sure we'd have to problems.  There are a few advantages to record run TC: everyone can see if you are rolling or not, and telecine operators used to tell us that they had far fewer problems w/ short-preroll when we used record run TC.  The latter isn't relevant anymore, and there are real advantages in time-of-day freerun TC anymore, now that we have to have TC available to so many people on the set (script etc.).  Now the challenge is to convince producers and post people that free-run is ok and makes things mostly easier for us on location.

We pretty much have always grabbed TC starts, as requested by post.  Nowadays with multi-cam HD shoots where the cameras roll and roll without stopping, it is important to grab a TC address when the scene # of the shot is changed with out a camera stop.  I also like having the TC numbers so I can review things that happened in those long takes.  On shoots where there is no telecine--audio goes straight to the edit system, the TC addresses are much welcomed by the editors.

Philip Perkins

[Guest afewmoreyears]

Quote from Philip......

"We pretty much have always grabbed TC starts, as requested by post.  Nowadays with multi-cam HD shoots where the cameras roll and roll without stopping, it is important to grab a TC address when the scene # of the shot is changed with out a camera stop.  I also like having the TC numbers so I can review things that happened in those long takes.  On shoots where there is no telecine--audio goes straight to the edit system, the TC addresses are much welcomed by the editors"

Again, I would let someone else labor over that  "grabbing a TC address" stuff....  It's actually someones job, I try to concentrate on my mix.... 

As for reviewing what happened......  who cares.... it's done...  let the kind folks in post deal with it.... Again,  a good scripty will and should make note of certain "problems".... key word... should... 

  You can't stuff the S- - -  back in the donkey's ass.....

Again,  love your hard work and effort..... you sound like a thorough and well rounded sound mixer... maybe too thorough...... You will never be in trouble doing too much.... good stuff Philip....

[Mick]

Sometimes it just comes down to which do you prefer, too much information or not enough. It's a no brainer for me. Old school methods, digital age, automatic eternal unalterable information notwithstanding, sometimes something will slip through the cracks, real or virtual, which will make the seemingly irrelevant and inconsequential important again. Or something.

Regards

Mick

[Philip Perkins]

Quote from Philip......

"We pretty much have always grabbed TC starts, as requested by post.  Nowadays with multi-cam HD shoots where the cameras roll and roll without stopping, it is important to grab a TC address when the scene # of the shot is changed with out a camera stop.  I also like having the TC numbers so I can review things that happened in those long takes.  On shoots where there is no telecine--audio goes straight to the edit system, the TC addresses are much welcomed by the editors"

Again, I would let someone else labor over that  "grabbing a TC address" stuff....  It's actually someones job, I try to concentrate on my mix.... 

As for reviewing what happened......  who cares.... it's done...  let the kind folks in post deal with it.... Again,  a good scripty will and should make note of certain "problems".... key word... should... 

  You can't stuff the S- - -  back in the donkey's ass.....

Again,  love your hard work and effort..... you sound like a thorough and well rounded sound mixer... maybe too thorough...... You will never be in trouble doing too much.... good stuff Philip....

I forgot to add that I also do plenty of "little" shoots where my TC notes are the only notes--no scripty.

Philip Perkins