Jump to content

The way I learned


old school

Recommended Posts

I have had the pleasure n frustration of teaching others the art of sound recording for film. It is a long process that really only makes sense when one does it a few million times. Doing is learning. When I first started learning,(still learning), the craft, I had an advantage that most of the new generation does not. We had dailies.  Shoot all day and on the following day at lunch or after work we saw n heard our work projected to a large screen and over a simi nice sound system. What a great way to learn what worked or didn't. Not just the sound. Picture, acting, story telling, directing, all of it. Better than any film school for learning all aspects of the craft. So how do you learn your reference of sound and picture today? Video assist? Other than Hal Ashby, none of the films I worked on even had video assist. I left films for commercials in 1987 where video assist is everything and it is a valid reference for the small screen, but is it the way to learn sound for picture recording. I think a lot of what I hear in commercials and on TV has a too dry, zero perspective, radio mic sound. That obviously could be due too many factors. But I also think some have lost their ear for room or perspective cause they never see it work with picture. I saw a commercial we did, on TV the other night. We almost bailed out on the schoeps and went to radios cause the background was considerable. I'm glad we didn't cause the spot sounded real and good. Like a sound designer would do it if it was looped and he was making the picture sound like it looked. I certainly could of iso'd 2 rf trks and the boom and sent it down the line, or mixed all the elements for the scene, but it would not of sounded better than the one mic operated by a pro. I knew this at the time, but almost went the other way, over thinking what I knew to be true. That is experience of many years, but how does a newer sound person learn what works and why? Lately I have been advising new mixers and boomers to take the work home on their file based recorders, and listen to it back over speakers, in a room, with their eyes shut. This is something we could never do in the good old dayz. Does it sound like it looked. Is it to dry? Wet? It helps in developing a reference that listening with headphones in an environment doesn't. Not as good as dailies, but better than nothing IMHO.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post !  I agree that so many things sound sterile and unrealistic.  I am  a 100% over the shoulder ENG/News/Reality Mixer and the over usage of RF mic's is a a definate plague these days.  So many young producers have freaked out on me when I choose a Schoeps or a 416 over a radio mic for interviews.  This is all they see, and don't understand the concept of high quality boom mics and natural sound with perspective as you say.  I find that I second guess myself sometime on what is right.  I wouldn't say that it is the new mixers fault, but the un-educated producers that force the overuse of RF mics because they feel it is the safest way to do things. I so many times have given into the politics of making the producer happy by using a lav for an interview that I end up compromising on what I know is the best quality.  It is the producers that place trust int the people they hie to make the right decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been bringing my work (mostly TV/video) home for a couple of years now, first on an MD recorder and now on a small file based recorder.  It has really helped my confidence in what I do!  Many times on set I have had directors 'cut' because of BG noise/airplanes etc... and I was able to say "nope! sounds good, keep going"  The look on their faces is usually of disbelief, and I get a lot of comments about how "easy going" of a mixer I am (usually concerning BG noise).  I attribute this to actually listening to my work and using it as a reference for future work.  I guess what I am trying to say is, it has helped me determine what I am picking up through the mic, not just bleed through my headphones.

-JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been bringing my work (mostly TV/video) home for a couple of years now, first on an MD recorder and now on a small file based recorder.  It has really helped my confidence in what I do!  Many times on set I have had directors 'cut' because of BG noise/airplanes etc... and I was able to say "nope! sounds good, keep going"  The look on their faces is usually of disbelief, and I get a lot of comments about how "easy going" of a mixer I am (usually concerning BG noise).  I attribute this to actually listening to my work and using it as a reference for future work.  I guess what I am trying to say is, it has helped me determine what I am picking up through the mic, not just bleed through my headphones.

-JP

There is nothing like listening to your tracks on a good monitoring system. Bad stuff that you hear on headphones just dissapears when heard on speakers especially LF background sounds and even some planes, trains and automobiles. I know it's always a judgement call but experience is best guide. OTOH Nervous producers can make you crazy.

Eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Rob,

Here's what I do in those sit-down interview situations when I just KNOW that the boom is the right way to go but the producer REALLY wants to use the lav. I tell them that I will gladly hide the lav on the subject, but I would really like to hang a boom overhead to double mic them on seperate channels in case the clothing noise is just too much. Then I can just turn down the lav channel when I "hear" all of the scratching as the subject sits there before the actual interview. I can casually mention it to the producer as they are distractedly prepping their questions and they always say OK.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest afewmoreyears

Agree with crew...

  Mixing a quality boom mic really sounds nice.....  And is always my preference.  But so many times this ability to do what you know will sound nice is hampered by what goes on during the filming process.....

  Iv'e been in 2 days of diners and resturants..... lots of glass, standing and sitting talent, artsy wide shots,  just 2 people talking and TONS of Traffic and set noise.... stuff that can't be controlled.....

  2 radios like Crew said he almost did....  thats what we went with....  not because of ease or convenience, but because it was the only way to deliver fat audio, with little background noise, no reflections, no shadow problems and with no change  of audio during the scene...  consistency for what this was... a commercial...

  On a commercial you are selling something in 15, 30 or 60 sec.,  you need the tracks to be fat and to hear them clearly....  all of it...   

  Depends on the show as well... A scene for a film or TV might have you attack it differently...

  These are the decisions that are summed up and decided on early in the day due to one thing.... experience....  Sometimes a boom, cause it sounds so good,  sometimes a radio or two cause you must.....  when to decide and on what for what reason.....   

Doing the wrong thing over the years teaches you the right things....  thats how I learned....  unless you are blessed with someone to take you under a wing and show you...... but even then....  the trial and error I think are most effective...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

Nice thread old school.when I 1st started (19 yr old runner/ p.a.) I helped with the dailies for a commercial company. Coast Efx (you ever work for them?) they had 2 stages/facilities, one in Ho.by the Formosa and one in the s.f. valley lankershim/camarillo) that was exciting at that time to me. late night film drops, and early morning pick ups at cfi. assisting the projector operator, and actually watching what you just worked on, what seemed like a few hours hrs before.

I remember just a few years ago, OK maybe close to 10, you would use wireless as your last resort. always boom the shot first. then if all else fails, use the wireless. maybe when "Reality TV" became popular, thats when wireless lavs became the 1st choice?

we never really rented wireless systems as much, now wireless systems are the most rented items at this time. I even hear now that mixers back in the day, used to only have 4 wireless at most. now they must carry a lot more rf's to compete and be ready for the wide & tight shots.

later,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey AFMY, I agree that it is all fact based, on the ground descions that leads us to make whatever call we make on a shoot or shot, but I have never heard a fat recording on a Rf rig. Signal to noise, sure. But not fat. My motto with sound is, 'if they like it, I love it.'

CrewC

P S) The last 60 I did was most likely in the 80's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Okay I've had a lot of thoughts about this so I'm going to rant.  This is a discussion about natural boom vs. unnatural lavs.  Obviously a boom always sounds the most natural.  But do we always want natural?  For commercials and reality shows - NO!  We want to hear what their saying because we're being sold a product.  For a scripted narrative - not always!  A cooper's preamps color the sound, make it "warmer" than say an SQN or SD mixer, but on a movie we want that unnatural warmth right?  A human voice NEVER sounds as good to my naked ear as it does through a Schoeps.  But that's what we want when we see a movie.  I maintain we don't want real life up there on the screen!

  Anyhow, a natural sound these days on my movies is tons of traffic or air that can't be turned off, or a ridiculous amount of other background noise due to the wideness of the lense and height in which the boom must be.  So I use lavs for wides and give a mix track of unnatural (closer) proximity.  Now I put the lavs low (center of chest) and the Sankens/Countrymans don't sound too "lav-ey" at that level, and I mix in the wide boom sound pretty heavy on the wide shots.  Sometimes there's a slight echo but it's a pretty natural amount of unnatural clarity on the lines.

  I do listen to some takes on my sweet stereo at home and I'm amazed at how much the headphones on set amplify the problems, but I don't care - I'm trying to deliver the best sound so that a post dialog editor can tell the story the best way.  Many times that means wires.  In fact for master wide shots, it means always wires.

  Anyway all the post houses have been asking for 2 track dailies mixes, so I give them the boom iso on channel 2 so they can use that during the picture cutting if they want that noisy natural sound.

  I WISH I could see dailies projected on a big speaker system, that musta been grand.  Ah those good old days I missed...  My favorite sound for films is late 70s to 80s, and for music the 50s - 60s...

  Dan Izen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figure that for the wacky jobs we do that recording prefade isos (mostly of radios) enables me to record the boom as well--even in marginal situations.  When we do this, at some extra hassle and expense, I feel like we've covered the bases and that if they agree with us they'll use the boom and if they are folks who like wireless lavs and no-perspective (and there are many in this category, esp the Young Ones) then they will feel like we gave them what they wanted.  Many of these directors feel like perspective is a post audio process, and that even though the shot is wideish good sound is always CU.  Oh well, it's their movie.

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Anyhow, a natural sound these days on my movies is tons of traffic or air that can't be turned off, or a ridiculous amount of other background noise...

  Dan Izen

What a treat to read all these posts --- great topic with many terrific ideas and comments expressed here. I will comment on most of this when I have the time (going in for our last day on this movie and it is going to be a doozie --- the will try and do every shot we didn't get over the last 3 months). I will say that this whole notion of "natural" sound for picture can, and should, be discussed at length, and as Crew and RVD point out, it all starts with LISTENING. When I say a Schoeps sound more natural than let's say a lav buried under clothing, this is fairly obvious, but one thing that is important is we need to know what natural means, what it sound like, and then use what ever tools we have to try and create that natural sound (assuming that natural is the goal). It is true that in certain mediums, and for certain sorts of scenes (like in possibly a TV commercial or a reality show) natural is not the goal. The other big factor in todays dominant moviemaking procedures (including, almost most importantly the choice of shooting locations) is the obstacle presented to us when the goal is to record something natural sounding. As my father once said, "filmmaking is an unnatural act" --- almost everything we do is a fiction, an artifice, but when the desire is to produce the perception of reality, some reality, the artistry comes with knowing how to perform all these unnatural acts, creatively and in such a way that we engage an audience in the desired way.

-  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Dan, my intent for the post was how learning a reference for our work has changed, not lav v. boom. Certainly not what seems or is natural, right or wrong. As pointed out, film making is an unnatural act. There is no right or wrong to do it if you get paid and re hired. As for hearing what they are saying, well that is job one in all the formats... On every shot, not always...  I was really trying to point out that any dogma of doing the job as compared with trying to make it sound like it looks is the problem. How do you learn what sounds right. How do you obtain that reference. A shit load of what we record is what makes it to the final cut...  Doing it a lot helps. Knowing all aspects of filmaking is better. Doing all of them is better yet. Using the mass between the L n R phones is best of all and that never ends.

I have radioed them all, big n small. Multi tracked 14 people w no script and made a 2 trk mix. Boomed or mixed a million hours of dialog. When it worked for the shot I was satisfied, even happy, when it didn't, I tried to figure out what went south. I wish I knew the answer to my question, but I imagine it is as different as all of us and every shot we record. I think reviewing the work in a clean environment after the fact is a plus for learning. Trying different things or ways is a good option when possible. Staying in the game might be the answer. Live n learn.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest afewmoreyears

Crew by fat I meant only big sig to noise.....    Strong content.....  Not wall to wall freqs.....  Perhaps I mis-spoke.... but you know what I mean.....  Strong content for a Commercial spot....  Not dripping fat..... but fat....  Enough said......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey AFMY's, I was just riffing. My definition of fat at this moment would be say... Sam Elliot on a scheops in a good enviroment as compared to a lav in the same room.  We should start a new thread on sound/film terms. A soundapedia sort of thing where we all shape the meaning of the definition. Or a multiple choice test for some of the bro's n sisters. I'm too lazy to help much, but I came up with the idea, so if it makes $$$$$$$, I'm in.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came into production sound from a background that began in recording studios then moved into audio post work and finally into production sound. The days in the recording studio gave me the opportunity to hone my critical listening skills and listen to a wide variety of mics on a wide variety of sources in a controlled environment. There's nothing like being able to set up 3 or 4 mics for a v/o or a vocal, doing an a quick a/b listening test and finding which mic works best for the voice at hand and what the different sonic signatures are for various mics. Great ear training.

When I moved into audio post I was working on a lot of lifestyle type tv shows, documentaries and corporate/industrial videos. This allowed me to listen in the control room to lots of production sound recorded in less than ideal conditions. However, far too much of my time in post was spent trying to make poorly recorded location sound usable. Most of the blame fell upon the producers who always moaned that they didn't have the budget for a proper soundman (but always had enough money for me to spend way too much time trying to fix it.) It was finally another producers plea of "Can you fix the sound?" that prompted my snarky reply, "Yeah, hire me to do it right in the first place". And on his next production, he did. That got me started in production sound. Because I was still doing post work I actually had the chance to post jobs that I had recorded in the field and that soon taught me what I could get away with and what I couldn't.

For the last decade I've been out on location recording those docs, corporate videos and lifestyle/reality type shows. My point of reference is my ears and the twenty years I spent listening in control rooms before I ever picked up a boom pole and tossed a mixer over my shoulder. Production sound work has been the most challenging hat I've worn in my sound recording/mixing career and I couldn't imagine having done it without the past experience I had had.

That's how I learned.

And for my ears - boom 1st, lavs only when booming is not possible. As I remember reading somewhere many years ago "the lavaliere is the first choice of the lazy soundman."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Joe. that is an interesting road you took to production sound. Like RVD, my brother Moe started transferring 1/4 in to mag stock for dailies, so he developed an ear for what others work sounded like before he ever rolled a field recorder(Nagra). He also had many conversations with editors and their assistants, as well a prod mixers. Learning all aspects of sound recording and how post uses it is a great education that can continue forever if one wants it too. I started recording music in my home studio 6 or 7 years ago, and I can't measure how much more I have learned about recording. Some of that has found its way into the day job for sure. Feels like it's keeping me out of a rut job wise. I also have a modest production co. that makes product videos, docs, and even a few projects for fun. I started out years ago to become an editor, glad I didn't cause I love being a prod mixer and before that, a boomer, but having a second career where I do it all scratches many itches I didn't even know I had.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the lavaliere is the first choice of the lazy soundman."

Several years ago I received a phone call from the post producer on "West Wing" asking if I was interested in mixing the show. I was into season two of "CSI" at the time and wasn't tempted, and of course the Warner Bros mandate about using their sound equipment on their lot was a brick wall too, but that's another thread. The reason she gave for wanting me on the show was that she remembered while on a previous series that we'd done together how well we had made the wireless mics sound. This was back in the day when Trims/Trams were the apex of the lavalier hierarchy. The point is that wires and lavalier mics are lambasted unnecessarily by those who are perhaps less experienced in their usage. I've heard many and varied opinions on their sonic characteristics and everyone has a viewpoint

that's germane but a lavalier is a very useful and great sounding microphone when used correctly, especially indoors when it can be "moistened" to sound more natural and some judicious EQ is applied.

I've never made a lavalier sound as nice as a Neumann, but I've come close enough to be offered a job on the strength of it. I agree that a boom microphone will always be the first choice when framing allows, but the perceived "gap" in quality between prime condensers and their smaller cousins is, in my opinion, not as large as some audio mixers believe.

As for the lavalier being the mic of choice for a lazy soundman...I've always found it much harder to acheive good sound from a lavalier than from a boom simply because of the clothing/concealment issues, apart from any sound quality concerns. A very useful tool in the box especially for me on a show that is extremely wireless dependent.

IMO

Regards

MIck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   As usual i really admire an respect your posts Mick . But could you please explain what you mean by " moistening " a lavaliere to sound more natural ? As this is a term with which i and many others are not

familiar with .

Thanks,

Kevin sorensen

In studio parlance a track that is "moistened" or wet is one with echo or reverb added. I think what Mick is referring to is to have a boom mic open to add a bit of natural room sound to the track so the lav sounds less like a typical lav. Another way to get a more open sound with a lav is to place it (if the shot allows) somewhat lower on the talent and away from the chest/throat area. Doing a "Broadway" placement (in the hair above the center of the forehead) is another good way of eliminating the typical "up close and personal" sound of a lav.

Eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Well there is nothing new under the sun really, just peoples pet words . I have used these techniques for years . As , have many . If the purpose of this forum is to communicate , i think it would be nice if folks would clarified their terms more often , as i can become easily bewildered .

KevinS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Well there is nothing new under the sun really, just peoples pet words . I have used these techniques for years . As , have many . If the purpose of this forum is to communicate , i think it would be nice if folks would clarified their terms more often , as i can become easily bewildered .

KevinS.

No need to get bewildered on this one. The most basic terms, relating to sound and the presence of reverberation or delay, has always been "wet" or "dry" or somewhere along the continuum. "Wet" being obviously dripping in reverb, "Dry" being devoid of reverb.

-  JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started in this end of the sound business in 1996. I'd only been in this country for two years, having had a jingle composition business in Miami which was dying a rather ignominious death at the time. I'd learned quite a bit about the recording process by having been a touring musician for many years and being involved in several albums culminating in a house producer job at Philips records in London. This was about 1973. Engineering at that time was mostly on two inch twenty four track Sonys and Studers mixed down to 1/4" The glory days of analog (analogue where I'm from!)

When I first came to this country I played in a variety of bands until I was inducted into the film business by a process too lengthy to include here. I learned the basic protocols of production sound by being a P.A. in Miami for a couple of years, learning the commercial, documentary and ultimately the feature making process from ground level. This is a learning experience that I would recommend to anyone wanting to gain access to any department involved in the film making process. An overall understanding of the various links in the cinematic chain is essential I think, to being competent in whatever aspect of the business interests you, sound or otherwise.

So after booming for some local mixers in Miami and eventually becoming a mixer, the education I gained was because of the unselfish attitudes of guys that encouraged me and corrected me in my aspirations to be a better sound man. This unconditional sharing of expertise, rather like what occurs in this forum, is a massive part of the "on-the-job-training" that forms most of the collective experience that we have. Many movies of the week and whacky wild and too-numerous-to-relate episodes of "Unsolved Mysteries" later I enjoy the relative quiet and uncomplicated single/double camera TV show that I have now mixed for eight years.

I'm not completely happy and content as a sound man, I have other ambitions that may or may not pan out, but I'm grateful that I have the opportunity to explore other "ladders" and attempt to move up.

I appreciate the help and advice of which I've been the beneficiary over the years and I try to share as much of my own expertise as I can with anyone who shows an interest. Balance in the universe is achieved a little bit at a time.

I miss John Lennon.

Regards

MIck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I also came throught the recording studio/post production route mentioned earlier. It still amuses me today that so many people see this as a counter-intuitive path; that the logical progression for an audio professional is to start out in the field and then "progress" into the comfy confines of the studio.

What a load of hogwash! The reason that I moved into the field is the constant array of daily challenges that push me into mastering my craft. I had become almost complacent in the studio - my little audio kingdom was well and truly subjugated, with all the problems solved and my daily challenge only to sustain the ongoing business of keeping a facility profitable.

I guess the fact that I am constantly monitoring newsgroups like this one is an indicator that I have maintained the passion after eight years on location. However, I do believe that 12 years of hearing the work of fantastic location professionals through my studio monitors was an invaluable tool in learning what makes great production sound. Of course, I no longer bitch and moan about "how could those location guys stuff up such an easy job"...

And the added bonus is that my post studio is still rolling on quite happily without me spending a day in a room with no windows!

James Nowiczewski

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...