Jump to content

Multi Track Recordist Sound Credit?


ptalsky

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I just watched a movie that was shot in 1996, and in the sound department there was someone credited as the multi-track recordist (this was in the same section of the credits as the boom ops and production mixer).  Was this a short lived credit created after the Zaxcom's started showing up?  I've never seen this credit before...

Thanks!

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I just watched a movie that was shot in 1996, and in the sound department there was someone credited as the multi-track recordist (this was in the same section of the credits as the boom ops and production mixer).  Was this a short lived credit created after the Zaxcom's started showing up?  I've never seen this credit before...

Thanks!

Phil

I don't believe anything to do with Zaxcom or any of the others. This credit, which appeared on several movies dating way back to mid-1970's, usually referred to speciality recordings done for the movie that were not the normal sound recording team (that would have been using, 99% of the time, a ONE TRACK mono Nagra. The credit for "Multi-track" anything usually referred to the presence of a remote recording facility (the Record Plant's remote recording truck was used a lot, as was Guy Charbineux's Le Mobile) for large scale multitrack recordings, often concerts and such.

The other times that a multitrack credit was given was on the Robert Altman films that were the first to use multitrack (up to 16 tracks on "Nashville") as a standard approach to the production dialog. On the earliest films for Altman, no one else had done this sort of thing, and so many things needed to be invented, designed, built and configured to make this possible. Jim Webb, no retired (and not to be confused with Jimmy Webb in the music world) pioneered most of this stuff and did the majoritry of the early Altman movies. On a few of those films, credit was in fact given to the person or persons who helped operate all that gear.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I just watched a movie that was shot in 1996, and in the sound department there was someone credited as the multi-track recordist (this was in the same section of the credits as the boom ops and production mixer).  Was this a short lived credit created after the Zaxcom's started showing up?  I've never seen this credit before...

Thanks!

Phil

Interesting to see how Zaxcom invented multi-tracking.

Always at the leading edge.

Scott Harber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to see how Zaxcom invented multi-tracking.

Always at the leading edge.

Scott Harber

Zaxcom  did not invent multitrack production recording (read my post below about the Altman movies) but Zaxcom was the first to introduce easy file based multitrack recording for motion picture work. Prior to the Deva it was either a Tascam DA 88/98 (NOT ever in a Porta-Brace I might add) or a full ProTools rig. Although Zaxcom did not invent multitrack and other companies did come on the scene with comparable recorders, still to this day people in post refer to having gotten "Deva files" on the last job, even if the production mixer was using a PD-6.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Zaxcom did not invent multitrack and other companies did come on the scene with comparable recorders, still to this day people in post refer to having gotten "Deva files" on the last job, even if the production mixer was using a PD-6.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Where I come from, we call them BWFs. Or are you using the .Zax files?

Scott Harber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I come from, we call them BWFs. Or are you using the .Zax files?

Scott Harber

No, not .zax files. You missed my point. Like Kleenex and TiVO, many people (primarily in post who are not really so concerned with what machine we are using, as long as they get the files they expect) refer to ALL non-linear production work, regardless of what machine is used, as "Deva work" or "Deva files". That's all I'm saying. It is a measure of the impact and influence Zaxcom and the Deva has had on our industry (remember as well that Glen Sanders and Zaxcom received Academy Award for technical achievement with the introduction of the Deva).

That's all, no biggie...  where I come from we call them BWF also.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "BWFs" still gets me the "oh no, here comes a nerdfest" look from producers around here.  What I say is "audio-files-that-can-go-directly-into-your-Final-Cut-from-the-DVD-I'll-make-you-your-editor-knows-all-about-it".  That seems to work ok.

Philip Perkins

Hi All,

Where I was initially heading was taking a jab at folks implying that Zaxcom invented multi-track recording and perpetuating the notion that the title should be "Zaxcom Operator".

I just can't resist taking shots at the lack of humbleness and overstated self-importance that I read when I see posts about the Deva.

There are some very cool things about the Deva but, in my world, there are much better solutions to recording audio sold from companies that have 1/8 the smoke and mirrors.

I've never heard the term Deva files but maybe someday when we are only recording a backup on set and everything is sent via wifi or ? Zaxcom will be there telling me what's around the corner while not finishing their current product line.

Scott Harber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I was initially heading was taking a jab at folks implying that Zaxcom invented multi-track recording and perpetuating the notion that the title should be "Zaxcom Operator".

I just can't resist taking shots at the lack of humbleness and overstated self-importance that I read when I see posts about the Deva.Scott Harber

I really do not think that the "heading" you were taking, using this question about multitrack recording as an opportunity to take a "jab" at anyone or any company, is appropriate here. There was nothing in the initial post nor subsequent replies that would lead us into a discussion of the merits of the companies or their products, whether it be the Deva from Zaxcom, PD-6 from Fostex, Cantar from Aaton or Metacorder from Gallery Software. My replies, which could be viewed as "defending" Zaxcom, were intended only to illuminate certain aspdects of the history of the use of multi-track for production recordings. The statements regarding that files have been referred to as "Deva files" (even when made by a different recorder) is a fact and happened on numerous occassions. It is quite possible that those who have NOT experienced this semantic "mistake" coming form post production supervisors have not been involved in file based multi-track production recording as long as I have been.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys (are there any gals here?),

I didn't mean to start anything.  I didn't do my homework, and look into it further before I posted my question.  It just seemed like the timing was about the same (first Devas and this particular movie).  Since I'm still stuck (for the next couple of weeks anyway) on just two tracks, anything more than two is goodness.

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is quite possible that those who have NOT experienced this semantic "mistake" coming form post production supervisors have not been involved in file based multi-track production recording as long as I have been.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

There it is. A serious lack of humbleness. I guess it is obvious that I don't use non-linear and therefore don't deal w/ post sups. who know NL/filebased systems.

Wow, now I feel really bad. Gosh, a zealot calling me out.

Scott Harber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never claimed to be humble but I am not a zealot either. I'm going to get tough here since I AM the moderator, and yes, "call you out" (which I thought I had already done by pointing out your mis-use of this topic) and ask you to refrain from continuing this subversion of the topic.

In an effort to be fair to everyone, if there is a general consensus that this forum needs a section where people can vent their real or imagined frustrations, act unreasonably and thoughtlessly, or just blow their own horn loudly and for no particular reason, I will put up such a section. I don't know what I will call it, but like everything else here, people will be free to roam around that section or not.

I do not appreciate topics being hijacked and the questions being asked not being answered. There are more than enough opportunities elsewhere, like RAMPS, where this sort of thing has become the norm.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler - Moderator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the last thing I will say on this topic (which we know, of course, is no longer the topic as named, but hey, that's the deal)

The comment about others not knowing "non-linear" (and that I have been at it longer than most) was really, honestly, a statement to answer the original comment of mine about "Deva files." The period of time that I was referring to, when production supervisors were talking about ALL non-linear work as "Deva files", was the period of time when the other machines were only just beginning to come into play. This was a time when many of the people who ARE doing non-linear work now (and are of course dealing with post supervisors) were not even considering adopting this way of work (with ANY machine). So, these people were not even exposed to this element of history that I was commenting on. Now, fortunately, things have come around to what the early Deva adopters said over 8 years ago --- non-linear is the way we will do our work. You are right that now most post supervisors DO talk about the files themselves, the BWF, and not so much the machine they were made on, and this is a good thing for all of us.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

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...