The importance of lavs from the POV of post.

[atheisticmystic]

Or we can meet at the Tender Glow.

We love it in Granada Hills.

Holy Shit...do you guys go there "ironically" as the hipsters say ?

GH is great indeed.

[Henchman]

Holy Shit...do you guys go there "ironically" as the hipsters say ?

GH is great indeed.

No.,it's actually quite fun. And Mike the bartender is a hoot.

[RPSharman]

I watch "Blue Bloods", and notice from time to time a close shot that sounds a bit wide. Two cameras probably. But I'd much rather have that occasionally, than have an all dry, lav-like show. I'd guess they don't even wire the actors indoors at all. I like the way the show sounds. My wife doesn't notice the "wide" boom on that show, but she certainly notices bad ADR, bad dialog editing, and clothing noise on others. All of which are the result of just mixing the wires with not enough time.

Let's also remember they are human beings we're asking to wear radio mics. Our jobs rely on their performances, and I for one hate the practice of invading their space just because. I think it's rude. If they mumble or overlap or ad-lib, or for some other technical reason we require a lav, then fine. Actors love not having to wear a wire all day, and are far more inclined to help us get good dialog on the boom if faced with choice of that or being wired every time they walk on set.

I can appreciate the time it takes to match, but the audiences don't notice anyway. So in my book, play the boom a bit wide if you need from time to time. Then just use the boom throughout. In the end, it'll probably take less time and sound better. But that's just the opinion of someone who watches WAY too much TV. Boom ops will remain valid and valued and employed, and we won't need to put wires on everyone and buy huge mixers and record dozens of tracks. It's all getting a bit stupid.

It's no wonder the respect for our department has waned, if all "they" want us to do is record a bunch of lavs. And I don't mean you, Henchman. I know you appreciate the work of a good boom operator.

I say get 2 booms out there on every shot we can. Show everyone that we have value, can record the show properly, have it sound nice, and save money in the long run.

[Henchman]

Those are my rambling thoughts on it. I know Phil and Patrick. They are top sound guys. If they're using lavs in the mix at times, it's for a reason for those particular shots. But if Post is just grabbing unmonitored ISO's of the lavs and disregarding the work Phil and Patrick are putting into the Mix, I would question that decision. 

 

Wel, you can question that decision. but when a dialog editors has 2 days to cut a 42 minute episode, they're going to have to make soem decisions , and do it quick.

I have told the editors that cut my shows to disregard the mix track.

Go with the boom, and if the boom has issues, THEN use the lav.

why do I ask them to disregard the boom?

Because I ran into way too many phase issues with mix tracks. As well as the accumulated noise from two or more mixed mics.

And trying to match ADR to phasey tracks is almost impossible. And takes way too much time.

The number one responsibility I have as a dialog mixer, is to make sure the dialog is clear and intelligible.

Because that's what the clients want.

[Henchman]

It just seems the blanket "all lavs" or "60% lavs" is not how most of us work on set. There may be shows that are heavy improv or some other manner that demand a lot of lavs. But I think most of us are trying to build the sound to match the shots we are doing. If in Post, you have shots with sound that doesn't match the perspective, the issue is in the decision making on set. Always throwing a bunch of lavs in is not the best solution in my opinion.

 

Joshua, the point being, is that it doesn't matter how YOU want to work on set.

It's about how the tarcks work in then edit room.

And again, talking about TV specifically, it's about getting clean, intelligible dialog.

And the producers really don't care about the perspective.

Do you know how often I am asked if I can get ridnof all the roomverb on a line?

Guess what, we will then cut the lav.

[RPSharman]

I have told the editors that cut my shows to disregard the mix track.

Go with the boom, and if the boom has issues, THEN use the lav.

why do I ask them to disregard the boom?

Because I ran into way too many phase issues with mix tracks. As well as the accumulated noise from two or more mixed mics.

And trying to match ADR to phasey tracks is almost impossible. And takes way too much time.

Are you saying that neither you nor your dialog editor listen to mix tracks at all?? You simply take the boom ISO or lav ISO for every line of dialog? And if that's the case, your dialog editor probably just delivers you a cut with full lavs, so you probably don't get to listen to the boom very often at all. You're taking your dialog editor's decision that at some point in the scene the boom had a "problem", so the whole scene is now mixed to the lavs without considering what could be a simple repair to the mix track. I can't believe this is either better or more efficient.

Are you truly telling us that the mix is so frequently bad, and you require so much ADR you find difficult to match, that you find it faster to ignore it all together? This is pretty shocking. Shocking, I mean, that you have been forced to come to this conclusion.

[Toy Robot]

Excellent thread.

[stevegrider]

I have had post tell me even before the project started that they didn't care at all about me doing a mix track. They told me it was their plan to mix using isos. I have never heard post complain when I give them one anyway, I take no offense if they want to change it. In a multiple camera situation, I can only guess what the perspective will be in the final cut.

[soundtrane]

I say get 2 booms out there on every shot we can. 

 

+1

[soundtrane]

In a multiple camera situation, I can only guess what the perspective will be in the final cut.

 

Not just multi-cam situations, but also in situations where the director shoots so much coverage that it is impossible to tell which shot is going to be in the edit. 

[Mirror]

It seems this is the muck that reality TV has dragged us all to. The lowest common denominator. A place where boom is on the left and all wires are mashed up on the right masquerading as a mix track. Hell, I guess if that was what I was forced to listen to I'd bypass it and go straight to the iso's too. After a year of doing that you treat all shows the same and never bother to check to see if the production sound mixer has any talent by listening to his mix.

George Orwell was right after all I guess, We are no longer individuals that should create. We've been reduced to a number - an iso track.

[taylormadeaudio]

You can have as many booms as you want on set and it won't amount to any more useable production dialog if the Director/DP/Producers insist on a shooting style and pace (lighting & scene coverage) that are not condusive to properly placed boom mics.

So, if the prod. Sound crew is forced into using lavs even 50% of the time, they might as well use them all the time - I'll take the consistently tight lav sound throughout an episode over obviously replaced or ping ponging between airy and tight sounding dialog - any day of the week. You get used to it, and it's really not an issue if a show is compelling. "Perspective Sound" is a great ideal, but sadly it's becoming more and more of a pipe dream.

Anything that draws ones attention away from the story should be avoided - but people are already used to the consistently tight sound of "all lavs" these days - many even prefer it when it comes to important dialog that is so frequently hard to understand in shows that favor loud M&E mixes over discernible dialog.

I will always fight for my Boom Ops to get better than a snowballs chance in hell at decent mic placement, and even when it's not possible, I would like to think the post folks are at least feathering in the boom tracks as mentioned above, to provide at

least a little of the natural tone of "what actually happened" on set that day - in optimum cases, it definitely adds to the realism... in less-than-optimum cases, it reveals the poor location choices, the poor camera choices (looking at you, Red), the poor lighting choices (old noisy heads and ballasts right on set - usually with 100' of head feeder cable all coiled up right next to it) and just the overall circus that (especially low-budget) production has become.

The model has changed - the degree to which we approve or like it is irrelevant - the degree to which we are able to adapt and provide for our clients and the viewer is quite relevant.

Though his numbers might be inaccurate, Marks point to keep the lavs tip top is quite viable - IMHO.

~tt

BTW, Robert -- I share your concern for the actors' comfort and privacy -- and do absolutely EVERYTHING in my power to assure them -- but frankly, it's part of their craft, and I'm tired of the whiny attitude that a tiny little lav mic somehow so greatly inhibits their ability to act, that they can't cope with it and have to let everyone know how the fucking sound guy is messing up their career.

Get over it, sweetheart (not you, Robert) - it's called work for a reason - how about that huge fucking noisy camera right in your face? Does that "distract" you?... or all those really hot lights shining on you? Do they make you uncomfortable? As to your privacy - do you really think we give a rats ass who you slept with over the weekend?

As long as we're all alert, and the AD staff is doing their job and letting us know when an actor is going off set with a radio mic, it really shouldn't be an issue.

sorry... <rant off>

[Henchman]

Are you saying that neither you nor your dialog editor listen to mix tracks at all?? You simply take the boom ISO or lav ISO for every line of dialog? And if that's the case, your dialog editor probably just delivers you a cut with full lavs, so you probably don't get to listen to the boom very often at all. You're taking your dialog editor's decision that at some point in the scene the boom had a "problem", so the whole scene is now mixed to the lavs without considering what could be a simple repair to the mix track. I can't believe this is either better or more efficient.

Are you truly telling us that the mix is so frequently bad, and you require so much ADR you find difficult to match, that you find it faster to ignore it all together? This is pretty shocking. Shocking, I mean, that you have been forced to come to this conclusion.

Pretty much yes to the above.

There is no time.

And yes, it IS more efficient.

There is absolutely no timematnallmin today's post schedule for the average TV show, to spend the time going through listening to what's the best track to use. And given the fact that I have had too many issues whith phase, I would rather have the editor start with the boom, and when there is an issue, use a lav.

Going through a 42 minute show in pretty much a day, and getting it ready for a playback on day two. Cleaning up buzzes, hums whistles and noise on every line, doesn't allow for minute checking of available tracks.

So yes, I rely completely on the dialog editor and supervising sound editor to make those decisions before it reaches the stage.

Our last episode of 12 monkeys had 110 lines of ADR. Mostly due to low talkers and mumblers.

[taylormadeaudio]

Good LORD! Someone should say something more loudly! ; )

~tt

[Joshua Anderson]

If you take the approach of making the lavs work and then just hoping the a wide boom gets mixed in during Post, you may have the problem Henchman is talking about. Unless you're playing that boom in the mono mix with the lavs, you won't know if adding it later is just adding phase. 

 

But 1 day to Post a 42 minute show is ridiculous. How/when did Post get so reduced and marginalized? 

 

I still do hope that what I hand in is ready enough that stripping out my mix and rebuilding the entirety with the ISOs would be way more time intensive than building off of the mono mix I send in. What I want to work on set is what I think will work in the edit. I don't think of those two goals as being contradictory. 

 

Josh

[johngooch]

If, given that it is a foregone conclusion that the lavs have more importance than ever,  and if that is the case, then it needs to be shouted up the pipeline.  Producers need to know this from post standpoint.  And to quote somebody who is probably lurking here- it is the archer not the arrow.  To say make sure your wires are in good shape is only addressing a fraction of the issue  The importance of skill and experience of the "utility" needs to be emphasized.  It is an old argument as a production mixer to have to explain to a producer why they deserve the same rate as Boom but also that we need to be more selective with the position and it should not always go to whoever is available on a given day    Some producers get it- some (TV) shows will go to distant locations and not take their 1st unit mixer but they will take their utility.  Mostly for actors comfort but still the importance of that position is being recognized.  

 

 With the ridiculous schedules tv post has, sounds like we have more time per scene to get it right.  Still won't give up on a mix track.  

 

Low talking is a director/talent problem-- obviously we inherit it.. 

[Henchman]

Joshua, it's basically one day to mix. Dialog editors are getting roughly 2 days for the dialog edit.

[Jan McL]

I've not read the most recent 10 posts but feel compelled to chime in on this since it's been eating at me since it started.

 

Deciding how to shoot and "use" sound comes from the top down.

 

This is clearly a trend, but so are a lot of other things this digital world allows, but old ways have a different flavor and authenticity. 

 

Not our choice. It IS our choice whether to do work like that.

 

I have chosen and developed a style that it's my guess if the bean counters found it fiscally offensive, I would get a memo. Maybe it's a different budget configuration. Yeah.

 

It's my belief that I'm often hired because I catch the performances well and when performance and words matter (to quote a smart Southern gentleman I know) folks know they can count on me to get 'em if they let me.

 

Recent experiences have led me to add shooting style questions to the interview at the earliest optimal moment.

 

Based on this discussion, my retirement papers are being written else I will continue to find folks who wanna do it old school, and allow the budget to make it so.

[josephduemig]

Pretty much yes to the above.

There is no time.

And yes, it IS more efficient.

There is absolutely no timematnallmin today's post schedule for the average TV show, to spend the time going through listening to what's the best track to use. And given the fact that I have had too many issues whith phase, I would rather have the editor start with the boom, and when there is an issue, use a lav.

Going through a 42 minute show in pretty much a day, and getting it ready for a playback on day two. Cleaning up buzzes, hums whistles and noise on every line, doesn't allow for minute checking of available tracks.

So yes, I rely completely on the dialog editor and supervising sound editor to make those decisions before it reaches the stage.

Our last episode of 12 monkeys had 110 lines of ADR. Mostly due to low talkers and mumblers.

 

It's a shame that "Location tracking engineers" have so saturated the industry that the post folks have learned to trust the "boom" track over and above the "mix" track, which in my way of understanding it is the location mixer's way of saying to the post people, "Here, use this. I was specifically hired to save you time by giving you a single track that sounds the most like a movie/show." Anyone worth their salt as a "mixer" on set should be knowledgeable enough about the physics of sound to take phase issues into account when forming a course of action for recording a scene. 

 

What Erik and I find ourselves lamenting the most on set is the pervasive lack of preplanning. We've worked on so many shows lately where the powers that be (Director, AD team, DP even!) are kind of making up the coverage as they go along, with barely a shred of actual vision or purpose for the scene. We try to ask, "Okay, y'all, how do you envision the scene playing out on screen? Are we mostly going to live in the wide? Are we wanting the audience to feel close with the characters or as if they're watching from a distance? What other sounds do you envision populating and enhancing the world of this scene?" etc. etc. And the worst possible (and more common) answer we get is, "I don't know. We'll figure it out in post." 

 

When I boom, I listen to the full mix, because the mic I'm operating is often just one in an array of mics capturing a scene. I think of it like recording a live jazz band in a studio: Sometimes you can place one mic in the room and capture all the players in a good mix achieved through the skill of the musicians and the thoughtful placement of the instruments in the room relative to the mic. Other times you just can't hear a quieter instrument over the horns and the drums, and so you decide to use a ton of mics on each instrument individually, making sure that they are not out of phase with each other, and create a solid mix at the mixing board. Either way, you have to have an idea about how you want the music to sound in the end. If you don't, you're ceding your creative control of the sound to someone else. And 99 times out of 100, that someone else has a very different definition of "good sound" than your own. If you have no pride in your work and you're just doing it to get paid, well...fine. I just wouldn't exactly feel like a bastion of integrity if I charged what I charge and then provided little more than a haphazard mess of (possibly out of phase) tracks for some poor schmuck in post to clean up (or worse, NOT clean up). 

 

I've learned to no longer be unilaterally averse to using lavs frequently, because the reality is that we have to use them pretty frequently with the way folks are shooting. And I've learned to assess a scene, form a course of action, and stick to it. If we decide the boom won't work for a shot (a big wide or a  scene with lots of reflections, for example), we don't waste it recording an unusable track of far-off dialog. We find a place to position it so that it can record some nice clean, quiet air to give the scene a sense of space and rely on the lavs as our primary means of recording the dialog. 

 

Regardless of the strategy, the role of the production sound mixer must be an active roll on set. As active as the boom op's roll. To hire someone who merely slaps lavs on everyone and records only isos is a waste of money. Any PA or camera intern could do that with barely a half hour of instruction. 

[Christian Spaeth]

Get over it, sweetheart - it's called work for a reason - how about that huge fucking noisy camera right in your face? Does that "distract" you?... or all those really hot lights shining on you? Do they make you uncomfortable? As to your privacy - do you really think we give a rats ass who you slept with over the weekend?

I think I'll print that out and hang it, if not on my sound cart, then at least over my bed. Beautifully said, almost poetic!

[Henchman]

The importance of quality lavs.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr13/articles/it-0413.htm

Look, I'm not telling anyone how I WANT it to be.

I'm simply reporting on what reality is at the end of the chain.

And when you're sitting in the hotseat, and the producer is unhappy with the sound of the dialog in a scene, and why it's hard to hear. Guess who gets blamed.

Not the mumbling actor.

Not the director who didn't tell him to speak up.

Not the production mixer for not making sure the lav was working properly or placed properly.

But yours truly.

Mix Track for the picture editor to use in Avid.

 

ISO Tracks for the Dialogue Editor to use when the Sound Post starts months down the line.

 

Sound Sheets to express the 'ingredients' of the mix track to the dialogue editor so he/she knows what the Production Sound Mixer 

thought were the best options on the set.

[atheisticmystic]

...To hire someone who merely slaps lavs on everyone and records only isos is a waste of money. Any PA or camera intern could do that with barely a half hour of instruction. 

In Reality TV, that's the name of the game. There's not a single PA or camera intern on the planet who can grab my bag, grab my lavs, and jump into one of my jobs with 30 minutes of instruction.

 

Granted, you and yours are an order of magnitude beyond my skill level as a "recordist".

 

Best,

Steven

[RPSharman]

I sat in a TV mix watching a RRM struggle with mixing three lavs, which the dialog editor had delivered to the timeline. Full lav on each line. There was clothing noise on one, buried under a leather jacket on another, the third was great. I mixed the scene. The good lav was used for the walk up the stairs, matched well with the boom on the transition into the over. The rest was all on one boom. We timed the action so the buried lav wouldn't need to be used, stepping into the overs on the boom. The third character was good on the boom too. Joined the scene at the top of the stairs.

We had them all wired because the location was sometimes noisy, we had two cameras, stairs, etc. I didn't worry about the clothing noise and the buried lav because I needed neither of these mikes once we actually started shooting. But they were wearing them so I tracked them. Clearly a mistake.

After seeing this RRM obviously unhappy with the lav tracks, I asked why he wasn't using the boom. He dug up the track, realized it was good, and now had a single mic scene. No mixing 3 mikes facing different directions, no clothing noise, no weird EQ on the buried mic, etc. Faster! Imagine that.

I just can't believe it's better to have our mix simply tossed away in lieu of either boom only or lav only before it even gets to you. I don't believe it's faster. I don't believe it's better. If the production mixer fails to deliver so routinely, then tell someone your work is suffering. There are lots of skilled mixers sitting at home. Perhaps it's time to shake the tree a bit.

By the way, I love the way "Blue Bloods" sounds. Loose boom on the occasional two camera close up, but it sounds way better than a bunch of rapidly mixed lavs. I bet it takes them less time too. I bet the actors love not being pestered every day to wear a mic.

And I don't believe they should just suck it up and wear a mic. It's no different than noise, which grows as each little thing gets added. Why have them wear equipment, which isn't always easy or comfortable to put on, just because it makes someone else's job down the line easier? They already need to contend with lights, costumes, props, cameras, long days, all while trying to maintain a performance and tell a story whether it's 2am and 30°F or 2pm and 110°. Why add an unnecessary visit to the sound cart, an unnecessary invasion into their costume, an unnecessary need to affect performance to avoid touching the mic, etc.

Let's try to all do our jobs to our best abilities. From time to time we might need to compromise, but the compromise shouldn't be our starting point.

Simon Hayes' quote is out of context here. On huge features, post has the benefit of the edit, and ample time to choose the best mic and the best mix of mikes. I'm happy to deliver lots of tracks if I know each one will be given consideration. I'm not possessive of my mix.

[taylormadeaudio]

I don't think anyone is suggesting the actors get mic'd up unnecessarily - I think the point is that the lavs are becoming increasingly necessary - to the extent that they are pretty much necessary all the time - if the boom is great, then awesome, use the boom - if not, I want to provide choices - this doesn't allieviate me from doing my job as the PSM - to the contrary, it makes it far more difficult - whatever sources there are on set still have to be MIXED - yes, clothing noise and phasing are issues - we have to be active - no one is suggesting we just lav up a bunch of actors, slam the faders to nominal and sit back with a coke and a smile. I hope I didn't give anyone that impression.

~tt

[Nick Ray Harris]

Just to chime in,

I work mostly in narrative television. On those sets its minimum two cameras, often three. Everybody gets wired. I've worked with every mixer in Chicago and all but one does it this way. Post demands isos in addition to the boom.

And I can say on a daily basis there are scenes where the only coverage of a certain character or line is on the wire because it was impossible to get the boom in without removing a camera, and that just ain't happening on these shoots.