Jump to content

The importance of lavs from the POV of post.


Henchman

Recommended Posts

This topic as interesting as it is, concern a reality of producer/distributor controlled tv show. Where time and money are more important than artistic vision and creativity. So sure art or perspective are not part of the choices and decision. As much as the director ( unless he s the producer... ) has almost no saying in the artisitic direction of the show, in the script, of the way he should tell the story, but has to follow a formula , shoot every angle possible, and follow a recipe that producers and distributor choose. Same for all the other crew that work in those show. This is commercial work were the client, as Henchman says it many time, is King , and were the craftsmen has no artistic saying over the client decision. This is junk food formula , even if the cook is a 4 stars chef, (and he better be to do the job right and fast) where hyper realism and a strickly pragmatic vision of sound is the way to go . But it pays the bills... sorry for my bad english for my cynism or lack of romantism but i'm not really shocked or surprised with everything i've been reading about post choices of using only lavs when they have 2 days for dialog on a 42min show with client on their back telling them how they want it to sound. I guess reading from the guy who cut and mix Michael Haneke dialog would be a whole different story... And fortunately there is exceptions to those rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How long do they spend on an episode of Nurse Jacky in post?

Watch an episode of 12 monkeys on SyFy.

We have to be ready for playback after a day and a half of mixing.

 

Per Super Sound Editor Steve Borne: We cut sound for 5 days and mix for 3 usually...

 

There's a budget. Dunno why tho and there's a big hole in my know right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've stayed out of this minefield for several days now, but since I was thrown under the bus in the first comment on the thread I will post one more time and bow out.  

 

Our re-recording mixer sent me an email to give me a heads up as to Mr. Henchman's inquiry, which I actually suggested.  He responded, then realized that he gave an inaccurate response because the real answer to all this is...it depends.  Some scenes are cut one way, some are another.  And honestly, that's how it should be.

 

I'm really starting to see from this continued discussion that it might be a problem that Mr. Henchman is actually having and perhaps this thread started as a knee jerk reaction to something that happened.  To that, I understand.  

 

There is no way, in any of the many shows that I have done, currently work on, or probably will do in the future (touch wood) that you can say "what percentage of this show will be on wires?"  It just depends, and yes we should "keep our gear in top working order" because that's what professionals do.

 

May I suggest, that Mr. Henchman take a little trip to a set that he is contracted to mix in the future and see some of the dynamics that are in play while trying to capture the nuances of an actors performance.  You cannot, and we certainly should NEVER, default to a single way of doing things just because we are working in a medium, be it Television or Motion Picture, just because of a blanket guideline.  

 

I think you may find this a bit pointed in my response, and I hope no offense is taken.  But, the comment originated with a show that I mixed.  And no investigation was made prior to the comment.  In fact, we have determined because of this minefield of a thread that the actual percentage is different that he even suggested.

 

It just depends on the day, the scene, the actors, the environment, the schedule, etc., etc.

 

I hope I don't decide to delete this post after I get a whipping.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case you may have thought I was placing blame on sound mixers, I most certainly am not.

I know the amount if work and pressure that you guys deal with on set.

My whole point with this thread was to simply point out that assuming lav tracks are throwaways, and only used as a last resort, and thereby no need to make sure they are properly set up, is a wrong assumption.

Having been severely burned by mix tracks, I prefer my editors, given their time constraints, to have the boom be the preferred track when they start their edit.

If they run into a situation where the boom is not useable, use the lavs.

This way I will absolutely never ever ever run into phasing issues, and be the person blamed for dialog quality issues.

If I'm going to get blamed, then I prefer it to be my fault.

And, BTW, BCS is sounding really good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When mixing in a Lav with a boom, who do you avoid phase issues?

This is why I have told my editors to not us thee mix track. Because of, to me, very apparent phase issues on the mix track.

 

By mixing. And by that I mean it's much like surfing. Many moving pieces. Reacting in dancerly ways to changes in wind, wave, fingers, ears...geography, changing acoustic characteristics...background noise, like the singing practical-on-screen exam lamp that Brendan O'Brien so skillfully manipulated the CMIT rejection tubes to minimize.

 

That doesn't come without a lotta practice (prodigies excepted).

 

Musicians a lot of us.

 

 

Everything I do from mic placement (I place all my own mics because I need to know exactly where and how they are in the room and on the actors for phase and know what I'm likely hearing on a lav) to how to finally deliver the scene (mix plus isos @ -3dB or so) with the first advice of the man with the stick, has to do with providing post with the elements they need to make something that captures the nuances of my colleagues' performances. Love nuance. And I think I provide that well from quietest to most bold.

 

The more an actor treats the microphones we provide them like instruments, the better.

 

Especially good for us when the location has been chosen to be sound friendly, a situation in which I've found myself with the current splendid locations department. I'm in awe of them. More often than not in NYC, exteriors prove...untenable for not being able to cut angles together, the only solution ADR with us providing an unshabby cue track.

 

Think I need to order some tin cans with the custom label: "Tantrum in a Can!!! Just add whisky and an ice cube". Hand 'em out when we shoot a love scene on 1st Avenue. For now, I've got several small brown paper bags I pretend to hyperventilate into. There's room for a word or cartoon on the bottom of the bag if I need to make a finer point.

 

We're not magicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Henchman: "When mixing in a Lav with a boom, who do you avoid phase issues?

This is why I have told my editors to not us thee mix track. Because of, to me, very apparent phase issues on the mix track."
 
I was reluctant to enter this discussion but I think I have some things to offer up now. I think there is a mis-conception of what the MIX track is, at least what the mix track is for most of the sound mixers I know. All this talk about "phase" (and I believe the term is not even being properly used) should be a NON-issue. If I have done a good job on my mix there should be NO phase issues, and if I have done a really good job the next person down the line (in post) would actually be hard pressed to even be able to de-construct the track and figure out how it was done, what was used. That's what mixing is, and it is actually the same process that you use in post when you're mixing multiple sources --- get everything working together seamlessly, sustaining the illusion, the artifice, that we are experiencing something that approximates reality. As an aside, I will say, in relation to one of Henchman's comments about producers and/or directors who don't want real or honesty, they want hyper-reality, or fantasy, or ??, in these cases, none of what I am saying applies. 
 
As for the original statement about making sure your lavs are working well ("because we aren't going to be listening to or using your mix"), if you are mixing amongst the lavs then you will of course know right away if they are working well because if they weren't you wouldn't be able to make a mix that sounds good. This is where the confusion about what the mix track is comes into play --- the mix track is NOT, for the most part, a simple mix of a boom and the lavs. I will often mix a scene using a plant mic, various lavs on the actors, a boom mic, possibly a second boom mic, so ALL these sources have to be "working well" when I need them in the mix. Now, on to the whole idea of "working well": simply put, there are lots of times when the lavs just plain are not working well --- most obvious example would be when 2 people hug; less obvious, chronic clothing (wardrobe) problems --- the lav is working just fine, it hears every bit of crap happening at and around that mic! If you are working on a job that for a multitude of reasons using the boom mic is just not possible, you may often wind up with lavs that are working just fine but the dialog sounds terrible. Even regarding intelligibility --- the same line delivered by an actor that one can barely understand while just standing next to them, can often have intelligibility improved by using an open mic vs. a mic on their body.
 
I fully understand, now, why Henchman is saying what he is saying: it is fairly obvious that the majority of TV shows that he is working on require that everyone be wired and few if any scene can be adequately covered with booming. Fine. Well, not really fine, but these shows will wind up sounding like they sound for a variety of reasons, one, of course, is that Henchman and the others in post have no time to really do anything properly, and to preserve some level of sanity they have had to re-define what it means to sound good.
 
The biggest problem with this whole topic as presented here is the flat out declaration that this is the way it is, all shows, all TV, get used to it, it's a new world, all post needs is lavs that are working well and we'll be good. I'm not buying it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Jeff and RSharman on this disturbing topic.  For the RRM to not even listen to the mix track I find to be irresponsible.  You could be saving yourself a lot of time by listening to it and finding that it does work for what you need.  We work hard to achieve a professional mix track that should, in most cases, be broadcast worthy.  These days, most of my mixes rarely are all boom or all lav.  I put a lot of years of experience to use to make the transitions between the two seamless.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly my issue. Rarely will all boom or all lav be the approach to a scene.

If we are delivering a serviceable mix 90+% of the time in a live environment, and that's probably on the low side for some people on here, without the benefit of a picture edit, I simply can't belive that with the benefit of the picture edit, a multiple source mix (boom and lav) can't be managed. It doesn't make sense. Even if they want "hyper reality", it'd be a struggle for anyone to decide a scene is all boom or all lav. There are too many factors in a scene to prevent lavs from being good all the time. Surely it's better, faster, and easier to mix a lav into a boom scene than mix a boom into a lav scene or to fix all the problems associated with actors wearing microphones.

I am truly sorry you were fired off a show for something that wasn't your fault. But to blanketly abandon ALL mixes now and forever just seems like a bit of an extreme reaction. That's all we're saying. It sounds an awful lot like you're telling your editors to listen to the boom track, and when they encounter the inevitable "problem", switch over to using all lavs instead. That would certainly make you need to start a thread like this. Maybe try having them listen to the mix, and if they run into a problem, switch over to the lavs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just spent the last 10 minutes reading through the posts looking for a moment where someone (Henchman?) says he found an issue from the beginning of a show's production tracks when he came on half way through to cut and decided it wasn't worth his while to tell the PSM since the season was near finished shooting.

 

Au contraire, it's never too late to give the PSM feedback that will improve their (and your) work. It will be inconvenient, but never too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, a lav mic 6 inches from an actor's mouth (even with extra oomph of the chest resonance, but minus the lack of directionality) isn't a magic tool compared to a shotgun that's also 6 inches from an actor's mouth. There may be times, when the pattern of an overhead boom might be worse than a from-below boom or a body-blocking lav, but those are decisions we make in the field. On set, it's our job to convey to the directors if a line is unintelligible or too quiet. It's their job to decide to try to get the level up from the actor or let it be (either as a semi-audible or mouthed word or to let it go to Post due to time constraints on set).

 

What really strikes me in Henchman's first post is it seems that the problem isn't mixers getting screwed by using booms that are too far away when shooting wide and tight, but by mixers that are either not involved in the shot discussion or not seeing that a close up is being done at the same time. That really is a main portion of our on set job, in my opinion. I try to deliver sound that matches the picture. If a director wants to shoot wide and tight, then I need to decide if I can make the sound work for both shots. If I can't, for whatever reason, I need to plead my case. This is where we earn our keep. It's not hard to push a fader, it may be tricky to push 6, but the money is in being a part of the visual/editorial consideration.

 

Have a good production mix, and you don't need to make up a mix off of iso tracks.

This is where the work has to be done. Producers and directors need to learn (or re-learn) which decisions on set save them a lot of money in post, and which don't.

 

I've been asked to NOT provide isos, but just a mix that works and can go to air as it is, being supplemented by a bit of Foley, sound design, music. It *is* more difficult - or sometimes un-doable - with wide&tight shooting style. Though if the upper framelines are similar, it works even then well enough to air on TV.

I've also been asked to only deliver isos and, if I liked, to record the Comtek mix - which happens to air sometimes.

 

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.

 

That's the PSM's responsibility too. Delivering an editable and intelligible mix.

If you resort to isos routinely, you definitely have no trust in the Production Sound team's abilities. Apparently, there are enough "PSMs" forcing you into that decision.

Not good for our craft's standing. If we are looked at as the guys who just need to push a button, you Posties will end up with even more unusable mixes, having to work off isos even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just spent the last 10 minutes reading through the posts looking for a moment where someone (Henchman?) says he found an issue from the beginning of a show's production tracks when he came on half way through to cut and decided it wasn't worth his while to tell the PSM since the season was near finished shooting.

 

Au contraire, it's never too late to give the PSM feedback that will improve their (and your) work. It will be inconvenient, but never too late.

 

I agree and think it's akin to the discussions we have on set with our Boom Ops. If we both go for the line, we may be fighting each other. My Boom Ops want to give me good stuff to work with and I want to put them in positions to provide good stuff (maybe by taking lines they don't need to stretch for because we know how the coverage will work). 

 

It's certainly better to have conversations with Post before there are any problems, but a troubled conversation is better than no conversation. I try to reach out to my Post Supervisor in TV-prep. But it is a shame that I have to wait 5-8 episodes before meeting Audio Post.

 

On Smash, I tended to provide 2 mix tracks during musical numbers. One with music for dailies and comteks, one without music for editorial (when we would live singing with earwigs). I remember someone in Post asking me early on in one of our seasons if it was necessary for the assistant editors to look past this second mix track (maybe it affected transfer times or their post transfer re-synching work). I said "Yes! That second mix track is for you. If I don't give it to you, you need to rebuild everything without the music track that I married into the main mix track." I'm glad they asked. I enjoyed being able to give them that, and I believe they found it very useful. But it would have been lost had we not spoken.

 

And Jan, I agree, it does seem to always happen that the transition works best during the rehearsal and you end up "trying to remember" what you did. Except when there isn't a rehearsal, then, of course, everything goes wrong on the first stab.

 

Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back through this thread, I'm reminded of an underlying truth in all of this -- we (Soundies - both in production and in post) do the best we can given the parameters under which are expected to work.  There are many decisions made (usually financially motivated) by people who haven't the slightest inkling of understanding for what we do and how we do it.  These decisions often result in less-than-ideal conditions for us (to varying degrees, depending on the production) -- we buck up, and do the best we can -- that's what we've always done.

 

Our gracious host said:

 

"The biggest problem with this whole topic as presented here is the flat out declaration that this is the way it is, all shows, all TV, get used to it, it's a new world, all post needs is lavs that are working well and we'll be good. I'm not buying it."

 

I don't think anyone is saying that so much as speaking to the fact that we seem to be caught in the middle of a paradigm shift -- where budgets are shrinking, technology is sprinting exponentially skyward, and we are forced to operate in ways we wouldn't have even considered ten years ago.  There's bound to be some settling.

 

There is an incredible amount of wisdom in this thread -- the combined experience of it's contributors seriously energizes me -- here's my biggest concern:

 

We're preaching to the choir.  How many line producers, UPM's, directors, DP's, EP's, etc. will ever read this thread?  We know what the ideal parameters for getting great location sound tracks are -- and frankly, we also know that those parameters are occurring for us less and less -- that we are in fact being expected to do more for less.  15 pages a day?  Good LORD.

 

This thread (IMHO) started out as an attempt to remind us that in a world where lav mics are being used with greater frequency, and in many cases, now the rule as opposed to the exception, we would be doing ourselves a favor to pay greater attention to what's going on with our lavs.  All good advice, I think.  It kinda fanned out into a wildfire from there -- touched a nerve, I think.

 

Many of us are frustrated with how we are expected to function at work.  But we don't have the luxury of just not showing up.  If you happen to be fortunate enough to exist in the circles above and beyond the insanity of low-budget production*, then count yourself blessed, and do whatever you can to stay in those circles.

 

*I use this term conditionally, BTW -- not all low-budget productions are clusterf**ks -- I'm speaking to those productions that happen almost in spite of themselves -- where the folks driving the boat are probably motivated by desires other than providing the best product possible.  It would be great to never have to work on these types of productions, but some of us do -- so we're squeaky wheels, right? ...and there's a fine line between getting the grease and getting replaced.

 

Bottom line, we do the best we can, we pay our bills, we look ahead towards smoother skies.

 

~tt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, why wouldn't the editor simply use the boom, until they hit a line or scene where the boom isn't useable.

Because it's the PSM's job to do so, in order to provide a proper mix that can go right on air.

 

If the PSM can't accomplish that, it's either adverse conditions (like EXT NY as mentioned by Jan) or lack of experience - ie. production hiring the cheapest guy.

 

Can't do much about unreasonable expectations though. Except, maybe, in some cases, education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Jeff and RSharman on this disturbing topic.  For the RRM to not even listen to the mix track I find to be irresponsible.  You could be saving yourself a lot of time by listening to it and finding that it does work for what you need.  We work hard to achieve a professional mix track that should, in most cases, be broadcast worthy.  These days, most of my mixes rarely are all boom or all lav.  I put a lot of years of experience to use to make the transitions between the two seamless.

And where do you expect the time to come from for a re-recording mixer to listen to the mix tracks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where do you expect the time to come from for a re-recording mixer to listen to the mix tracks?

Probably the same place the picture editor has to not watch the 3 cameras coverage of a scene. To much data & not enough time to make the pieces work is a major factor in todays shows IMO. Quality is never quantity. OK is the mantra of today.

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the same place the picture editor has to not watch the 3 cameras coverage of a scene. To much data & not enough time to make the pieces work is a major factor in todays shows IMO. Quality is never quantity. OK is the mantra of today.

CrewC

That is a good point. I can't tell you how many takes are not cut and cameras and sound are left to roll while directors, props, script, DP's work out what should be done with the cameras cut. Those poor slobs in post have to wade through that crap . Talk about a waste of time! But I digress, let's stay on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what we think.

But surely mixing in a good production mix track requires less work than remixing everything from the lavs all the time with no consideration for what might already be quite good. Lavs are inherently problematic, require more EQ from you depending on costumes and placement, require de-noising depending on props and action and costumes, etc. You know booms are better, which is why you've written previously the boom ISO is listened to, right before it's more often than not discarded for the lavs. I'm saying if you're going to discard that track most of the time anyway, then have your dialog editors listen to the mix track instead and then the lav track, and trust them to deliver you what you need.

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...