Jump to content

I'm a sound mixer not a track layer!


mikewest

Recommended Posts

Mark,

if  you have intelligibility does not mean you have quality dialogue.

No. It simply means you don't necessarily have quality SOUNDING dialog.

 

Anyone remember the big stink last year in the UK when a BBC series caused a stir because nobody could understand the dialog. To the point where people stopped watching, and questions were raised in Parliament?

 

That would never happen happen on a show I'm mixing. You CAN make mumblers intelligible. It simply takes a lot of work. And a lot of times it requires a lav, even if it's just for the occasional line or word.

Edited by Henchman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Constantin,

No. It's not necessary to tell something.

It's necessary Mark to provide the highest quality.

I don't understand why the opposites "quality vs intelligibility".

Intelligibility is fundamental of quality; like ears for human to hear the sound.

Clarity is fundamental of quality.

Tone is fundamental of quality.

My conclusion is: Never choose ears from eyes. Eyes from nose. Nose from mouth. You need all of them to have a quality.

I see (and hear) a lot of young actors to not train their voices. Maybe that's the field we need to look (both production & post production sound).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constantin,

No. It's not necessary to tell something.

It's necessary Mark to provide the highest quality.

I don't understand why the opposites "quality vs intelligibility".

Intelligibility is fundamental of quality; like ears for human to hear the sound.

Clarity is fundamental of quality.

Tone is fundamental of quality.

My conclusion is: Never choose ears from eyes. Eyes from nose. Nose from mouth. You need all of them to have a quality.

I see (and hear) a lot of young actors to not train their voices. Maybe that's the field we need to look (both production & post production sound).

The majority of the audience doesn't even know what you mean by "quality". They don't hear it. Hell, I've heard mixes Of entire shows and movies that I can't understand that they would make it past the dubstage.

But one thing the audience does know, and hates, is when they can't understand what's being said.

The best mix isn't necessary the one that's exactly the best SOUNDING one.

Edited by Henchman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true statement all Both about directors (not attending at post) and producers (choosing intelligibility over quality). Don't generalize and speak for your experience. Again don't put "directors" or "producers".​

Mark is correct in my experience in post-production for American TV shows in Hollywood over the last 25 years: generally, the director has little or no power or control over the mix, and 99% of the time the producers make all those decisions. The director has already moved on to another episode or even another series.

 

The possible exception would be a pilot, and in those rare cases the director is often involved in post (and the director sometimes carries an additional credit as co-producer). In features, the director generally has total control and is there for the duration of the project until the bitter end. 

Edited by Marc Wielage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Mike, in that PSM's are not on set to lay down as many tracks as possible. We use our discretion to record the best tracks we can given the circumstances. 

I understand that in television it's quite common to put lavaliers on actors for safety, but I haven't always found that to be the case, even for network television shows. Without naming shows, I've boomed (mostly 2nd unit) where principle actors on stage were covered with tight shots and in the blocking the team's decision was that lavaliers were not needed. Whole days would pass without using a lavalier, and we could've easily put radios on them. Would this have made the job easier in post? A sincere question. Does more options mean an easier job mixing in post production? I can understand this could change when on location and dealing with noisy environments, but on stage with a solid microphone pointed nicely at ones mouth, why bother the actors and the production by putting lavaliers on for safety? It's up to the PSM and his crew to make that call, I'd say, unless a show specifically requests that all actors be lav'd at all times, which i've found common. 

If the show lets the mixer decide, I say don't question his choices unless the result was bad sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have a "once bitten, twice shy" situation here with Mark. He mixes the way he does because he has had a bad experience in the past with other techniques. The producers like the sound he presents them with. Perhaps they would also like the sound mixed another way. He doesn't have time to offer both, so who could know.

It is true that times have changed, and a more present sound is "desired", but it's only because that is what people are now used to. It's because of wide and tight shooting techniques and compressed production and post schedules. 

I only object that Mark seems to now think that this is the ONLY way. It is not. 

Edited by RPSharman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the advent of digital, lots of parts of the machine we're part of shift. Some gears get more torque; others less. I was made aware of a subtle power shift as between DP's and post production colorists during the course of a documentary on the subject, "Side by Side" that may be streamed here:

 

http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70239473&trkid=13752289&tctx=0,0,93354ee6a4cc8d51cbc61b110887911540001770:3a6a33009e40a7821425176439cc9599116861aa

 

Remarkable if brief discussion of the adversarial component of the creative power shift at about 47:00 remaining. Ellen Kuras begins by lamenting less control when she thought digital portended more; and the next bunch of speakers.

 

Shifts happen with a lot of tech change. It's happening now for us.

 

I think I have managed to put my particular style "out there" if you will. In the interview I try make sure they know the natural sound to expect.

 

The post sound team moved over from "Nurse Jackie" to "Happyish" with us. This will be our...7th year working together. Somewhere up the food chain creative budgetary decisions were made to allow the nat-sound thing to happen without requiring wiring everyone all the time.

 

I try to keep the Big Picture in mind as I plan with the team how to capture scenes. Having a masterful stick operator helps a great deal to decide to achieve quality quickly while being simple for me, AD's and actors. Costs a bit more to cut it, but there remain budgets for it. Wiring everyone costs time, energy, awareness, focus, invasiveness to the actors' process.

 

Even so, there are those artists I always wire for one reason and another.

 

Don't look forward to getting an email as Mr. West describes.

 

Is it simply that our jobs--once our solitary kingdom--become more collaborative?

 

This trend may also be a function of skill levels and the fact that the advertising-supported narrative content business model is in flux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any production sound team goes into work and says to themselves, "Let's try to get mediocre and unintelligible audio today!"  We all strive to get the best we can, under various circumstances, in the limited time we have.  Picture this scenario:  you walk into the dub stage Monday morning and you have 25 kids running around and playing in your work area- They aren't going to leave and will be there until, say, 2:15pm.  On top of that you notice an NFL Time-Clock counting down from 6 hours; actually it's 5 hours now because you couldn't get into the dub stage due to traffic problems and construction outside.  BTW, there will be jackhammering for the next 3 hours right inside your stage(it may as well be, it frickin' sounds like it's inside!) until they go to lunch.  It has been decided that your studio manager cannot pay any amount of money to make the jackhammering stop.  It's up to the Dept. of City Services downtown if you want to call them yourself.  You've just sat down at your mixing desk, nice and comfortable, and now you need to move, because they're going to put a light there.

Again, we strive to get the best dialog we can, under various circumstances, in the limited time we have.

Edited by George Flores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a masterful stick operator helps a great deal to decide to achieve quality quickly while being simple for me, AD's and actors. Costs a bit more to cut it, but there remain budgets for it. Wiring everyone costs time, energy, awareness, focus, invasiveness to the actors' process.

Post has said it costs more to do the dialogue edit when you play on booms over wiring everyone? Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post has said it costs more to do the dialogue edit when you play on booms over wiring everyone? Josh

​That depends. I don't think it does if you have a good dialogue editor. I always preferred working from the boom than lavs when I cut dialogue. Yeah, there were times I'd have to go diving into the wireless tracks, but I don't like cutting and/or mixing each person on their own track. It creates more work. I like cutting/mixing based on the shot...tight, mid, wide. That's just me, though, and different people work differently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently had a two shot of the actors standing about two feet apart on a quiet set.

Boom was about a foot overhead.

Got a call from post.

Said they couldn't find my iso tracks.......................

I've had scenes with two actors sitting down I a room.

And the entire scene had to be ADR'ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It simply means you don't necessarily have quality SOUNDING dialog.

 

Anyone remember the big stink last year in the UK when a BBC series caused a stir because nobody could understand the dialog. To the point where people stopped watching, and questions were raised in Parliament?

 

That would never happen happen on a show I'm mixing. You CAN make mumblers intelligible. It simply takes a lot of work. And a lot of times it requires a lav, even if it's just for the occasional line or word.

Mark, given the huge amount of experience of everyone on that show, what do you think went wrong? I can vouch for the PSM using radio's on everything that breathed on other projects. I have to assume there where radio's on or a very very good reason for them not being. Do you know different? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I've had scenes with two actors sitting down I a room.

And the entire scene had to be ADR'ed

 

 Was it because they were shooting in a cardboard building right next to the construction site for that new 142 story tower?

Edited by Constantin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, given the huge amount of experience of everyone on that show, what do you think went wrong? I can vouch for the PSM using radio's on everything that breathed on other projects. I have to assume there where radio's on or a very very good reason for them not being. Do you know different? 

I don't know. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had scenes with two actors sitting down I a room.

And the entire scene had to be ADR'ed

Right Mark, but Taut is saying he got a clean boom track (in so many words). If he were in a bad location or had noises causing sound problems, don't you think he would also put radios on the actors? This is the whole point of the OP. Mixers are not track layers. PSM's use their discretion to get the best sound possible in the most appropriate way possible given the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Mike and Traut's situations, did the communication get to whether post has an actual problem vs deviation in expected workflow? Seems to me that's kind of important.

Any chance of explaining/briefly explaining choice?

Also..if a request or response is made in a hurried text, I can imagine it coming across wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remarkable if brief discussion of the adversarial component of the creative power shift at about 47:00 remaining. Ellen Kuras begins by lamenting less control when she thought digital portended more; and the next bunch of speakers.

 

The problem in post is that the capability now exists for producers and studio execs to overrule the DP and make visual changes (even relighting the movie to some extent) that he or she never intended. A-list cinematographers try to specify in their deal memos that they have final approval of picture (particularly color) prior to release, but I know of cases where films have been taken away from the director and the studio execs completely take over. It's not pleasant when that happens. DPs are also losing the ability to choose whichever camera they want. Too often, the studio and producers make the deal on the camera package and then hires the DP, and tells them, "this is what you have to use... we're going into production next week. If you don't like this camera, tell us now so we can hire somebody else."  mad3.gif

 

I think this is similar to cases where marginal dialogue is recorded on location -- maybe there's high winds, or distant police sirens, or overhead jets or something -- and then ADR is done to fix it all. They get into the final mix, and the director throws out the ADR and uses the original track, winding up with a patch job with noise reduction and all kinds of processing. The location sound mixer has no control over this, and I'm sure there are cases where they just assumed, "ah, I'm just recording a guide track for ADR later on." Not always so. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, given the huge amount of experience of everyone on that show, what do you think went wrong? I can vouch for the PSM using radio's on everything that breathed on other projects. I have to assume there where radio's on or a very very good reason for them not being. Do you know different? 

​Anybody remember the hue and cry over the dialogue intelligibility in the big sci-fi film Interestellar? I don't think this was a sound mixer or re-recording mixer problem; I think this boiled down to specific creative choices by the filmmakers. I'm sure everybody here has encountered cases where directors and editors opted to use less-than-optimal dialogue that they could understand because they'd heard it 200 times. A new audience hearing a movie only once is going to struggle to hear those lines of dialogue.

There are times when I think the director has to rely on the re-recording mixer's experience and good judgement in telling them, "hey, this is just not gonna play." I've had this conversation with neophyte clients before: if you can't understand the dialogue, you won't understand the story, you won't get the characters, and the whole thing falls apart. Bad judgement can undermine decades of skill and hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of world-class equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. What do you think?

If you don't know, why say anything? Anyway, it's incredibly common to radio and boom over this side of the pond. It has been for years. Precisley because it gives people like yourselves a better chance in post.  Mark Wielages point above is correct. The PSM and post team where not at fault at all. It was an directorial and artistic decision and a broadcasting fault that led to the outcry. Perhaps that example is not the one to use for your very valid point about intelligibility no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jan,

 

I have always understood that my role was/is to deliver the best results, according to

the circumstances and skills, are possible.

I agree that some actors need special attention.

To deliver countless un-monitored iso tracks is not my bag!

Just as a DP delivers a shot that he has chosen and perfected.

I'm quite proud that my post has encouraged so much comment

Regards

mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post has said it costs more to do the dialogue edit when you play on booms over wiring everyone? Josh

Based on what Henchman has said with his all-lav, lower-budget, short edit/mix schedule for hour-long show v. my shows' lav-at-will, larger-budgeted, longer edit mix schedule for 1/2-hour shows, it must cost more to achieve a more natural sounding mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what Henchman has said with his all-lav, lower-budget, short edit/mix schedule for hour-long show v. my shows' lav-at-will, larger-budgeted, longer edit mix schedule for 1/2-hour shows, it must cost more to achieve a more natural sounding mix.

Marc may spend less because of a lower budget, but I can't imagine spending more in time or money for a single or double boom mix over a collection of noisy wires. I was very happy with what Post did on the last show I worked on. It seemed like they got to have a lot of fun with super hero hearing and layering city noises in. It's probably a larger audio post budget than I was used to, but I believe it helps that I give them mostly-booms complete mix tracks. I try not to saddle them with having to do too much work on the day-to-day dialogue so they can spend their resources on the scenes that were tough for us and for better effects/design. But I still think Marc's initial issues are in communicating with his on set mixer and probably his line producer. A good boom or 2 booms mix can be so much better and easier to post than a bunch of wires and mics thrown out in desperation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, as much as I might complain here, this is never done on the stage in front of clients.

if I have an issue, I will address it directly with the mixer when I can, or through the sound supervisor who will then usually talk to the AP.  But it will always be downplayed and presented as a request, not a major problem.

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...