EQ on set/location

[nick]

I agree with Glenn. If we trust ourselves and our monitoring apparatus enough to make decisions concerning level, it follows that we are capable of making EQ decisions as well. After all, the EQ knob is only a frequency-specific level control - a more articulate kind of fader.

  In this age of iso-track safety nets, I think the location guy has a license to take greater risks in perfecting his mono mix. If our EQ decisions are just horrible, certainly we will hear about it from post - and hopefully adjust our practices accordingly. Otherwise, I see no reason to avoid the judicious use of EQ.

[Philip Perkins]

I agree with Glenn. If we trust ourselves and our monitoring apparatus enough to make decisions concerning level, it follows that we are capable of making EQ decisions as well. After all, the EQ knob is only a frequency-specific level control - a more articulate kind of fader.

  In this age of iso-track safety nets, I think the location guy has a license to take greater risks in perfecting his mono mix. If our EQ decisions are just horrible, certainly we will hear about it from post - and hopefully adjust our practices accordingly. Otherwise, I see no reason to avoid the judicious use of EQ.

Thank you.  Key word: "judicious". 

Philip Perkins

[RPSharman]

I had this discussion with a friend today, and he said that on his last film the dialog editor called him and discussed the use of EQ on set.  He had never had any issues he knew about before, so it was an interesting conversation.

The "problem" was that on the occasion that the EQ was judiciously used, and then for some reason the dialog editor needed to use the pre-fade recording for an edit, he discovered it was hard to match the pre-EQ/pre-fade "clip" with the rest of the mix recording.  In some cases he found himself remixing the scene from the ISO tracks because it took less time than trying to match all the clips.

This dialog editor said he would MUCH prefer, especially on a film with so much action, that it be recorded flat so that if he needed to do dome edits, then all the EQ would match for the scene, which he could then adjust as a whole later, if needed.

Thoughts?

[Jeff Wexler]

The "problem" was that on the occasion that the EQ was judiciously used, and then for some reason the dialog editor needed to use the pre-fade recording for an edit, he discovered it was hard to match the pre-EQ/pre-fade "clip" with the rest of the mix recording.

I generally do not do a lot of EQ but the above statement made me realize something: I don't even know if the ISO's, in my case they are direct outs from my Cooper 208, are PRE or POST EQ. I know is something quite fundamental I should already have long ago figured out, it just hasn't been an issue (except now, as an academic issue, where I feel a little silly not knowing the answer even in my own setup).

In the cases where the ISO's are PRE-EQ and this causes a problem trying to match to something that IS EQued, it seems like you can't have it both ways --- what if you are using the ISO because it is FREE of EQ present on the other track that is causing a problem?

-  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

Usually outputs labelled as "direct outs" are pre-eq.  Outputs labelled "insert" might be either.  The older Mackies had post-everything direct outs--handy for some things, thus.  The mods we did for my old AD Pico could be either pre or post, which was kind of cool, although I didn't end up using the "post" much.  Many live music recordists like their direct outs to be post EQ/fade, so many bigger consoles can have them pre or post.

I got bit today on an audio post job with EQ changing across cuts of a scene, pretty radically (might have been a mistake).  I had a real struggle getting the dialog to match across that cut, and finally could only come close--not perfect.

Philip Perkins

[Philip Perkins]

I had this discussion with a friend today, and he said that on his last film the dialog editor called him and discussed the use of EQ on set.  He had never had any issues he knew about before, so it was an interesting conversation.

The "problem" was that on the occasion that the EQ was judiciously used, and then for some reason the dialog editor needed to use the pre-fade recording for an edit, he discovered it was hard to match the pre-EQ/pre-fade "clip" with the rest of the mix recording.  In some cases he found himself remixing the scene from the ISO tracks because it took less time than trying to match all the clips.

This dialog editor said he would MUCH prefer, especially on a film with so much action, that it be recorded flat so that if he needed to do dome edits, then all the EQ would match for the scene, which he could then adjust as a whole later, if needed.

Thoughts?

I've been on the side of "less EQ" in this discussion, but I would not demand "flat" all the time from a location mixer ever.  My position is that a little EQ goes a long way, but we can't forbid the use EQ as a problem-solving tool for location mixers altogether. I understand all too well what that editor was talking about, and maybe that mixer was going a bit far in his midrange boosts (or other very audible change), but some matching between shots is to be expected as a matter of course in normal filmmaking where scenes are shot out of order, with changing angles, props, etc.., and within that match can be accommodated some location EQ for sure.

Philip Perkins

[old school]

I have always felt that iso's should be just that. Clean, no EQ, proper gain structure, multi mics to their own tracks for possible use at a later date. I use a Deva 4 and on those multitrack days I bring the radio mic's and booms straight into the Deva and then to the Cooper 106 which I mix and EQ and do what I need to for the shot at hand which I feed back to the Deva as a Mix Trk and I burn that for telecine. I will then burn a DVD RAM of all the tracks. So far so good. The only time I had a problem was when I picked the tracks off the Cooper to feed the iso's that way. I had some clipping. But as most who do multi tracking know, you can't do it all in real time.

CrewC

[Philip Perkins]

I have always felt that iso's should be just that. Clean, no EQ, proper gain structure, multi mics to their own tracks for possible use at a later date. I use a Deva 4 and on those multitrack days I bring the radio mic's and booms straight into the Deva and then to the Cooper 106 which I mix and EQ and do what I need to for the shot at hand which I feed back to the Deva as a Mix Trk and I burn that for telecine. I will then burn a DVD RAM of all the tracks. So far so good. The only time I had a problem was when I picked the tracks off the Cooper to feed the iso's that way. I had some clipping. But as most who do multi tracking know, you can't do it all in real time.

CrewC

Well, I've found that I do have to pay more attention to my exact trim levels, and maybe run them at a different level than I might do in the absence of the prefade (post trim) iso sends, to keep them in the zone.  It complicates things a bit, for sure, and I find I need to keep an eye on both the iso and the mix levels (meters) all the time.  The isos have never been "set-and-forget" for me, even when recording 20+ tracks.  My mixer doesn't have input limiters, which I guess would be helpful if they are before the iso split.  (Maybe someday--that dual meter thing around the channel faders on the new Sonosax board looks pretty cool.)

Philip Perkins

[nick]

The "problem" was that on the occasion that the EQ was judiciously used, and then for some reason the dialog editor needed to use the pre-fade recording for an edit, he discovered it was hard to match the pre-EQ/pre-fade "clip" with the rest of the mix recording.

Excellent point - I hadn't thought of that.

I can think of two solutions. The easy one would be to record your isos post-eq, although i feel that would violate their "safety-net" characteristic. The complicated theoretical way would be to use DSP equalization on set. The idea is that the location mixer and the post mixer share a piece of software that does two things:

1. performs realtime equalization on set applied after the iso tap.

2. stores metadata about the EQ on a track-by-track basis, so that post can mix from the isos while retaining the mixer's EQ decisions

        Aaton has something like this, but only concerning fader movements. The Cantar mixer performs a mix during the recording, and the mix is described in the metadata of that recording. There is an application called Majax that takes care of the post end. Majax re-performs the mix from the metadata stored in the iso tracks, and is also capable of editing this metadata on the fly - you sort of get a second pass on the initial mix. The result is that post can use the mixer's mix as a foundation to which refinements are applied, rather than starting from scratch. I think that this is a kickass idea. Alas, I don't know of anyone who uses this workflow. Maybe it's big in France.

        Anyway, it is a small step to get from logging mix metadata to logging EQ information.

        The most likely candidate for this strategy would be Zaxcom, as they manufacture the only credible field recorder

featuring onboard DSP. The question is: are fader movements made on the Mix-12 recorded anywhere? My hunch is no.

[Jeff Wexler]

On the Cooper, the 1/4 inch "insert" is a pre fader, pre EQ, output.  The "direct" is post EQ, and it's level is affected by the fader on the Cooper's channel.  I feed my mics directly to the Cooper, then send them as isolated from the "insert" to the various "tracks" on my Deva unaffected by my mixing or EQing.

RVD

What you describe regarding the Line Outs and the Inserts on the Cooper is correct, but it does not answer my question about the balanced direct outs (sub-D multipin output connection) on the Cooper 208. These are definitely pre-fader, this I know, but are they post EQ? I guess I should play with it and figure this out once and for all.

-  Jeff Wexler

[Jeff Wexler]

Well, I have settle the issue for myself: the balanced Direct Outs on the Cooper 208 are by default PRE-fader and POST-EQ. So, all this time my ISO's have shared the same EQ settings as the signal being utilized in my mix. Fine with me, for the moment, since I am light on the EQ anyway.

I might add, but I am not completely sure, that the OUTPUTS from the Deva Output Mix are also POST-EQ --- they can be set to be either PRE-fader or POST-fader, but it may be that it is always post-eq.

-  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

Well, I have settle the issue for myself: the balanced Direct Outs on the Cooper 208 are by default PRE-fader and POST-EQ. So, all this time my ISO's have shared the same EQ settings as the signal being utilized in my mix. Fine with me, for the moment, since I am light on the EQ anyway.

I might add, but I am not completely sure, that the OUTPUTS from the Deva Output Mix are also POST-EQ --- they can be set to be either PRE-fader or POST-fader, but it may be that it is always post-eq.

-  Jeff Wexler

On a high-end mixer like a 208 you could always wire around the EQ for the directs if you wanted--Andy might even have included some pick-off points on the circuit boards for this--check your schematic.  In the Audio Developments mixer I used to use this was a fairly easy thing to do, even though it was a simple mixer and that feature wasn't designed in.  (Ditto w/my PSC M6, which was originally designed without direct outs.) Otherwise--I'd say if you haven't had any complaints about how you are recording then it must be working!

Philip Perkins

[RPSharman]

I'm YEARS of experience away from being Jeff Wexler or many of the other other mixers on this board, and with experience comes greater skill and knowledge.  I'm know Jeff and many others are creating great tracks.  Neither my aforementioned friend nor I have had any complaints on the movies we have done, but I think one thing I have learned here from the post guys is that we are not always told.  Typically it is just fixed, and often well enough to fool all but the most trained ears.

So once again I want to thank Jeff, Richard, Philip, Glen, Randy, Marc & so many others for chiming in with their experience and opinions.

I love posting here, as I'm sure you can tell, but I love reading it more.  Each job helps me to tune my ears, and each post here helps me to know even more what to listen for.  This is what makes every job great.  The situations are different, the people are different, the voices and environments are different.  The job is both technical and organic as well as creative, which is why I can see myself enjoying it for years.

Robert

[Philip Perkins]

There is a lot of truth about location mixers not hearing about audio problems form audio post, even if they were pretty severe.  I've done production sound a lot longer than I've done post, and communication between production and post used to be even worse in those days (1970s).  I had a number of experiences at screenings of finished projects where I'd finally be introduced to the posties, and I would hear about what they had had to do to get my tracks to work for them--usually in a friendly "what are you gonna do?" kind of way.  I would be embarrassed and aghast.  "Why didn't you call me while we were still shooting?  Why didn't you call me and tell me about this issue that pervaded all of the delivered audio?"  And so on.  I learned that the post folks are kind of taught the attitude that "it is what it is" and they move on, and solve problems their own way rather than going to the trouble of going back to the source.  (This is one of the reasons I got involved in post: self-defense as a production mixer.)  Today communication seems to be much better, and I make it a point to both stroke and inform mixers of problems with their audio when I can.  I can say that the first mixes I attended of projects I'd recorded were some of the highest density learning experiences of my life, and were also like having a root canal in public.  Nowhere to hide--a highly recommended field trip for you whippersnappers.

Philip Perkins

[curleysound]

"Why didn't you call me while we were still shooting?  Why didn't you call me and tell me about this issue that pervaded all of the delivered audio?"  And so on.  I learned that the post folks are kind of taught the attitude that "it is what it is" and they move on, and solve problems their own way rather than going to the trouble of going back to the source.

Philip Perkins

I might be off track on this, but post companies work for hire, just like us. Could it be a subtle way of milking the job? Think of it like building a skyscraper. The longer the job takes, the more they get paid, so doing something that will make the job go quicker will cost you.

On another note, there was a thread a while back about the new abilities of the 01V96 VCM mixer with its new compressor/limiter functions, and new 6 ch EQ. Has anyone used these in the field? I try to remain as flat as possible when using my 01V. I roll off 80hz, and iso pre-eq to Boom Recorder, which is a nice option in this board. I can then create a custom mix to 6 separate analog sources, like mix recorder, video playback, cameras, decks, ifb, private line or comteks.

[Philip Perkins]

I might be off track on this, but post companies work for hire, just like us. Could it be a subtle way of milking the job? Think of it like building a skyscraper. The longer the job takes, the more they get paid, so doing something that will make the job go quicker will cost you.

Could be, I guess.  Mostly I think it was that they didn't want to bother, or didn't want to get into an argument with someone who might be upset with the news (or deny it and start a finger-pointing scrum).

Philip Perkins

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

Curley,

Yes I've been using the 01V96 "Add on effects" package for over 8 months now.

Here is my original thread on this topic.

http://www.jwsound.net/SMF/index.php?topic=2487.msg17021#msg17021

Cheers,

RL

[curleysound]

Richard,

  In your posts there, you mentioned that you hadn't used the 6 band EQ much. It's been a while since that thread was active. Any new perspective?

Thanks,

Tom

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

Tom,

Given the fast pace of episodic shooting - I have not had the opportunity to "play" with the 6 band eq. I will try in the next few weeks and I'll report back to the group.

RL

[Glen Trew]

Well, I have settle the issue for myself: the balanced Direct Outs on the Cooper 208 are by default PRE-fader and POST-EQ. So, all this time my ISO's have shared the same EQ settings as the signal being utilized in my mix. Fine with me, for the moment, since I am light on the EQ anyway.

I might add, but I am not completely sure, that the OUTPUTS from the Deva Output Mix are also POST-EQ --- they can be set to be either PRE-fader or POST-fader, but it may be that it is always post-eq.

-  Jeff Wexler

Hello Jeff, et al,

Possibly the most useful inspiration I've gotten from this thread is about whether our iso tracks should be pre-EQ or post-EQ. I had always assumed that iso tracks should be pre-EQ for the same reasons that most all agree the iso tracks should be pre-fader: to allow remixers to have an unadulterated second (and third and fourth...) chance with the production sound elements. But now I'm not so sure...

As pointed out somewhere in this discussion, often when iso tracks are used, it is to copy and paste a single word or line into the [otherwise OK] mono mix. When this is the case, and when that same mic in the mono mix was altered with EQ (because it should have been), then a pre-EQ iso track will have to be EQ'd to blend into the mono mix. This adds work in post-production, plus, it could be an extra challenge not knowing the details about how that mic in the mono mix was EQ'd (freq, Q, shelf, peak...). In these cases, if the iso tracks were post-EQ, then it would be a more simple matter of dropping them in and matching levels.

This flash came at a good time for me, because, like you Jeff, my pre-fader iso tracks have been mostly post-EQ. This is because I use the 8 mix busses of my Sonosax SX-ST (ch1 post-fader for mono mix, ch2-ch8 pre-fader iso), which are always post-EQ, even when pre-fader. I was considering rewiring my rig to use the dedicated direct outs (which can be pre/post whatever you like) and configure them for pre-EQ. But now, assuming that the above copy/paste scenario is the more common use of pre-fader tracks, I'm thinking that post-EQ iso tracks have usually been the best choice all along.

So, my point, Jeff, is that maybe you (and others) should reconsider whether or not your iso tracks should be pre-EQ or post-EQ. For me, I'm sticking with post-EQ, pre-fader.

Regards to all,

Glen Trew

[Philip Perkins]

As a postie, I'm coming around to idea of post-EQ isos as long as the EQ isn't too rad.  It's hard enough to get at the isos to grab a line that might have been under another actor's lav getting crunched etc, but much harder to then have to match even reasonable amounts of EQ--that might be a dealbreaker on the dubstage.  I had thought most film production mix panels were pre-EQ on the direct outs, but if the 208 and the Sax are both post EQ that covers a lot of the mixers in use right there.  On the fader-panel rigs w/ Deva and Cantar--can you do pre or post EQ for the isos?

Philip Perkins

[Sergio Sanmiguel]

There's a reason why direct out's are called "Direct Out" Meaning NO alteration as on "pre fade, Pre EQ"... IMHO & as a post sound editor I want to be able to find that lil'piece of CLEAN (unaltered) dialog that I need to replace from the production sound mixer's "mix".  But then again it might be a good addition to BWF metadata to include POST fade info for EQ, level & dynamic filters applied to any given track...

[Jeff Wexler]

So, my point, Jeff, is that maybe you (and others) should reconsider whether or not your iso tracks should be pre-EQ or post-EQ. For me, I'm sticking with post-EQ, pre-fader.

Regards to all,

Glen Trew

For me personally, iso tracks that are PRE-fader but POST-EQ is fine. As I mentioned before, I am generally light on the eq anyway so it wouldn't make that much difference. Also, on most of the jobs I am on I believe the iso tracks are almost never used and it is the so-called "mix" track that is always used. This is not so much a credit to my mixing ability (which is awsome of course) but rather to the types of jobs I'm on --- the fact that there is not much to "mix" with one microphone, there is little needed in the way of EQ if it's the right mic in the right hands, and if that one mic can do the job why complicate things with a lot of other tracks, iso or in the mix.

-  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

I thought about the pre/post EQ thing a little more (O lucky people), and now believe that pre- or post on EQ should be a decision taken after a discussion between production and post audio people about what will work best for that show.  On a movie or episodic there could be an MO established about this that would save a lot of detective work.  In the commercial world I'd lean towards pre-everything for isos all the time.

Philip Perkins

[studiomprd]

two sets of ISO's, one pre-EQ, and one post-EQ;  now I see why we need even more tracks!!