Jump to content

Signal Pre-Capture


SoundHound

Recommended Posts

Just an overview from an old mixer retired for over 3 years:  I don't see much about microphone preferences, techniques etc.  This new mic is better at... This old mic can be used to...  I don't read about anyone's mixer being better sounding than the other or less subject to overload, etc etc.  Most everything is tracking, workflow, capture and logging.  All this is the concern of a "Recordist" not a "Mixer."

Production Mixers are department and (sound) medium heads (small department that it may be).  If you let go of the responsibility of sound quality then you are less valuable and more replaceable-and paid less every year.  If you record in less than the best conditions (that you can affect) with less than the best mics and techniques then your work, no matter how well tracked, is, forever, less than it could have been.  Don't misunderstand I have no illusions that the work is eaiser-if anything is is harder.  Good luck to everyone in the trenches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What SoundHound is saying here is so true --- many of us have become totally involved in so many new issues and problems that our attention has been drawn away from the primary professional responsibility to provide GOOD SOUND for the projects we work on. There are many reasons for this but it is nevertheless an unquestionably growing trend. There have in fact been lots of disucssions about mic preamps in mixers and recorders, whether the "prehs sound good enough" in some $1000 mixer and so forth, then to find out that ALL microphones being used are going into wireless transmitters. How many people actually understand that the important mic preamp isn't in their mixer, it's in the transmitter! I think the conditions people are put in and expected to record something useful are getting worse and worse, and the discipline required from ALL crew members, and the Director, to even make it possible to work in a manner that will produce really good production sound, has almost completely gone away. Even the definition of what is considered good production sound has changed --- this is what frustrates older professional sound people but does not seem to have any affect on the younger less experienced sound people --- they have never had the experience of recording really good production sound so even their expectations are quite low.

This is an all important topic, the notion that we have given up our role as mixer, department head, guardian of the soundtrack, and have allowed our craft to be thought of as just "laying down tracks" for someone else to deal with. It is interesting that SoundHound uses the word "capture" in this topic --- I have said before that many of our problems seemed to coincide with the use of this word, for both sound and picture. I think even the description that we are "capturing" sound in production is part of the problem.

I will comment more on this later...  I am tired from a long day of "capturing" dialog on the set of "Mama's Boy".

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually pretty pathetic at this point --- even producers, UPMs and POST production people are referring to the Production Sound Mixer as

"the recordist". In post circles I have heard this often "who was the recordist on that show" as if all we do and all we are expected to do is record stuff so that the post team, headed up by the self-appointed SOUND DESIGNER can mix the show.

-  JW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the situation is worsening.

On the show I start monday, the Director, DP, and Post want me to use wires to save time and accomodate multiple cameras. Already I've told post that I will give them ISO's if I think there is a need and "IF" it turns out they don't trust my choices then I will "TRY" to adapt. I'm replacing someone on this series and I need the work but it's like I'm going in under fire. I am a mixer, I do good work, I have a great team, I pay attention, I cover my ass and I try hard. They want good sound in a hurry, which I'm used to in episodic but things are getting weird.

Larry Long

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all let me congradulate Soundhound on making it to retirement, well done. Second, I think you make several excelent points regarding the lack of chat about techniques, different  mics in diffecult enviroments, etc..This is what this site is about if we want it to be. I also agree that if we give up the responsability of the sound mix and its quality, we do become less valuable and therefore more replaceable. Alot has changed since I started 30 yrs ago, but to me the greatest change has been the direction of the craft in all its departments. less respect, less knowlege of the other crafts needs, and a ok is good enough p.o.v.. I think your post relates to all departments, the big difference is that everyone thinks they know how to record sound, try telling a director or a cameraman how to do a scene, if you know what I mean. Nice post and enjoy your new job as a retired soundman, and keep posting.

P.S. I apoligize to all for my terrible spelling, it's embarasing....

Regards Old School

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an overview from an old mixer retired for over 3 years:  I don't see much about microphone preferences, techniques etc.  This new mic is better at... This old mic can be used to...  I don't read about anyone's mixer being better sounding than the other or less subject to overload, etc etc.

Well, most of us are basically using the same mics and mixers that have been in play for many years now.  "This new mic..."?  As far as new mics go that have made an impact, all I can really think of is the new longer Schoeps and the Sanken mics that have now been out for several years (and discussed exhaustively on RAMPS).  We can debate Schoeps vs. Neumann or Cooper vs. Sonosax again here, but it really isn't the issue that consumes most of us these days, as keeping up with the constant changes and working to perfect a workflow is newer stuff that people are either struggling to learn or figuring out how to change to make the most impact on our own workflows (and, to some extent, developing standards for others).

  Most everything is tracking, workflow, capture and logging.  All this is the concern of a "Recordist" not a "Mixer."

Those are the issues we are DISCUSSING, but that doesn't mean we're not still showing up with our lunch boxes and mixing tracks like usual.  It just means that there are more pressing things to confer with one another about than moving faders.  If you can talk our producers into hiring a separate "recordist" so we don't have to be concerned with capture issues and can just focus on mixing, bravo -- please run and don't walk here.  In the meantime, we are *both* recordists *and* mixers, regardless of what is referred to or what title is on the credits or crew list.

If you let go of the responsibility of sound quality then you are less valuable and more replaceable-and paid less every year.  If you record in less than the best conditions (that you can affect) with less than the best mics and techniques then your work, no matter how well tracked, is, forever, less than it could have been.  Don't misunderstand I have no illusions that the work is eaiser-if anything is is harder.  Good luck to everyone in the trenches.

Is it really a fair inference that if we're devoting much of the time on message boards to NLR capture techniques, it follows that we're indiscriminate about the mics and mixers we are using and ignoring the importance of that?

Regards,

Noah Timan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people actually understand that the important mic preamp isn't in their mixer, it's in the transmitter!

While the transmitter certainly can color the mic signal in many fashions, including compander issues (with analog), A/D issues (with digital), and RF issues (with both), isn't it technically true that the preamplification stage that changes the signal from mic level to line level happens at the mic input stage, not at the transmitter stage?

I think the conditions people are put in and expected to record something useful are getting worse and worse, and the discipline required from ALL crew members, and the Director, to even make it possible to work in a manner that will produce really good production sound, has almost completely gone away.

That's certainly true.  The modus operandi in this day and age (a rather recent day and age, all things considered) seems to be "work with the sound department to get something usable and not terribly horrendous" as opposed to "work with the sound mixer to get something fantastic".

This is an all important topic, the notion that we have given up our role as mixer, department head, guardian of the soundtrack, and have allowed our craft to be thought of as just "laying down tracks" for someone else to deal with.

Now this I disagree with.  I've prattled on and on about it elsewhere, so I'll try to be brief, but I do believe that the new multitrack era has brought back the mono mix to be used and cherished in a way that it was not in the stereo age, at least with many productions.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  When we worked with 2 tracks (with the stereo Nagra and the DAT machines) post was always encouraging us to "split as much as possible", which, in the case of two or three microphones, meant either "mix" or "track".  Period.  The technology did not allow us to do both.  Now, we are capable of (and it's increasingly expected of us) to make a mix AND track everything.  I really don't believe that dialogue editors are combing through up to eight splits per take to try to improve on an acceptable mix -- this notion actually dates back to something Jeff said years ago which I always took to heart, which is the idea that if something is "fine" or "okay" in post, even if it can be easily improved upon, it will tend to get shoved along the process line and not made better because there are more pressing things on the limited post production agenda.  Based upon conversations with our friends in post, it seems to be more true than ever -- many dialogue editors and supervising sound editors really detest having to dig through eight splits sent out at unity gain, and be tasked with separating the wheat from the chaff. 

What does that mean for us production mixers?  It means that the world is once again ours to mix on.  View the splits as something for post to fall back on if something goes wrong, if you screw up, or if you're in a noisy enviornment and the BG noise will be significantly reduced by A/Bing isos -- and otherwise, make it as beautiful as you can on the set, with your ears and fingers, in the old fashioned way -- the one that was somewhat discouraged in the DAT era.

Regards,

Noah Timan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noah said:  Now this I disagree with.  I've prattled on and on about it elsewhere, so I'll try to be brief, but I do believe that the new multitrack era has brought back the mono mix to be used and cherished in a way that it was not in the stereo age, at least with many productions.

I agree with you on this, Noah, and I think I overlooked your particular take on this because of my own personal connection with multitrack from the past. I really always referred to multitrack as anything more than ONE track because even when everyone else had moved on to the stereo Nagra, I was still using my mono 4.2. I even went so far as to look into the modification that equipped the 4.2 mono recorder with timecode capability just so I could do some commercials. I never did buy a 4STC. When first using DAT (2-tracks whether you use them or not) I still carried on recording only one track. This is why I was confused by all the talk from others where they would say "put the boom one track 1, put the radios on track 2" etc., etc. You are absolutely right that by having MORE than 2 tracks could serve as a return to an interest in a good mono track, I'm just not sure this is really happening. I don't think it is the sound mixer's fault, I think that productions have gotten so chaotic that a mix of all these necessary elements down to one track often is just not possible.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the discussion.

In regards to Noah's question, I too have wondered about mic pre's in wireless transmitters. Do you that are wise in the ways of mixing feel they are adequate for award winning filmaking? As a wireless boom operator, I have fleeting visions of an old nagra hanging off my side, soley for it's pre-amps and power.

On flow (and a small flag wave for the boom op), I respect the mixer as the department head guiding the expedition, however, I like to think that it's the boom op reaching out, net in hand, to actually 'capture' the sound. The mixer then is responsible (overall of everything) for maintaining the signal's integrity. After the fight has beeen fought, the recordist then locks the beast in the cage.

This is slipping away from the original post, Signal Pre-Capture, but since it was mentioned: as far as 'above the line's'  attitude for sound, I too have noticed a lack of concern. Sometimes it sounds like they've ADR'd much more than was necessary (kudos to the ADR guys, I mean you no harm). It feels as though there's sometimes an agreement that gaurantees the actor's to 'X' ammount of ADR time (I've heard they will often work this into their contracts). If so, doesn't that create a lack of concern for the production sound department , when planning to ADR no matter what?

My guess: it's the close proximity of the tube mic's (?) in the ADR studio that they would rather hear than the mics used on the set.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On flow (and a small flag wave for the boom op), I respect the mixer as the department head guiding the expedition, however, I like to think that it's the boom op reaching out, net in hand, to actually 'capture' the sound. The mixer then is responsible (overall of everything) for maintaining the signal's integrity. After the fight has beeen fought, the recordist then locks the beast in the cage.

No, you've got it.  We like to talk a good game around here but it is you all that really make the difference between good, okay sound and great sound.  The most talented mixer blending the most beautiful and well placed lavaliers expertly still is not going to hold a candle to a real microphone being in the right place at the right time, provided that opportunity is available.  Nothing is more frustrating for us than having to go to the wire when we know what is really possible.

It feels as though there's sometimes an agreement that gaurantees the actor's to 'X' ammount of ADR time (I've heard they will often work this into their contracts). If so, doesn't that create a lack of concern for the production sound department , when planning to ADR no matter what?

This is a little more suspect.  While actor contracts may have ADR details worked out beforehand, this is not to ensure that there will be ADR whether or not this is necessary (!)  This is more to ensure that the actor gets paid regardless for x days of ADR work regardless of whether or not it is actually needed.  The actors do not want to renegotiate any details in post.  It doesn't mean that someone will drag the actor in for an unnecssary ADR session just because it was paid for, though!

nvt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that productions have gotten so chaotic that a mix of all these necessary elements down to one track often is just not possible.

Well, as you recently pointed out in a post, no one we know has been fired for not providing a pile of split tracks.  On the other hand, we all know some folks who did get fired for not providing a mono mix and justifying this with “well, if you pull this line from track 3, this line from track 6, this one from track 7…”

You are absolutely right that by having MORE than 2 tracks could serve as a return to an interest in a good mono track, I'm just not sure this is really happening.

The new technology, while enabling post to take advantage of all that they have dreamed of in terms of split tracks, has also created their greatest nightmare, it seems.  Now they have the (at least theoretical) potential to improve what we do on set – but it creates a ton of work for them to do so.  When there were two split tracks it was an easy monitor and remix.  When there are six? eight? ten? it becomes prohibitively time consuming to dig through everything and reassemble a production mix from scratch.  That’s why I take all of the kind of “we’re not mixers anymore, we’re just recordists” with a grain of salt.  I think that post is now more reliant on our mono mix now than they ever were in the DAT age (with the obvious exception of people like you, Jeff, who never split tracks on DAT to begin with).

Many moons ago I worked with a very talented mixer from the UK named Peter Glossop, who had this "mono mix + endless isos" routine perfected at least ten years before it had even hinted at becoming the commonplace scenario that it is now.  He used to carry around two separate full size mixers and a properly wired and powered splitter, plus a Nagra IVSTC (which he would roll mono on -- it was more for the TC than the S) and a Tascam DA-88 (with a timecode card -- new then but before the days of the 98 or 78HR or all of the NLR DTRS replacements we currently enjoy).  His answer to it all?  "I'll make my mix.  If someone doesn't like it" -- pointing to the DA88 and all of the iso feeds blinking in the armed track meters -- "they can remix it themselves!"  I always loved this approach, but it was a formidable setup then.  The weight and size of it required manpower and a technician-savvy enough crew to handle and maintain all of the patchwork properly.  (This could be intimidating to those boom ops and thirds used to seeing a Nagra, SQN and a Schoeps on a pole comprising the sound package -- still not uncommon at that time).   In other words, nothing for a fast-moving indie film. (I did try it myself a few times on small films, but it was always an enormous hassle and burden for a two-man crew shooting five or six pages a day).

When we went to NAB a few years ago and all of a sudden everyone and their mother had a small, cute DC-powered multitrack on sale, it seemed that all of my prayers were answered.  Now we could all use this wise workflow without needing a trove of strongmen to lift the cart or constant AC power for the Tascam. 

Whether or not the workflow is being taken advantage of so far is hard to say.  Most of my production colleagues indicate that they, like myself, are making a mono mix on track 1 (or an A/B cam pair of mixes on tracks 1 and 2) and isoing everything else, and most info I get from editorial seem to indicate that they're only using the splits when needed.  So I don’t know how far off it is.

Regards,

Noah Timan

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...