Jump to content

Thoughts on Mixing to Mono vs Mixing to Stereo


MT Groove

Recommended Posts

Hey Jan, my way works for me but it is specific to my commercial market. They go to air sooner than ever and there is little time for remixing a spot if it is shot in a scripted manner and most are. 30 seconds and specific words that have been worked to death.

If I may hop into the way back machine. I always wanted to do multitrack sound because of Robert Altman and his films even though Jimmy Webb, one of my great mentors who pioneered the form, always said that it was a terrible way to work. I finally got my shot on a series of Nike commercials in the mid 90's with the much loved director Joe Pytka. My brother Moe was my boom op back then and we had a gig w Joe in San Francisco with 14 principals in a black barbershop. We used 2 DA88's and a 24 channel Mackie board mixed down to a Nagra stc unit for dailies. As we all know this is the classic cluster F*$% style of working. Well somehow we got 14 radios to work and guess what? Jim was right. I became a tracking engineer, not a mixer. The tracks all went down well enough and I did split them 7 n 7 on the Nagra because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Well that long day came to an end and after we wrapped up all the gear and were having a beer at the 4 Seasons, we decided we didn't really want to work in this manner. I decided to charge double the gear plus the radios of course. Somehow I thought the price would be a deterrent in the future. We had a job w Joe the next week and he gave us a very rare compliment. Said he never wanted to see a boom again. So started Joe and multitrack. I soon bailed out and gave the account to Moe and they still do multitrack about a third of the shoots at double rental rate.. A year or so after the Nike spot, we learned from the editor that they used my mix track for the spot. They didn't know what to do w the tapes we turned in. We were stunned. I hardly even listened to the Nagra tracks. The spot sounded real, but it could of been better had I just made a mix and not worried about the iso's. That taught me a couple of things. For me the mix is the thing, but if they want the extra tracks and ask for them up front, then of course I keep the customer satisfied. Long old story, but something to do on a boring day at work without much to record or do.

CrewC

THANK YOU!  I do believe in MT for multimics, but as a part-time postie I can tell you that if the dailies mix (1 or 2 tr) works ok we are probably moving on with it.  As Mr. C said, commercials especially have very short turnarounds now, and the people who do the mixes for those spots are like race-car drivers: they work REALLY fast because they know they will have to produce a mind-boggling number of minute variations of the same basic mix.  They do not WANT to go looking for isos!.  The Steve Morrow story of creative use of the 2nd channel of a 2 track dailies pair is the way I work mostly--I do do isos if I'm on the cart (not so often these days...) and otherwise try to make 2 (or at most 4) channels cover the action--w/the "problem" tracks split out.  In my area the editors like getting all the audio that's available right from the start, but they don't want a LOT of channels if we can manage it.  On 5D and card-cam shoots w/ syncs in the edit system (ie not telecine) turning in a 4 ch poly that includes the mix track is no big deal although I warn the editors to look for it.  More channels than that would require a phone call before the shoot (and possibly an act of congress).  The budget/time squeeze and open-ended/improv shooting styles that have brought us to MT production sound ripple onward into post--we are much more squeezed for time than we ever were and thus LESS likely to look for isos if we can make the dailies audio work.

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can tell a story of a reality show I worked on that did multi-track and it ended up being terrible for post.. despite the best efforts and intentions by all involved..

I was hired on as the 2nd mixer for a 5-cast reality show.  I was not invloved or consulted for any pre-production..  The problem was that the crew was split into to two teams covering different events each day, rarely working together.  This scenario would pit 2 camera ops and a singleton soundie in any given scene with many cast.. 5+  usually.  We started the first week with 5channel wendt x5 mixers, 5 radios, and a boom (which would have to be patched in and out as needed) all mixed to two camera tracks via wireless hops.  Clearly 5+ people of unscripted/overlapping chaos is too many for a single mixer to handle.. after week one the production finally agreed with us that this was a problem  (only after post said some sound was unusable due to overlaps).

A production meeting ensues.. They (production) say "what's going on with the sound?  Why is post saying it's not good?"  We explained the situation as best we could and basically gave them two options; Hire additional mixers and gear to provide a mixer for each camera --or-- rent Devas or 788s (it had just come on the market) and track the piss out of it!

Perceiving that it would be cheaper to just rent some more gear they went with the multi-track route.  The results:

- Post was overwhelmed by many GB's of audio data per day (it was common for the cameras to roll out full 60minunte tapes one after the other)

- Sound and Picture sync was a constant struggle for post (footage across 4+ HVX200's) despite our best efforts to TC slate every roll in addition to each camera getting an identical monomix track..  I figure this was due to the HVX200's drifting ways and lack of professional timecode functionality.. but who knows

- It made for an extremely heavy, exhausting, over-the-shoulder rig.  At one point we had 7 radios in a bag with a Deva 5.8+ 2 NP's and lectro transmitters.

Granted this was an extremely poorly planned, low-budget (at least for us grunts) shoot but it's a good example of multi-track gone wrong.  I'm also positive it would have been cheaper for the production to just hire extra staff and use standard ENG-reality kits.  AND in hindsight I regret that we ever suggested multi-track.. but it was more the situation.. I know when executed properly multi-track will work fine for reality, it just can't be an afterthought or a band-aid for shoddy pre-pro.

But.. the show aired eventually and sounded OK.. though there were a few subtitled scenes.. which is a little embarrassing but It's all water under the bridge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Post was overwhelmed by many GB's of audio data per day (it was common for the cameras to roll out full 60minunte tapes one after the other)

- It made for an extremely heavy, exhausting, over-the-shoulder rig.  At one point we had 7 radios in a bag with a Deva 5.8  2 NP's and lectro transmitters.

In my experience most reality post departments are not equipped to handle the large amount of data produced each day unless they are use to the workflow. I just did a shoot last week with 8 tracks all day rolling 12 hours of a 15 hour day. The editor was overwhelmed with it plus the 3 camera worth of footage. Despite the fact I ran all the calculations for him ahead of time.

I won't wear a bag any larger than a 442 or 552 with 3-4 wireless. I already have a budging disc in my back.

I really don't like to wear anything more than a 302 mixer 2-3 wireless and a wireless hop. this rig causes me no pain or discomfort. I like to refer to myself as a bag mixer who works from a cart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view:

The term "Split tracks" (some refer to as "stereo mix") for production film/video tracks, usually refers to the practice of recording booms to one track and lavs to another.

In my opinion (expressed here before), this is an errant hold over from a method that began with the Nagra IV-S, and became more widespread with 2-track DAT, when we were attempting to make best use of a second recording channel. Even then, when only two tracks were available, I think the best use of those two tracks was to record our best shot at a mono mix on track 1, and isolate the boom(s) on track 2. This way, normally the mix could be used as-is, but if a change in our mono mix was desired, the boom could be used alone (by using just track 2) or the boom could be reduced or removed entirely by adding track 2 out of phase. Sadly, that simple concept was too much for too many to think about, so it didn't become a mainstream standard. But, assuming that the best mix will often involve a combination of boom and lav (otherwise, why record them both?) the "split track" method forces post to always remix, instead of remixing only when the production mix needs to be changed.

Now that we are -- and have been, for years -- in an era of multiple tracks (4, 8, 12, 16...), when we usually have the ability to record a mix on one track, plus each mic, prefader, on their own tracks, I think it makes even less sense to record two mixes (one with boom(s), one with lavs).

On occasions where an actual stereo image is desired (and I am a big fan of this in the cases of music and ambience), then the L/R channels should be included in the mix if desired, and iso'd, prefader, on their own tracks.

These methods allow production mixers the best chance to be beneficial with their mixing skills while giving post production an endless second chance of remixing. What more could anyone want?

Glen Trew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this discussion is VERY interesting.

The comments beg the question... how come there isn't someone who's in charge of audio soup to nuts? From production recording to design and final mixdown?

In the real world and real life (like for example, most successful businesses)  there is usually someone called a "manager" who is responsible for things like efficiency, consistency, quality etc. That guy's butt is on the line to make sure things work right and are done correctly throughout.

Forgive me, but I have not found this at all in the film sound biz. Maybe it's out there someplace but I haven't seen it.

The culture of our industry is to not plan or spec things out and hope for the best or let post worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear OutstandingSound4Picture,

I have no idea who you are and I don't know why you are not posting with your real name? The majority of us on JWSound.net are involved in sound in various categories and different levels of experience. That is the beauty of this site and the internet where many of us can speak candidly without fear of being put down for our opinions or our years in the biz.

To answer your point about our business model:

The only reason there is not someone hired on day one to oversee the quality of the sound track is because of the budget.

Feature films and television shows will book their final mixing stage dates in advance with the crews they want - but they are not on contract because it's not in the budget. It is extremely rare for a Sound Supervisor; meaning Sound Designer or Sound Editor to be on payroll when shooting begins.

That means Production Mixers are trying to establish the workflow with the Post Production Supervisor, who is really an associate producer with post production experience, to make sure that the images shot will sync with the sound and be on a DVD for the Executives and Director to look at. Basically at this point, if it syncs up and the editors can ingest it to cut with and it sounds to them, relatively OK, then all is rainbows and unicorns.

On television, it is at least six weeks before the sound editors will really dive into your tracks or the rerecording mixers will be mixing the show. That's the only time the "rubber meets the road" and a true assessment of what the production mixer is delivering will be really listened to.

On features it could be a few months or more and usually long after the show has finished.

This means it's imperative that those doing the hiring for the shooting process, get the best and most experienced people they can. Of course it doesn't always happen this way, but this is a creative process, shoe horned into a business model. It has been working this way since filmmaking began and it's really doubtful it will change soon.

Regards,

RL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that we are -- and have been, for years -- in an era of multiple tracks (4, 8, 12, 16...), when we usually have the ability to record a mix on one track, plus each mic, prefader, on their own tracks, I think it makes even less sense to record two mixes (one with boom(s), one with lavs).

I noted in post over the last five years, the number of 2-track "split" mixes has declined. Most of what we were getting in at Technicolor/Complete Post for dailies has been a mono mix on ch. 1 and then iso's on all the other channels. But I also noted the number of overall channels has been steadily going up, especially for TV.

I agree that the "keep it simple" principle makes sense. The picture editor is much less irritated (overwhelmed) by a good mono mix for dailies, and then they have the option to use the isos later on for dialog editing.

--Marc W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this discussion is VERY interesting.

The comments beg the question... how come there isn't someone who's in charge of audio soup to nuts? From production recording to design and final mixdown?

In the real world and real life (like for example, most successful businesses)  there is usually someone called a "manager" who is responsible for things like efficiency, consistency, quality etc. That guy's butt is on the line to make sure things work right and are done correctly throughout.

Forgive me, but I have not found this at all in the film sound biz. Maybe it's out there someplace but I haven't seen it.

The culture of our industry is to not plan or spec things out and hope for the best or let post worry about it.

I second what Richard says (including the part about not using your name...  that's a no - no right there) and if you have had any experience in this industry you must have noticed already that this business is like no other. The so-called Entertainment Industry is hugely profitable in many says because it is not like other "successful businesses" --- one fundamental example of this is that there is no other manufacturing business (and that's what it is) that can raise 60 to a 100 million dollars to produce one product (a feature length movie) without really any guarantee that the product will sell. How many movies have been made (manufactured) that never even break even? What other successful business could continue this practice and survive?

As for the specifics of the somewhat haphazard approach to the soundtrack for a product, the lack of planning and hiring of proper personnel in advance continues because it can...  somehow, in part through the efforts of production sound mixer at the very start, things get done and in the end people buy tickets...  or not.

I have had the luxury of working primarily on feature films, I have co-owned and operated a post-production facility, I am a member of the Editors Guild as well as Sound and Video local 695, I have introduced much of the new technology in production (DAT, file-based recording) and have had to truly understand what happens in post just to even allow me to use these new things. Post Supervisors, even when you get the chance to speak with them before a project begins, usually can only give you the spec for the last show they did. Often it is discovered that workflow was flawed but just as often no one has really discussed what the new modified workflow should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this discussion is VERY interesting.

The comments beg the question... how come there isn't someone who's in charge of audio soup to nuts? From production recording to design and final mixdown?

In the real world and real life (like for example, most successful businesses)  there is usually someone called a "manager" who is responsible for things like efficiency, consistency, quality etc. That guy's butt is on the line to make sure things work right and are done correctly throughout.

Forgive me, but I have not found this at all in the film sound biz. Maybe it's out there someplace but I haven't seen it.

The culture of our industry is to not plan or spec things out and hope for the best or let post worry about it.

Well, my answer to that is that often the people who will really be directly responsible for taking all the production sound and making a final mix out of it haven't been hired yet when shooting starts.  In a long-form doc the hiring of the post audio people could be as much as 3 years away at the start of shooting!  There may be an editor on board, but in my experience they are swamped with other things relating to the shooting in progress, and might not be staffed up w/ assistants yet (if they get assistants at all).  Multitrack isos or no, I feel like I have to give those editors a decent mix (across 1 to 4 channels as they prefer) that they can use NOW, and then they'll clean up that mix later on, w/ isos if we can manage them.  There have been some good posts that intimate what many of us who work on smaller jobs know well--that going w/a more complex system w/ more isos when you don't have the people or the time to really deploy them well will often result in WORSE audio for the show than if you kept things simple® and fleet of foot. 

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...going w/a more complex system w/ more isos when you don't have the people or the time to really deploy them well will often result in WORSE audio for the show than if you kept things simple® and fleet of foot. 

Philip Perkins

What could be more simple than a mono mix plus prefader ISOs on remaining tracks?

Glen Trew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What could be more simple than a mono mix plus prefader ISOs on remaining tracks?

Glen Trew

I think simpler would be a mono mix and a single 2nd track with my choice of what I want to split out or submix.  I am talking about bag-rig runaround jobs primarily--like you I like to do the mix+iso thing when I have the equipment (and cart) to be able to use it effectively.  Very often I do not, and have to make a decision about what to do to give post the best option of making a scene work. Often this "scene" is something not rehearsed or even blocked out beforehand.  Having the 2nd channel is a great easy way (as part of a 2 track poly) to split out something(s) for any of many reasons in a way that is easily digestible by post.  Mostly thats what the people I work for consistently want, over the last 25 years or so in one man band doco (or pseudo-doco) situations.  I think this approach is better for the project overall than a single mono mix with NO isos, which in these cases is the alternative.    As postie, especially on docs, I appreciate it when production sound people work this way--it is faster and easier for me than having to conform isos that are not in the OMF export from the picture edit, and allows me to do a much better balance of the scene than a single mono mix.  This topic has been much discussed in the past, and I understand that many of you do not agree with this approach for some very good reasons--but it DOES work very well for me, anyhow.

Philip Perkins 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip]

If I may hop into the way back machine. I always wanted to do multitrack sound because of Robert Altman and his films even though Jimmy Webb, one of my great mentors who pioneered the form, always said that it was a terrible way to work.

[snip]

CrewC

Great lot of history there, Crew, and lessons. Good lessons learned.

In an attempt to summarize, what seems at first glance like a simple decision is actually a laminate, with many layers of experience and knowledge at work. Knowledge of your market, its budgetary limitations and expectations. Knowledge of your gear, your client, and their gear. Acknowledgment of your own dreams / aspirations.

What becomes clear in this and other threads is that east coast / west coast differences in markets, best practices, and expectations are more more substantial than I would have expected. I'm sure there must have been a thread on this subject already. I find it interesting.

We are individually shaped by our markets or we do not succeed.

Another question I ask during the feature project interview process is when they intend to hire their post sound team. Inevitably, they are taken by surprise, but the seed is planted and these days, more often than not, it grows into enough of a sprout that a conversation or two happens with the sound editor before we begin to roll, even if they are not officially on salary until picture lock.

My reasoning to the UPM for this conversation is this: technical specifications for shooting depend largely on post's workflow and what software tools they own. Without knowing the tools that will be used, it's impossible to determine correct specs. Of course, everything on my end can be re-done so it's technically right, but that = time & $.

Some of the shows in NY have been asking for two discs at the end of the day: one with mono mix only, and one with all tracks. What's with that?

Conclusions drawn from this discussion for my own revised 'best practices' include:

  • When I know that picture edit is being done with only my mono mix handy, making a note when I think they would benefit by importing an iso.
  • Asking post how many mono mix tracks they want (one or two) remains the right thing to do.
  • Include talk about iso tracks in discussions with post about tech specs.
  • Make sure I know what audio tracks picture edit will have imported.

Good stuff.

-- Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my choice of what I want to split out or submix. "

ah, but how do you know what you want??  not always easy, but this is what we frequently did in the 2-track days...

I'm with Glen on KISS...

How do I know?  That's why I get the big bucks.  Simple is in the mind of who writes my check, and they think simple is a split mix.  OK?

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to do a mono mix because it seems video editors who also finish the audio in most cases don't always have a handle on what it takes to do a great mix.  The shows I work on are the HGTV/DIY Network type shows.  A typical set up would be four wires.  Host on channel one of a 442, channel two and three homeowners, and contractor on channel four.  I'm cabled to the camera via line out of my mixer.  I am panning the Host hard left, and everyone else hard right.  I leave the Host up all the time (unless he's off camera of course), and I mix the other three mics to the other channel as they come and go from the set.  All very doc style and pretty free flowing.  There isn't a budget for isos and I don't think the editor would have the time to use them.  The current set up is how post wants it, and is pretty much the way I've been doing this type of show for a long time.  When I see the shows in a finished state, sometimes the host (who usually has a strong voice) sounds like he's in a more reverberant space than the people he's talking to.  ie: his voice is being picked up by the other mics and post isn't checkerboarding the two channels.  His voice gets diffused and everyone else sounds normal.  Doesn't happen that often but I would like to have a more even sounding track in the finished show.  Aside from telling post to do their job better, what can I do on my end to make things better?  Keep in mind that these are unscripted, spontaneous exchanges. 

Bernie 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Some of the shows in NY have been asking for two discs at the end of the day: one with mono mix only, and one with all tracks. What's with that?

-- Jan

I think the 2-copy system (one 1-track, one multi-track) is often a good idea. I have done it on several shows, and it is not as much extra work as you might think.

The mono mix is all that is needed by the dailies transfer tech, and often all that is needed for the picture editor. A DVD-RAM disk with more than 8 tracks is sometimes problem for dailies transfer as it won't playback in some machines. Also, multitrack copies sometimes unnecessarily forces the transfer tech to deal with more than one DVD-RAM disk per film break. It takes relatively little time to make a 1-track mirror copy.

Keep in mind that the practice of making a 1-track copy and a multi-track copy sometimes means that there will be one disk for the 1-track copy and two or more disks for the multitrack copy. This is why, when needing more than one DVD-RAM per film break for a single folder, I always label them with an "A", "B", "C", etc, like "24A", "24B", etc. This way, no matter how many disks are needed for a multitrack copy, they will always reflect the same folder as their 1-track counterpart.

Glen Trew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that the practice of making a 1-track copy and a multi-track copy sometimes means that there will be one disk for the 1-track copy and two or more disks for the multitrack copy. This is why, when needing more than one DVD-RAM per film break for a single folder, I always label them with an "A", "B", "C", etc, like "24A", "24B", etc. This way, no matter how many disks are needed for a multitrack copy, they will always reflect the same folder as their 1-track counterpart.

Glen Trew

To accomodate "film" breaks, I used to start a new roll (folder) on the Deva and a new DVD-RAM disc for that folder. What I do now is keep everything for the whole shooting day/night in one folder with one roll number on the Deva. The 2nd DVD-RAM disc is labdeled, as Glen does, 23A, B, C, etc. if more discs are required to deliver that one sound roll no. 23.

- Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to do a mono mix because it seems video editors who also finish the audio in most cases don't always have a handle on what it takes to do a great mix.  The shows I work on are the HGTV/DIY Network type shows.  A typical set up would be four wires.  Host on channel one of a 442, channel two and three homeowners, and contractor on channel four.  I'm cabled to the camera via line out of my mixer.  I am panning the Host hard left, and everyone else hard right.  I leave the Host up all the time (unless he's off camera of course), and I mix the other three mics to the other channel as they come and go from the set.  All very doc style and pretty free flowing.  There isn't a budget for isos and I don't think the editor would have the time to use them.  The current set up is how post wants it, and is pretty much the way I've been doing this type of show for a long time.  When I see the shows in a finished state, sometimes the host (who usually has a strong voice) sounds like he's in a more reverberant space than the people he's talking to.  ie: his voice is being picked up by the other mics and post isn't checkerboarding the two channels.  His voice gets diffused and everyone else sounds normal.  Doesn't happen that often but I would like to have a more even sounding track in the finished show.  Aside from telling post to do their job better, what can I do on my end to make things better?  Keep in mind that these are unscripted, spontaneous exchanges. 

Bernie

There is a question buried in this post.  Anyone have any thoughts for me?

Thanks,

Bernie

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...