Michael P Clark Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 I'd like to open up some discussion regarding Mix tracks and how many you use. This is not intended for discussion with two track, tethered to camera jobs. This is intended for multi-track recordings, be it a Deva/SD/Cantar/Fostex/etc. Are there any pro's or con's to either of these methods. If I remember correctly, some still do two-track mixes from the days when Avid didn't like a mono file, and preferred a poly file, and an even number tracks. I've always been doing a mono Mix track, just because I've needed every track possible for ISO's. Is there another post reason to be using up two tracks for redundant information anymore? Or are you using one of the two tracks as a backup/safety at a lower level? Do you dump one of them in favor of that 6/7 or 8th additional ISO needed? Thanks for any input! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Always a mono single track (track 1) mix track. All remaining tracks, 8 on my Deva IV or 10 on my Deva 5.8, are used for other things, usually iso pre-fader tracks. Only once did I record an unnecessary redundant track to accommodate an ancient Avid that only allowed an even track count. I believe this is a thing of the past. I do not see any value of recording a redundant mix track at a lower level, but maybe that's just me. - Jeff Wexler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Lamontagne Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 The Pd606 is setup to do a two channel mix with 6 iso tracks. Its intuitive yet possibly archaic as redundancy is unnecessary in the digital domain. Back in analog 24 track studer days I believe it was standard practice to have the outer tracks (1 and 24) be either a temp mix or TC track as they would suffer from magnetic issues... Glad we don't have to worry about that! Actually, my post super specifically requested tracks one and two to contain mix audio on my current project. I'm delivering on USB stick and its being posted directly into Final Cut. But I wonder why exactly two tracks and so I will ask him next time we speak. For daily purposes in telecine, for years it has been a standard to have two tracks of audio on DAT be syncronized with picture and dumped onto vhs. I've always thought it wise to provide telecine with the first two tracks as mix to go with the dailys, less confusion I suppose? I'm rambling but I suppose your choice is your choice and as long as its noted correctly and obvious then do what you like and make others aware. After all, its our job to GET the sound/performance, theirs is to WORK with it! Good Luck! Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 I generally turn in 2 tracks because my clients usually request a boom/lav mix split. When I only have a single mic (or mix) feeding both channels I still do 2 tracks but make a note that they are the same. It seems simpler for everyone to stay with the pair all the time rather than switch back and forth between 1 and 2 channels--saves calls from editors who think I forgot to transfer something for them etc. (This is in addition to whatever isos I might be recording.) phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Trew Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Mono mix on channel one. Assuming all other tracks are prefader isolation tracks, I don't believe there is any reason to also have a mix on track 2. Explained below. Assuming we are talking about original production dialog tracks coming from mono micing... In the case of "split tracks" (such as booms on one, wireless on the other), this is a hold-over from the 2-track days, which was an effort to get some flexibility and options with a 2-track device (Nagra IV-S and DAT). (Even then I think this was not the best practice, as discussed in other similar threads.) There are several problems with this practice, but the most obvious is that it forces post production to always re-mix the production tracks (assuming that the desired mix involved part boom and part wireless), instead of having the option to use the mono mix without remixing. Be these days, with prefader ISO tracks galore, all of the other mics are available for remixing in the event that the mono mix needs to be altered. Regarding another common use of split tracks; recording the mono mix a few dB lower on track 2 in case of overload. This advantage is also mostly a myth, and mostly a hold over from the BetaCam days, when the camera inputs didn't have as much headroom as the mixer. But now, if the mixer is properly aligned with the recorder, then if an extra 3dB of headroom is needed at the recorder, it means that the signal from the mixer was about 3dB into clipping. So nothing much, if anything, is gained on the -3dB channel. Mono mix on Ch-1. Prefader ISOs on remaining tracks. Glen Trew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Deutscher Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 I generally turn in 2 tracks because my clients usually request a boom/lav mix split. When I only have a single mic (or mix) feeding both channels I still do 2 tracks but make a note that they are the same. It seems simpler for everyone to stay with the pair all the time rather than switch back and forth between 1 and 2 channels--saves calls from editors who think I forgot to transfer something for them etc. (This is in addition to whatever isos I might be recording.) phil p Just read in the latest Mix magazine that the mixer for the new HBO series "Game of Thrones," Ronan Hill, works the same way (with boom mix on track 1, lav mix on track 2 and rest ISOs.) Being he's from the UK, can any other UK-based mixers elaborate on whether they implement the same approach or go mono mix. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McL Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 These kinds of questions often make me shake my head. Why? Because ultimately, the answer to this and other tech spec questions often asked here will depend on the end user of the tracks, and the constraints of their unique soft and hardware setup. This is a question I include with tech specs, and is typically answered when we have that educational, essential phone call or teleconference with the posties. If -- on reading the script -- I found many scenes with 9 or 10 people talking in situations where I anticipate as many wires (God forbid) and that postie teleconference resulted in a request for two redundant mix channels, I would bring to their attention the fact that in those big scenes, a couple of wires would go un-iso'ed and suggest renting an additional machine or something. In the meantime, the correct answer will nearly always be found with post production. -- Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthias Richter Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 There are several problems with this practice, but the most obvious is that it forces post production to always re-mix the production tracks (assuming that the desired mix involved part boom and part wireless), instead of having the option to use the mono mix without remixing. Glen Trew over here (Germany) it is quite common to use split tracks (boom on 1, lavs on 2). As long as editorial is working with these two tracks all the time I don´t see it as a problem. The two tracks are mixed in a way that when played back and listen in mono (center speaker) it will sound like a mono-mix. No need to remix. But if you have a slight phasing on a single word or some unpredictable cloth rustling they most of the time can solve that prob within these 2 tracks. Matthias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Palmer Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 I've always run a single mix track and iso's to follow...except for the show I'm on now. Which leads me to say, it depends on the situation and what works for the show and workflow. On Glee, we run 2 mix tracks because we often split tracks for dialog and music or live vocal track and music playback track. These happen at irregular intervals, and require a different set up in telecine. So, we opted for a 2 track split throughout, that way it will always come up correctly in the edit master. It works for us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael P Clark Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Well, thanks for clearing those up. I was curious if two track mixes were mixer-centric, and held over from past issues in post or not. As mentioned earlier, I've always done a single mix-track mix, and unless post asks for it, that will still be my MO. This was not something I have been asked for before, but will now mention, and discuss on my next show, during pre-pro. Thanks, again, everybody! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg sextro Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 If I'm mixing on a proper feature, then a mono-mix is what I typically provide. If I'm mixing over the shoulder on a project where I know post knows what they're doing, then often I will put boom on 1 and wires on 2. A lot of producers still seem to prefer it that way. If I'm doing over the shoulder work for a project where I know no one will even be paying attention to the tracks and what to use, then I tend to provide a 2 channel mono mix (same mix on channels 1 and 2). Why you might ask? Because I've noticed more and more of the "editors" working on a lot of these social media projects end up exporting their video with boom L and wires R. Even though I explain the post process to them, they still don't even sum either of the tracks to mono, nor pick which audio source sounds better (and mute the other). I've been forced to make everything as completely simple as possible for them, even though they probably don't know it! (and btw, i do also roll isos for all the other tracks) -Greg- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 The few times I have been asked to split wires/boom (only on direct-to-camera shoots like industrials or shorts), I have asked production why. Typically I get, "That's what we always do". I have explained that if I deliver a mono mix track to camera, that it will be what the will probably want to use in the end, and they won't need to remix everything. If they need to remix a particular scene or setup, all the ISO tracks are available on my recordings. They have always gone with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomboom Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Pardon my question (I only do bag work) but if you mix boom and lavs on a same track, what if suddently the combination of these two go out of phase during the take ? Of if a subject slaps his/her lav while talking ? I would have assumed boom was on a track and lavs on another (like I might be doing 80% of the time) so they can mix it after in post ..? I guess, then, that most of what's on your mix track (if you mix on a single track) is coming from the boom to respect perspective and you may add a little lav here and there to boost a bit when needed ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProSound Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 I do a mono mix if my 788T is my primary delivery method. If I am mixing to camera and the camera audio is suppose to be the primary audio then I split it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael P Clark Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Let's not get off topic with why one would mix booms and lavs together on a track. That's a different thread(http://jwsound.net/SMF/index.php?topic=572.0). And, although I appreciate the insight for direct to camera mix scenerios, something I'm glad I haven't done that in some time now, the original topic is in regards to dramatic, fiction style of work. Nothing personal, just nipping it in the bud before it deviates too much. I'd like to open up some discussion regarding Mix tracks and how many you use. This is not intended for discussion with two track, tethered to camera jobs. This is intended for multi-track recordings, be it a Deva/SD/Cantar/Fostex/etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 With multi-track, I always did mono mix on track 1. Generally track 2 was boom, then the iso'd lavs as needed. My PD-6 had the minimum of 2 track recording feature. They often seemed to grab first two tracks for dailies (when shooting on film), so they ended up with an extra boom track in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Timan Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Hi Michael, These days, I believe this is a tale of opposite sides of the pond. In the U.S. the most common workflow is a mono mix on track 1 with iso splits on tracks 2-8. In Europe SOP is boom(s) on track 1, lavs on track 2. (Don't know where plants go if they are used). As Glen notes, the boom/wireless split workflow was used in the U.S. sometimes in the days when 2-track recorders were all we had (Nagra IV-S or IV-STC, DAT). However, that workflow became obsolete when nonlinear recorders became industry standard, and I don't know of anyone needing or using it now (for all of the reasons also detailed in Glen's post). The one exception is for ENG and documentary situations where I know it is still expected to put a boom on one stereo leg and wireless on the other (although I don't know why, and think it probably ends up creating more problems than it solves). The rare time I use track 2 for an additional "Mix" is if, during a shot, two cameras are capturing two completely separate pieces of action (but this is a scenario I'm not a fan of, and most of the time it luckily doesn't come up all that much any more). Hope that helps! I'd like to open up some discussion regarding Mix tracks and how many you use. This is not intended for discussion with two track, tethered to camera jobs. This is intended for multi-track recordings, be it a Deva/SD/Cantar/Fostex/etc. Are there any pro's or con's to either of these methods. If I remember correctly, some still do two-track mixes from the days when Avid didn't like a mono file, and preferred a poly file, and an even number tracks. I've always been doing a mono Mix track, just because I've needed every track possible for ISO's. Is there another post reason to be using up two tracks for redundant information anymore? Or are you using one of the two tracks as a backup/safety at a lower level? Do you dump one of them in favor of that 6/7 or 8th additional ISO needed? Thanks for any input! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john Quinn Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 This is the method I prefer track 1 for all on camera dialog. Track 2 for off camera lines . Track 3456 isos .And quite often if I have any tracks left I have a stereo atmos mic (neumann 191) that I assign to the last 2 tracks this mic may sometimes be in another room if we are filming in a house. It works for me. Best John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 " All remaining tracks, 8 on my Deva IV or 10 on my Deva 5.8, " JW's DEVA's do an odd number of tracks?? (8+1, 10+1) ?? and he's working on a movie with a chain smoking monkey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gilchrist Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 " All remaining tracks, 8 on my Deva IV or 10 on my Deva 5.8, " JW's DEVA's do an odd number of tracks?? (8+1, 10+1) ?? Mike, remember you are in a place described by our host as "the place where there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers†Best regards, Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomboom Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Thanks for the pointer Michael and sorry for deviation. I might have to mix soon on a tv serie so everything I can grab, I'll grab ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Maybe the boom/lav splits I get asked for are a west coast or just SF thing--but the request(s) are real and seem to make my editors happy. I see their point, actually, and am happy to comply when I can (not always). This is for all sorts of projects, doco to features. phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Trew Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 I realize that split tracks (with booms on 1 and lavs on 2) are often asked for, particularly in bag work, but I'll go out on a limb and say that, in most cases, the request is made out of habit and because it seems like it makes sense. But before proceeding, I want to point out that Phil Palmer's use of split tracks on "Glee" (mix on 1, music on 2, etc), is a prime example of a valid exception, and a primary reason I use the qualifier "in most cases" when pointing out the negative points of splitting tracks 1 & 2. It is also why I specified "...original production dialog tracks coming from mono micing" in the argument. The reason always given for splitting tracks with the boom on 1 and lavs on 2 is to give post the option of choosing which to use, and how to mix them. The argument often involves the inadequacy of headphone monitoring for making a mono mix in the field. But wait...it's OK for the production mixer to use headphones to mix multiple lavs onto track 2? Of course, this is inconsistent with the argument, making it invalid. If the reason for splitting boom and lav tracks is, indeed, to give post the option of choosing and/or remixing within the limits of two tracks, these options can be had while still having the option of using a production mono field mix by having a mono mix to the liking of the production mixer on track 1, and the boom (prefader if possible), on track 2. Then, in post production, if more boom is needed, simply pull down channel 1 and add channel 2 as desired. If the post mixer desires less boom, simply reverse the phase of track 2, bring it "up" in the mix, and voila: the boom is reduced in the mono mix. This is a way to have the option of using the mono field mix while still keeping the option open of remixing between boom and lavs. But, of course, with 8 or more multiple tracks that are common these days. this technique is not necessary, and neither is the practice of split tracks. Glen Trew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisnewton Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 On the show I'm working on now, i send a mono mixtrack to (RED) camera via wireless, isos to recorder. Like John Quinn, I will also occasionally, record track 1 for on-camera lines and track 2 for any off camera lines, or just use an iso track for off-cam lines (if I have any available tracks of course). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 I realize that split tracks (with booms on 1 and lavs on 2) are often asked for, particularly in bag work, but I'll go out on a limb and say that, in most cases, the request is made out of habit and because it seems like it makes sense. But before proceeding, I want to point out that Phil Palmer's use of split tracks on "Glee" (mix on 1, music on 2, etc), is a prime example of a valid exception, and a primary reason I use the qualifier "in most cases" when pointing out the negative points of splitting tracks 1 & 2. It is also why I specified "...original production dialog tracks coming from mono micing" in the argument. The reason always given for splitting tracks with the boom on 1 and lavs on 2 is to give post the option of choosing which to use, and how to mix them. The argument often involves the inadequacy of headphone monitoring for making a mono mix in the field. But wait...it's OK for the production mixer to use headphones to mix multiple lavs onto track 2? Of course, this is inconsistent with the argument, making it invalid. If the reason for splitting boom and lav tracks is, indeed, to give post the option of choosing and/or remixing within the limits of two tracks, these options can be had while still having the option of using a production mono field mix by having a mono mix to the liking of the production mixer on track 1, and the boom (prefader if possible), on track 2. Then, in post production, if more boom is needed, simply pull down channel 1 and add channel 2 as desired. If the post mixer desires less boom, simply reverse the phase of track 2, bring it "up" in the mix, and voila: the boom is reduced in the mono mix. This is a way to have the option of using the mono field mix while still keeping the option open of remixing between boom and lavs. But, of course, with 8 or more multiple tracks that are common these days. this technique is not necessary, and neither is the practice of split tracks. Glen Trew But Glen, the split DOES make sense to and for the people who are asking for it. The iso thing is great, but there are still some editors who don't want to (or can't) deal with that many tracks, but want the lav mix separate from the boom. I understand this seems illogical to you but it doesn't to them, and I've asked again about it recently. I sympathize with the editor trying to make a fast but presentable temp mix on FCP or Avid, so I give them what they ask for. Maybe younger editors will be less reticent to import and drag along a bunch of isos--if they are then I've got the isos for them to do it with. But I find that delivering them more than 2 tracks still requires a phone call or email to make sure what I'm doing doesn't slow them down. I'm not extrapolating this method up into commercial feature films or episodics--those jobs will work their own way and have lots more expertise brought to bear on the problems. (On many of my jobs it's about what the editor and I decide--we are the whole techno dept..) What I'm hoping for is that eventually they'll have the tools (and the knowledge+attitude) to take a multitrack poly file that contains whatever they've asked for mix-wise +isos, but my folks aren't there yet (way too deep in picture+compositing issues for this, mostly). Cheaper portable MT recorders like Nomad and the solutions that embed lots of tracks in HDSDI to be recorded on cameras or outboard video recorders may also bring about an acceptance of having more tracks going at the picture edit on smaller jobs.... phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.