Noah Timan

This is becoming a semantic argument I don't see the sense in continuing. Hopefully my point is made.

Not necessarily, and that's way too dangerous an assumption. Sometimes a km away it might be different. Sometimes ten or twenty miles away it might be very, very similar. As you are fond of saying, it depends...and counting on there being open frequencies in any block anywhere is unwise, in my experience.

That's true, but let's keep things in perspective and remember that for a couple of decades, most people listened to worn records full of skips and static on subpar turntables with worn styluses, or hissy cassette tapes (sometimes recorded from the radio!) Then, just as now, listening to music in great fidelity was possible, and just as now, one had to put in the work and own and maintain the equipment in order to do so (probably more maintenance and work than is required today). Just as now, the folks who maintained high quality equipment and took care of using and protecting the right media were NOT the majority of the general public. I'm not sure the audio format problems caused by today's technology (lossy MP3s made with poor codecs, low quality earbuds) are really worse than those of yesterday (cassette tapes dubbed from other cassette tapes left baking in the sun on dashboards, rice krispies all over records left on staticky carpets, so on and so forth). Always loved that David Lynch clip, by the way. Glad to see it again.

The floor-to-ceiling block on the right side is a DTV station. The left side, however, is just an amalgamation of different sources. Apologies to any for being snippy but I think it's important not to spread this idea to newcomers that "on any block there are always open frequencies", which is patently untrue -- this is hardly the only block I have seen that regularly looks like this here, and this is not the only city where this happens (though it's certainly one of the worst in that regard, at least in my experience).

Thanks all!

Me too, that's why I thought I'd ask first. Not terribly urgent at all (they are my recreational headphones), but figured it would be something I'd be able to get done this afternoon if someone knew off the cuff that it wasn't Litz (which is beyond my soldering abilities).

Come on now, really? Look again at this picture and make me a convincing argument that all these 256 frequencies, that otherwise would be clear, are occupied by ENG guys (all using wireless on the same block, no less) covering a news event!

I'd be hard pressed to believe that TV news crews, with perhaps a 2 channel camera link and a couple of lavs, are taking up that much of the bandwidth.

Well, you can draw one of at least two conclusions. One of them is I insist on using only this one block no matter where I go, and simply sit around and suffer when it happens. The other is that the reality of the RF world today in some places means that some places you go that block might be clear, and some places you go it might not be, and the reality is that we must carry some different options around to avoid having to deal with this fate. Or, more succinctly, as you like to say, "It depends..." The point has nothing to do with any of this: the point is to dispel your (no pun intended) unsound argument (which came with more than a little dose of 'tude) that there is room on every block for everybody. No. If you look at the photo, you'll see right where the TV station is, as that's the chunk of the block that is occupied from floor to ceiling. The rest is probably a conglomeration of other sources, some of which may be "spill" from TV stations, and some of which may be other sources. "It depends..." The Zaxcom recording wireless is a great idea and a great feat of technology, but today's filmmaking workflow as respects sound is hardly at a place in where that techonolgy can easily be implemented to get one out of trouble. Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't. "It depends..."

So the "very long time" you are referring to is the 14 years between A) the Germans trying to occupy Europe in WWI, failing, and signing the armistice in 1918 -- and the Nazis coming to power in 1932 and starting all over again?

Hi, does anybody know whether the Ultrasone HFI headsets are wired with Litz wire or standard copper from the headset speaker to the 1/8" plug? Thanks! (Senator, not trying to pee in your oatmeal, but the manufacturer is closed today...)

Thank you. There isn't really a shortage of things that we can find to be cute about. Genocide isn't one of them. Kudos to Cannes for telling him not to let the door hit his ass on the way out.

Wow, the last response I thought that picture would generate was "every block will always work everywhere"! I personally think that kind of comment is sort of irresponsible. To me, it does not follow that if in one place (in your case, downtown SF) four blocks work well, it's a legitimate conclusion that any block will work well in every place. I was hoping that image was an example of that (and I've certainly seen similar images in other blocks in other places than that block and that location). Of course, in the photo I posted, some of those freqs would work over short distances even though there is all that hash. But if hundreds of feet of reception were required, you'd be in the soup. As the Senator likes to say, "It depends..."

Uh huh.

You can turn off "auto correct" in the settings so this doesn't happen. Or any of this: www.damnyouautocorrect.com

Assuming one is delivering the full complement of isos in each case, to provide a safety net for operator(s) error or unpredictable wireless behavior... ...I must confess to being a little lost. What is the advantage of doing a "bash" mix, as you put it, to doing a real mix? Also, what is the advantage of a doing confusing-to-monitor, confusing-to-sort-out-later two-track submix that absolutely requires remixing, versus a straightforward-to-monitor, straightforward-to-edit mono mix that doesn't?

I'd recommend simple honesty. "This is how I make my living, and if I am only collecting labor wages without rental pay it's not worthwhile for me to do the job. Thanks anyway." I would recommend holding back all the stuff about how their gear isn't going to be well maintained or organized, even though I understand that -- the problem is that in the end, even though you may be right, it's just going to be taken as a challenge. It also might create an antagonistic relationship between you and your next boss. Plus, if you make the speeches about how much better your stuff is than theirs and then you have a problem with your gear for some reason, well, that's going to go poorly.

Glad to hear it hasn't been problematic for you. I myself personally can see marginal benefits to this system versus a regular mono mix, though, and an addition of all of the potential problems already noted (see Mr. Bondelev's post for further examples). Of course, I know that in Europe working with two tracks of audio all the time is SOP, so there's probably less room for the sorts of mistakes that have been noted, since many of them revolve around two audio tracks being broken down to one (either by squashing two together or by removing one). For me, in a feature/episodic situation, the mono mix provides the security that my mix can't be pulled apart in half and possibly never put back together again. If I blow a cue, for example, I'll make a pretty loud note on the report (ie "so and so's line missing from the mix is on Track 3") and also have the script supervisor put it in their notes to the editor as well. That means the editor should have clear information on how to find and "fix" the problem for the cut without having to poke around through many isos. The isos are always provided to the editor, so even though they don't load all of them into the Avid all the time, the files are standing by in the edit room if they need to grab a line from an iso here or there. But, to each their own...

Phil, that was a response to Matthias' post, not yours. Some of the questions in it were directed at him and ideas represented in his post, while others were just sort of wondered aloud. None of it was directed at you. Additionally, the response to Matthias was written before I read your most recent post. I chose not respond to that one since it seemed like you wanted to stop discussing these issues of "to bus or not to bus". I apologize -- I did not mean to ruffle your feathers.

If I'm guessing right, I believe you're talking about a different scenario -- one where you're essentially creating a mono mix by mono summing all the elements in your headphones and mixing, but splitting the elements out amongst two tracks. (If I've got it wrong, apologies). That's different from *not* making a mix and simply recording two separate, alternate versions of the same thing, which was what I was ranting about earlier. As far as the mono-sum-in-headphones, bus-to-two-track mix goes -- I personally fail to see the benefit in doing that. If you are truly creating a mono mix but want to give post the option to adjust things later, why not just make the mono mix and send them the elements via prefader ISO? That seems to be the best of both worlds, rather than a two-track mix that can be pulled apart, but might still have fader moves etc that befit the original (headphone-only mono sum) mix but do not benefit a "remix". Seems to open the door to a lot of confusion without allowing for much benefit. If you get the mix right on set, then there it is, one track, simple enough to work with and how the dialogue is eventually going to want to be delivered. If you get it mostly right but miss a cue on one line, the mix + one iso track for the duration of that one missed line will make it all work pretty simply and efficiently. If you totally blow it, all the isos are there for someone to start from scratch. That system covers itself pretty well. Other reasons I can think of not to spread one mono mix over two tracks: In many workflows, the usual practice on this side of the pond (and the preference of most editors) is to only import one track and not two. For example, we did a stunt shot (all effects) the other day that I recorded in stereo. I liked the stereo version a lot, so I asked the transfer house to transfer that particular take to dailies as L/R stereo. Here's what I saw the next day in the dailies report: "According to the sound report, (x) does not have a mixdown track, and the sound mixer has asked for this scene to be transferred to dailies as STEREO L/R. Due to a software limitation, we are only able to transfer a single audio file per video clip into AVID. So, the .mxf files for (x) will include LEFT CHANNEL AUDIO ONLY." Now, this is on a bigger budget job where there's organization and pretty good communication. On a small job with no communication, one might never know if this sort of thing happened. And this is but the first of many pitfalls that might happen to one's tracks (not far) down the line. Other notable examples I've either experienced firsthand or heard tell of include someone in transfer or editorial mono-summing the two separate legs (probably not going to go well with the boomed-n-laved interview scenario), skipping one track or another when loading into AVID, followed by post sound getting only an OMF of what the assistant picture editor loaded in, ADR being requested due to a problematic lav track when the material was fine on the boom or vice versa, and so on and so forth. All of this for what benefit? If it's an unpredictable documentary type situation, I certainly get why one might boom one side of a pair and put the lavs on the other, and let someone else work it out later, and run the small but not nonexistent risk that there might be mistakes and/or problems down the line. However, in a very controlled situation, I fail to see the advantage in doing so, and why it might be worth the risk. My .02.

I'm probably missing something, but I personally am struggling to see the difference there, if doing what one is asked to do contradicts what one believes is the best approach. I'll preface by saying I haven't done much that requires this workflow in a long time, so take all this with a hefty grain of salt. And, I don't speak for anyone else. That said, I'll try to explain why it gets me "het-up": As to A: In a shooting situation where there is a question as to whether or not the boom will be in a good position 100% of the time (ie bag work situations where the shoot is uncontrolled and the action is live and unscripted), and there's a two track workflow (ie straight to a camera with two tracks only, etc), a 2 track boom/lav split makes plenty of sense. However, in the example I cited that started this recent flurry (a sit down interview in a quiet studio), I feel that it doesn't make much sense. I suspect we've all been in situations where we might be recording two tracks, and one is singing beautifully, getting a wonderful tonal color, etc, and the other is, well, just okay, fine, serviceable -- but not nearly as special as the other. We're recording both and submitting both on the split tracks of a stereo leg. There is a reasonable belief that whoever gets the tracks down the line is going to be able to hear both sides, and if one is significantly better than the other, they're going to choose the better one, ignore the lesser one, and move along. However, there's hardly a guarantee that whoever gets the tracks down the line is going to subscribe to that philosphy we've agreed to (ourselves) on the set. In that workflow, I don't think it's crazy to assume that someone is going to pick the lav track "because that's what works most of the time etc", and abandon the nice recording for the subpar recording just out of practice, or worse. Will the "job go well" in that case? Sure. No one will know what was lost, and the sound will be issued to the final project via whatever capabilities the lavalier mic had to offer on that occasion. No one will complain. Never mind that there was a beautiful track provided by a Schoeps/Sennheiser/Neumann etc that was left in the garbage pail. No one knows and no one has to know. No one is suggesting that the use of the lav track will absolutely sabotage the project. But that's not what's up for debate. And the detriment to providing two tracks when one would have been sufficient? There is rarely a guarantee, particularly in those small job situations, where one can assume a very competent, sound-enwizened set of folks are going to process the tracks. By leaving two separate tracks of different quality, not only is one leaving it up to them to decide which is better, but one is leaving any and all editing/merging/squashing-track decisions up in the air for anyone in post, whether paying attention to sound or not, to claim them. It's a dangerous assumption that someone is going to be diligently listening to both tracks later and in every instance deducing which one is better and using that one each time (and making transitions from one to the other work). There are all sorts of things that might happen -- and the percentage of good decisions on those types of jobs, in my experience, isn't always high enough to rest easy on. The door becomes open to all kinds of horrors -- squashing both tracks together, using one track arbitrarily because of a momentary issue on the other, forgetting the other track exists, etc. As to B: It doesn't make sense in the workflow of a narrative project (features, episodics, etc). At that point you're either trying to complete one competent mix, or trying to complete two separate ones. In my experience in today's narrative projects, you'd be lucky to get away with one -- two isn't likely. In that scenario, we're all recording isos anyway, so the benefit of a lav sub-mix (when the lavs can be sub-mixed later, if necessary) is dubious. More importantly, there's hardly a guarantee that by separating your mix anyone down the line will automatically assume that the two separate tracks are supposed to be summed together. There's a Pandora's Box of hurt that's being opened at that point. Perhaps you can educate us. I promise I am not trying to goad you here -- I do not mean any disrepect. But honestly, maybe it'd be an eye-opener for me and perhaps others. From a post perspective, when does a lav track exceed a well-placed boom (obviously, when the location isn't noisy)? We all know about say, a subject leaning past the boom microphone, or a head drop, or a head turn that the overhead mic doesn't get sufficiently. But is curing those ills worth the world of other problems or subjugations that opening this workflow opens? Or are there other issues I'm unaware of?

Excellent example of what I was trying to say. Sometimes one's producer might insist instead of saying "Oh, Ok", and I completely understand politely acquiescing there. But sometimes I smell folks just saying "well, I better lav as well and bus it to track 2, because that's what they expect", without any "checking" from the producer or any indication that it's required. Maybe there's a fear of, "even if it doesn't make sense, what if later in editing, they don't have a lav track that they want, and then they blame me, and don't hire me again?" I think that fear can be assuaged with the confidence with the simple logic that a solid boom track is going to work. After all, we're the professional listeners listening, not them. They're just (understandably) trying to do their due diligence, but they don't have the benefit of years of experience of recording sound. If we can hear or expect that the boom track is not working or going to work well, and a lav will be better -- or even if it's a 50/50 on the subject -- by all means, go for it. But if it's just being blindly done unnecessarily because of expectations when it's completely unnecessary, then to my mind, it shouldn't be a standard response. What he said.

Apologies that this thread is getting sort of hijacked. I still haven't met them, I guess, at least not in a situation where the location is quiet and the boom is very close to the subject. This, on the other hand, is sounding more familiar. I understand that folks learn to rely on the consistency of the lav versus the unpredictability of the boom, particularly in "bag work" scenarios that might be reality or documentary or EPK situations, where the boom is covering unscripted action on the fly and may not be in the right place. However, it's both uneducated and lazy to jump to the conclusion that this makes lavs a better choice (or even worth bothering with at all) in EVERY scenario because they're a better choice in SOME scenarios. I know you already know that, and I hear what you're saying about having to make a living and not wanting to rock the boat. However, if we don't tell them, they're never going to learn on their own. I'm not suggesting you fight a battle, or refuse to lav someone if that's what they want and explicitly ask for. However, I am suggesting that if they are willing to listen to you, and you're confident you can get a real microphone in there (for a standard sit-down in a quiet place, it's a pretty safe wager), that perhaps you don't just lav as well anyway on your own "because that's what they usually ask for" etc -- because to me, if we do that, we are ourselves perpetuating the problem. Often the best-sounding end product is achieved by the simplest method. When working with inexperienced/uneducated/understaffed post departments etc, having a single good track (rather than a single good track plus an okay mediocre track) also brings the added benefit that it's awful hard to screw up a single good mono track in the workflow.

I think that's the key to this discussion -- my guess is that you and Glen are discussing different types of jobs and there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to workflow that will apply to all of them. That said, some principles do work across the board. I never understand the idea behind wiring a sit-down interviewee in the studio when there's a Schoeps ten inches from the subject's mouth, for example, just to put it on the other track because "that's how it's done, boom on the left and wireless on the right". To me, it's like putting a Big Mac on the same plate as a fine cut of filet mignon and setting it down in front of someone.

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!