Jump to content

Den Nic

Recommended Posts

Hey Guys,

Just wondering, for those who are doing a stereo mix of booms/wireless and recording those two tracks, how often are those the tracks that post goes to?

Do they use the stereo mix for the most part unless they need something specific? Or is the stereo mix just a guide for post production (And for IFBs) these days? Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Guys,

a stereo mix of booms/wireless and recording those two tracks,

how often are those the tracks that post goes to?

Do they use the stereo mix for the most part unless they need something specific? Or is the stereo mix just a guide for post production (And for IFBs) these days?

"Stereo" means there is a spatial relationship...

Boom on one and wireless on another is not stereo, but is two tracks.,

as for the rest: I'm not clear about what you mean, but if those two tracks are what is recorded, then that is what post works with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For narrative work, the majority here will record a mono mix on track 1 and supply ISOs on subsequent tracks. For other types of work, it seems popular to mix wires to one track and boom to another.

Frankly, I don't get supplying L/R for anything narrative. It will always require post to remix. I get that in the DAT or Stereo Nagra days, all you had were 2 tracks. And if that's all you have now, or are mixing to camera, then I can see dividing mics for the times when a mono mix is not optimal. But the technique of always having lavs one side and boom the other seems flawed to me. It's usually one lav causing the problems. I'd split that off and maybe another if someone talking at a completely different time, so the problem mic can be isolated and fixed or replace by post. At no time should post just "go to the boom track" if there are lavs in the mix, so what's the advantage of boom left/lav right.

Maybe it's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really does depend upon the type of gig. Television doc type shows (Discovery, Oxygen, HGTV, Food Network, etc.) will quite frequently prefer lav-boom split tracks. In that world -- based on work-flow and how post is handled -- it makes sense. In the feature film world, it's a different story. The dramatic needs are entirely different (perspective, etc.), and the post workflow is a different animal.

Then, there's the issue of production companies that specify a particular methodology.

It's a big, wide world out there and every style has its place. Sound mixing is not a one-size-fits-all job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Around here the split mix thing is demanded/expected etc.. Isos can be sent too, but they want camera feeds and "main" mixes to be split. Of course, this doesn't mean we ALWAYS do this.....

phil p

Hi Phil,

By "split mix", I'm assuming you mean the lavs/boom split that the other guys were referring to? In my documentary world, that's what's expected here as well (Toronto) for the camera feed(s), and susequent iso's if asked for. My apologies for being slow on the uptake, but just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing.

Cheers,

MK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Phil,

By "split mix", I'm assuming you mean the lavs/boom split that the other guys were referring to? In my documentary world, that's what's expected here as well (Toronto) for the camera feed(s), and susequent iso's if asked for. My apologies for being slow on the uptake, but just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing.

Cheers,

MK

I'm not Philip, but, yes, that's what split mix means. Often, it's split with lavs on one channel and boom on the other, or with two lavs maybe one on each channel, but I have one client who puts the key person's lav on channel one and all other lavs and the boom on channel two.

It depends upon the situation and what's important to the client -- and also on how they'll handle post. Most "reality" type shows have an established work-flow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the split mix because quite often I have lavs on all the actors with lines.

On a single CU I want to deliver a clean Boom-track without any of the other lavs mixed in but I like the idea of listening to my split tracks in mono and then have ALL the lines sounding on mic. My split is basically a mono (sounding)-mix just split in 2 tracks.

When you guys mix a mono-mix do you just drop the off-cam lavs on a single CU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I prefer the split mix because quite often I have lavs on all the actors with lines.

On a single CU I want to deliver a clean Boom-track without any of the other lavs mixed in but I like the idea of listening to my split tracks in mono and then have ALL the lines sounding on mic. My split is basically a mono (sounding)-mix just split in 2 tracks.

When you guys mix a mono-mix do you just drop the off-cam lavs on a single CU?

hi matthias :)

short answer to your question (for me) is, yes, in fact, i consider my "mix" track to be the best "gain optimized" mic mix that works for the image, per camera,

this might mean 2 mix tracks (on 2 cameras), not to be confused with "stereo mix"

so i drop the lavs (even the on camera ones) on a single CU from the mix if the boom is what it should be,

i generally work the mix above pre-fader gain to achieve a "dual gain structure" with all the "elements" recorded to ISO tracks,

if the dynamics of the audio are "wide" i in fact increase the difference between the pre-fader and the post-fader gain,

i hope i understood your question correctly,

mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for someone like me, who does both location and post, i like to have my tracks separated. no offence to you production mixers out there but as a post guy, i don't want mono mixes with booms and lavs mixed to one mono track. i wouldn't even like to have multiple lavs mixed to one track. there could be scratchiness in one of the lavs or potential phasing (i know prod mixers tend to catch and fix this but...)

if possible, i like to have isos for post audio. i'm going to remix and repan them no matter what! i check the panning because I dont trust editors in my town to know what or how i want audio. many times i find myself going to the editor and having him/her re-export the audio for me. (sigh)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done "hosted" stuff with the host on a lav sent to left and a mix (smear) of booms and wires sent to right.

I just don't like the boom/lav split as a rule. I think the split should be more logically planned, as others have mentioned.

Robert

Sometimes the boom / lav split is modified, for example, if there are two logical groups of people. A thought out example procedure... For a typical greeting scene, we have guests outside of a house for example, I'll start with boom / lav split on the guests. Inside there are the hosts, knock knock, come in, here i'll make the lav split to include the hosts, still booming. Oh, here they go in for the hand shakes and hugs, cut the huggers, onto the next huggers, bring back up the people just done hugging, cut the new huggers, maybe if it's screaming and a huggfest, I'll just pan the boom center and cut all wires. Now the multiple camera are OTF'ing the shit out of the room and wide and tighting every which ways, looking like a couple of monkeys on crack getting dynamic POVs, etc... At this point, I'll probably step back, not getting anything useful on boom, so split it to group 1 guests lavs and group 2 hosts lavs, just keeping the boom on standby in case of a lav emergency or something, or if they both go medium and tight on someone doing something a little more relaxing.

I definitely view the split thing as an expected happy medium for post and the result of working in unpredictable environments and with the realistic limitations of one man in less than optimal circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting all of todays data to two tracks is no fun, Many good explanations here... I hate that forced option of forcing multiple mics to just two tracks. Something unwanted is always making things a mess onto something you are trying to preserve... It's a bad situation in many cases, but normally works out in the end for the most part.. I hate doing it personally.. gives me the creeps..It's like having a few good food items on the table and then grabbing those items and some trash and putting it in a bag all together to eat later on.. Somehow there is always Peanut butter on my chocolate or worse!!! ???

To just two camera tracks this ISO deal wont work, but record them anyhow when possible and send a mix to camera... Two things like a boom and a wireless or simply two wireless is easy...

As for MY recorders, I always try to provide as much as I can... so that said, like others here, I run a MIX to ch. 1, if they can fly with that, great... let em rip.... If they want ISOs, they have every one, right down the line...

Even if I run only a boom, I run CH 1 as my mix for them as a go to, but still provide the booms ISO pre fader... why because I can and it is a reduced level and will provide some measure of safety... It is always a lower input level... a bit more headroom then I send as a mix track..

If I ever just grab a FR2 for a quick deal, I will run one person to each track (2).. Kind of a mini ISO gig... I don't think post minds...

I still know a few mixers who DO NOT ISO and will mix 5 or 6 radios simply to 1 mix... I don't understand this in this day and age, but whatever floats your boat... They have done it old school like this for years.. They still work, so nobody is saying anything... I tell them I ISO everything, they think I'm crazy... I think it is the only way to go... Funny, I give them the same mix on Ch 1, I just multi track the ISOs as well... More is better..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here in italy it is almost the standard to give a stereo mix. it is asked from the video editors, i didn't really understnd why. besides, most of them don't want any mix, only iso tracks, because they want to have the opportunity to choose themselves which track is to be used. so, our work here is mostly track laying (remembering a definition i've read here somewhere).

when they ask a mix track (mono or double mono) is because they don't want to menage a large number of tracks in their timeline, no other reason.

i know that this is not properly the way to be a sound mixer... anyway, on my behalf, i try to make my mix thinking as it will be in the final mix, even though i know that it is largely not possible. and i would prefer to record a Mono Mix, because i consider that way more definitive and (this is a subjective reason) confortable to monitor (all together, instead of a split in my earphones).

maybe it is an italian culture attitude, after all we have had a deep-seated dubbing tradition, so it was a little difficult to educate all our cinema industry to the sound recording on set. but things are changing, slowly... that's what we hope, if only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for someone like me, who does both location and post, i like to have my tracks separated. no offence to you production mixers out there but as a post guy, i don't want mono mixes with booms and lavs mixed to one mono track. i wouldn't even like to have multiple lavs mixed to one track. there could be scratchiness in one of the lavs or potential phasing (i know prod mixers tend to catch and fix this but...) if possible, i like to have isos for post audio. i'm going to remix and repan them no matter what! i check the panning because I dont trust editors in my town to know what or how i want audio. many times i find myself going to the editor and having him/her re-export the audio for me. (sigh)

Fully understand, but you are forgetting we are production Mixers, not only recordist. The mono mix we hand you should be the best mix we can achieve and should only be redone by post when there is a problem or a change of focus. Or else what is the point of the mixer? might as well just record ISOs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" i don't want mono mixes with booms and lavs mixed to one mono track. i wouldn't even like to have multiple lavs mixed to one track. "

vs.

" mixers who DO NOT ISO and will mix 5 or 6 radios simply to 1 mix... I don't understand this in this day and age, "

There is still an: "it depends" to this, that is it depends on what the post folks prefer. There are many situations where post welcomes a mix, as there is a time crunch (episodic television and news type stuff often expect it), but of course even in these cases, a dull compliment of ISO tracks is never really a problem, even if it is only for occasional use, on an 'only when needed' basis...

" give a stereo mix. it is asked from the video editors, "

The Video editors expect the production mixer to know the spatial relationships before they edit it ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fully understand, but you are forgetting we are production Mixers, not only recordist. The mono mix we hand you should be the best mix we can achieve and should only be redone by post when there is a problem or a change of focus. Or else what is the point of the mixer? might as well just record ISOs.

We are Production Mixers but we are also part of a team--and we need to work in a way that works for the whole team. The rule of thumb on my jobs seems to be that in the absence of specific directives from post I try to give them as much flexibility as the situation allows.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi matthias :)

short answer to your question (for me) is, yes, in fact, i consider my "mix" track to be the best "gain optimized" mic mix that works for the image, per camera,

this might mean 2 mix tracks (on 2 cameras), not to be confused with "stereo mix"

so i drop the lavs (even the on camera ones) on a single CU from the mix if the boom is what it should be,

i generally work the mix above pre-fader gain to achieve a "dual gain structure" with all the "elements" recorded to ISO tracks,

if the dynamics of the audio are "wide" i in fact increase the difference between the pre-fader and the post-fader gain,

i hope i understood your question correctly,

mac

Hey Mac,

still wondering what most guys with a mono-mix do with the off-cam lines. Drop them altogether? Make them aware of potential overlap? Keep the radios in the mix (just drop the on-cam radio)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" as much flexibility as the situation allows. "

::)

" what most guys with a mono-mix do with the off-cam lines. "

it depends...

budget is often a factor (BTW, OMB's should not attempt this!)

often post wants OC covered, but to do this properly really requires a three person production sound crew...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" give a stereo mix. it is asked from the video editors, "

The Video editors expect the production mixer to know the spatial relationships before they edit it ??

of course i was intended to say a double mono mix... late in my post, in fact i wrote it correctly...

it was just a mistake in writing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in studio productions with crowd and multicam there is also the option of making a stereo A B mix to the amb as the floor of your mix, and a whireless to the mail anchor.

This way you can have a nice environment sound with crowd and the person how talks is always 30 db more then the amb.

But again every production needs it's planing, thats conected to script budget cameras and a million compromises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Just had another client show me a finished shoot with a split mix that was not treated in post. To clarify, the boom was hard-panned RIGHT, and the lavs were hard-panned LEFT, and then they were simply left that way right through to delivery to their client. This was a split mix delivered per the client's request, and cleared well before the shoot. It is indeed SOP for many of the shoots I do.

I can only think that a couple of things are happening here. First, it's possible that the video editor for the project does not have an adequate monitoring environment. This could prevent them from determining that the files were split in the first place, since I try to nail the perceived volume between lav and boom as closely as possible. In other words, if they're not listening to a true stereo image via high quality monitors, then they may have simply thought they were listening to one mic. Now, as I sit here in front of my high end studio monitors it's readily apparent, and of course I have a discerning ear, but it wouldn't be the first time I've come to realize that a video editor isn't monitoring sound properly. I've even known some of them to simply use laptop speakers only. Can you say mono? ???

Second, the client may have simply run out of time to finish the video and/or thought the delivery sounded fine the way it was. I disagree whole-heartedly, since even picking either lav or boom and nuking the other would have been a vast improvement in sound quality, but it's the client's decision. This might be the case since I documented my workflow clearly when I delivered the sound files, and again, it was their request in the first place.

In my opinion, this type of situation is where knowing about professional sound workflows puts certain production companies drastically ahead of others in the professional world. Having done post in the past, this would have been an incredibly easy fix at the most basic level of anyone's ability. Even a video editor should know how to do this with modern software IMO.

There are other reasons this may be happening, but I think it boils down to inexperience on the post side of things (no post production sound experience at all - only video) or inadequate monitoring. Those are the immediate things that come to mind.

I'll always give the client what they ask for, but this is annoying. It makes my professional work sound improper, and to anyone who gets hold of this video on a high fidelity system, it's going to be immediately apparent that there is something wrong.

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...