Jump to content

The importance of lavs from the POV of post.


Henchman

Recommended Posts

Really happy to report that in the world of independent film over here in NYC that we still sometimes get the opportunity and time to use the better sounding mic-- whether its boom or lav. However, as Henchman pointed out, consistency is super important, so if only 1/4 of the scene works on the boom and the whole scene works on the lav, we're going to choose the lav.

 

Really good mix tracks are few and far between these days. I love them and will absolutely use them if they are good-- but that's harder to find in the indie world because of lack of budget on set and because of the "LAV EVERYTHING!-- 10,000,000 lavs!" mindset we encounter in reality (and is unfortunately bleeding over to narrative)

 

Booms (IMHO) not only sound better when done properly, but also bring the real ambience/world tone to the mix, which can be invaluable to the feel of an environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was talking to another RR mixer friend last night. He works on one of the major lots, works on a lot of big TV shows, and has a bunch of Emmys. I mentioned this thread, and asked him about his take on it.

And he said exactly what I've been saying. They are using easily 50-60% lavs. Bokms when they can. But mix tracks are pretty much unuseable due to phase issues etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the one initially thrown under the bus in the first post on this minefield of a thread.  Mr Henchman, you can't put a percentage on this.  And frankly some of this thread has been somewhat sad to point out to many of the people mixing today, do just give up and slap a mic on the actor.  That's just not how it's done.  I welcome you to come to a set and see the challenges that we as production mixers go through on a scene by scene basis to deliver all that we can.  

 

I make it a point to always, whenever able, to visit the post sound crew on every project.  The details that you have pointed out, so many times in this topic and thread, simply are not what we encounter on a daily and show by show basis.

 

So to that, I have to say what I said earlier.... IT DEPENDS on the scene, show, actor, camera set up, and so many other factors.  I challenge you to choose a lav mic buried under 2 layers of clothing over a professionally operated boom microphone in a close up on any mix.  If you were to choose the lav, just because you have a percentage in mind of how the show is mixed, I think the results will speak for themselves.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But mix tracks are pretty much unusable due to phase issues etc."

 

I just do not understand this at all. I can surely understand why a mix track might not be useful or useable on a reality show with everyone wired, no possibility of a boom mic and no way to actually achieve a credible mix from 10 or 12 wireless, but surely this cannot be the way every production you are referring to is done. I know that anything I say will be dismissed because everyone knows I only work on "big movies" with lots of time, but you have to listen to Phil Palmer and others here who have had such wider and more varied jobs than I have had. For me, personally, I cannot even think of a single scene I have ever done in the last 46 years of mixing where my mix track was unusable  (and for the first 20 or so years I think I would have heard about that because the "mix" track was the only track post had to work with!). Additionally and again, what are all these "phase issues" you keep referring to? I cannot even think of a mix track of mine that has had anything that could be described as a "phase issue". I certainly have made some mix tracks I haven't been too pleased with, but "phase" was never the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Henchman, you obviously don't understand my comments at all based on your statement above.

 

Thanks for getting me going, that was obviously your intention.  I'll bow out again from this thread as I believe it is teaching the wrong message to production sound mixers and to re-recording mixers alike.

 

Yes, of course we should all keep our lav rigs, and wireless in the best operating condition because we are professionals.  Not because of a blanket statement that RR Mixers will only use the lav mic iso track to build their mix.  Strive all that you can to put the boom mics in position as we are trained to do, and if that is not an acceptable sound option, then yes the lav mics are going to play.  There is no set percentage of what is used when.  It just depends.  The Re-recording mixer from the show that was originally mentioned in this thread wrote me an email saying this question was posed to him and he gave an answer.  Then after thinking about it, he decided it was not actually a correct statement because it has changed from show to show, scene to scene, design to design.  In fact, it changes a lot and he felt the answer was a dis-service to our work.  I told him what has transpired in this discussion and we decided to let it go.  Sadly, apparently I have not...and I should.

 

This is my belief from my experiences alone, though those who agree might chime in.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But mix tracks are pretty much unusable due to phase issues etc."

I just do not understand this at all. I can surely understand why a mix track might not be useful or useable on a reality show with everyone wired, no possibility of a boom mic and no way to actually achieve a credible mix from 10 or 12 wireless, but surely this cannot be the way every production you are referring to is done. I know that anything I say will be dismissed because everyone knows I only work on "big movies" with lots of time, but you have to listen to Phil Palmer and others here who have had such wider and more varied jobs than I have had. For me, personally, I cannot even think of a single scene I have ever done in the last 46 years of mixing where my mix track was unusable (and for the first 20 or so years I think I would have heard about that because the "mix" track was the only track post had to work with!). Additionally and again, what are all these "phase issues" you keep referring to? I cannot even think of a mix track of mine that has had anything that could be described as a "phase issue". I certainly have made some mix tracks I haven't been too pleased with, but "phase" was never the issue.

Jeff, we have been running into a lot of cases where there is no boom in some scenes , because of the two camera setup, and there is no way to get a useable boom in there. So, now we have a mix track being fed from a bunch if lavs, with all the joy of comb filtering and additive noise, making it unuseable.

Then, IF there is a boom in these two camera set ups, it's too far away, and there's too much room and noise on the mic, also making it unuseable.

Then there is the case where the mix track has again for some reason comb filtering issues due to phasing if two or more mics. Becoming all too obvious when actors are moving around. Why this Is the case, I don't know. But thatbis the case.

Now, let's take the case where on the mix track the sound mixer is transitioning from a boom to a lav or vice versa.

It is immensely easier for me as a re-recording mixer to get that to match sonically when the two mics are on two completely separate tracks, each with their own individual handles, to allow me to process each one completely independent form the other. Maybe the boom needs a bit more noise reduction, and more whines, whistles and hums removed. Whereas the lav needs a but more mide and lowmids removed, and less notch filtering and less noise reduction.

This is the amount of freedom and separation I personally require and need, to mix the dialog the way I want it to be mixed, in the limited time we have.

I know not all mixers will mix this way. Thats fine.

But like I said, after losing a show because of issues related to the mix track, I am not willing to put my job on the line again.

So, hence my very simple request.

Mixers, don't regard your lav tracks as something that will be used as a last resort.

Because it really isn't the case.

I thought maybe I was completely off base, which is why I asked my friend yesterday about these issues, and he said they are seeing the same issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Henchman, you obviously don't understand my comments at all based on your statement above.

 

Thanks for getting me going, that was obviously your intention.  I'll bow out again from this thread as I believe it is teaching the wrong message to production sound mixers and to re-recording mixers alike.

 

Yes, of course we should all keep our lav rigs, and wireless in the best operating condition because we are professionals.  Not because of a blanket statement that RR Mixers will only use the lav mic iso track to build their mix.  Strive all that you can to put the boom mics in position as we are trained to do, and if that is not an acceptable sound option, then yes the lav mics are going to play.  There is no set percentage of what is used when.  It just depends.  The Re-recording mixer from the show that was originally mentioned in this thread wrote me an email saying this question was posed to him and he gave an answer.  Then after thinking about it, he decided it was not actually a correct statement because it has changed from show to show, scene to scene, design to design.  In fact, it changes a lot and he felt the answer was a dis-service to our work.  I told him what has transpired in this discussion and we decided to let it go.  Sadly, apparently I have not...and I should.

 

This is my belief from my experiences alone, though those who agree might chime in.

 

P

I don't see where you think I said anything to get you going.

I also never said we build our tracks from lavs only.

What I said was that I have told my editors to use the boom, until they run into an issue, then go look for a better mic in another track.

The reason I started this thread is because I have run into cases where a lav is cutting in and out, or is being overloaded, has issues where the mic will distort at a certain mid range frequency, even though the mic isn't being overloaded. What I have done when I am able to catch these issues early on, I will always try and get hold of the mixer myself, as I don't believe in throwing anyone under the bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who work in the "bigs",  be it Film, TV, even Commercials, know the value of the production sound  mix track. It's what the director, the editor, studio mooks, etc all hear when they watch/hear a days work. The value is self evident to those players. Every mic we (PSM) use is of value to the mix and to post to make the best sounding film/show/etc. We always try for a useable mix of a scene whatever the menu of mics needed are. To say that the mix is of no value is ridiculous. If nothing else it is a starting point. If any of us just turned in the iso trks we'd be gone on day 2. Phasing is way more an issue with multi track lav's than a good boom track. Any serious discussion of this type needs to be example specific. No blanket rule applies. 

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who work in the "bigs",  be it Film, TV, even Commercials, know the value of the production sound  mix track. It's what the director, the editor, studio mooks, etc all hear when they watch/hear a days work. The value is self evident to those players. Every mic we (PSM) use is of value to the mix and to post to make the best sounding film/show/etc. We always try for a useable mix of a scene whatever the menu of mics needed are. To say that the mix is of no value is ridicules. If nothing else it is a starting point. If any of us just turned in the iso trks we'd be gone on day 2. Phasing is way more an issue with multi track lav's than a good boom track. Any serious discussion of this type needs to be example specific. No blanket rule applies. 

CrewC

+1 and thank you.

 

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, my issue is that you don't listen to the mix, and you have instructed your dialog editors not to listen to the mix.

It's simply unrealistic to expect that the boom only ISO on a TV show with lots of characters and multiple cameras is going to be 100% on all characters. It's most often the first line or two that might not play on the boom, so you are dumping that track on virtually every scene in order to remix with the lavs just because the first line or two are "missed" on the boom. And what about 2 boom scenes. What ISO gets listened to then?

Your thread started by asking us to do a better job with the lavs, because you're having trouble remixing almost every scene.

I think if your mix tracks are that bad, talk to the producers about getting a new sound mixer. There are plenty of people who can deliver a quality mix in adverse conditions. They're called experienced professionals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who work in the "bigs",  be it Film, TV, even Commercials, know the value of the production sound  mix track. It's what the director, the editor, studio mooks, etc all hear when they watch/hear a days work. The value is self evident to those players. Every mic we (PSM) use is of value to the mix and to post to make the best sounding film/show/etc. We always try for a useable mix of a scene whatever the menu of mics needed are. To say that the mix is of no value is ridicules. If nothing else it is a starting point. If any of us just turned in the iso trks we'd be gone on day 2. Phasing is way more an issue with multi track lav's than a good boom track. Any serious discussion of this type needs to be example specific. No blanket rule applies. 

CrewC

I am talking about the use of the mix track in audio post only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, my issue is that you don't listen to the mix, and you have instructed your dialog editors not to listen to the mix.

It's simply unrealistic to expect that the boom only ISO on a TV show with lots of characters and multiple cameras is going to be 100% on all characters. It's most often the first line or two that might not play on the boom, so you are dumping that track on virtually every scene in order to remix with the lavs just because the first line or two are "missed" on the boom. And what about 2 boom scenes. What ISO gets listened to then?

Your thread started by asking us to do a better job with the lavs, because you're having trouble remixing almost every scene.

I think if your mix tracks are that bad, talk to the producers about getting a new sound mixer. There are plenty of people who can deliver a quality mix in adverse conditions. They're called experienced professionals.

Go back and read what I said.

I said, I have asked the editors to start with the boom first. Then, if there's an issue find a better mic on another track.

In the case of a two boom situation, I would assume that the next track would be the next boom.

And I'm not having a problem remixing every scene. I was having a problem mixing scenes with a mix track with combfiltering issues due to phasing. Working hard to get it to sound right, only to find out there was a much better sounding mic all along.

And after running into the same issue time and time again on various shows, having wasted God knows how much of valuable mix time every single week, I made the decision to not have my time wasted anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant thread. 

 

The debate is, how important is the mix track to audio post? 

 

Well it certainly depends on the workflow of audio post. Let's say, 

 

"Production Sound Mixer A" provides great mix tracks. Phase free, nicely transitioned. 

 

"Production Sound Mixer B" provides fair mix tracks. 

 

(Both PSM A and B track good, clean iso's) 

 

"Audio Post Team A" utilizes mix tracks in their work flow and iso's only when necessary 

 - This means they'd rather be receiving PSM A's work 

 

"Audio Post Team B" works exclusively from isolated tracks

 - This means they get the same results from PSM A or B

 

 

I can respect the frustration of PSM A, who's work goes to Audio Post B. He/She spent years refining the art of mixing live only to have it all redone via the iso's they provided.

 

But I also see where Henchman's coming from. From the perspective of audio post, you need to process a lot of things individually. 

 

As mentioned before though, many other reasons for a good mix track (IFB, dailies, video editing). The "mixing" element of Production Sound Mixer will certainly be sticking around...even for those of us that aren't particularly good at it. Good thing my productions gigs are mostly commercial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yee-haw! Some good rodeo ridin' goin' on 'round here.

 

Just home from adrenaline-flavored 15-hour day with most of the working people outside in the 0's and teens getting physical.

 

I get you time-pinched eye/ear/fingers post people everything I think you'll need. Not too much. Not too little.

 

It's a sin the budget you and your colleagues work with, Henchman. The pressure too.

 

I got a sound note in the last 48 from The God of Showtime. Indirectly posited via our estimable director and on set producer.

 

The director, actors and I answered the question with a successful collaborative solution with proven dynamic results.

 

I go now to listen to the dailies.

 

I hated having to use lavs as part of the answer but applying the 40% rule (the sound's 40% better than I think it is) declare it will be passably good once touched up a bit.

 

:)

 

I think the actors don't mind getting wired; make it a game for one, discretion, another, sometimes chick bold confidence. Such fun.

 

They sound as good as lavs can sound.

 

I have loved learning to be a professional placer of microphones and gatherer of elements for post wizards.

 

Have been testing the DPA 4098 podium mic. The short one. Finding out what it likes, what it plays nice with. Phase with boom was negligible today in a throwaway test. Whit Norris turned me on to them and having a great time getting my fingers and ears ready to use them in the train scene forthcoming. Wheeeee...

 

Thank goodness for money wisely spent on post and production sound.

 

"12 Monkeys" sounds darned good, by the way, especially having peeked into the sausage-making room, but it's a financial and aesthetic choice made somewhere along the way by people high up on the food chain to turn our craft into a factory as opposed to an artists' studio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shoot a lot of interviews, if the set is quite I will use just booms, if the set in noisy I will use directional lavs like a 104 or 105 and a boom. 

 

I never shoot with out the boom, if clothing noise or someone touches there chest the boom can save the dialog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always had great communication with post production on all my shows and go to as many mixes as I can when I am available.  

 

I have mixed both half hour comedies and 1 hr dramas and from my experience they are both completely different as far as how they are mixed.

 

In the half hour I have been told they will try to extensively to use my mix track while in the 1 hr. shows they will never look at my mix track and go to iso's but use the booms as much as they can. I use 2 booms as much as I can.

 

With wide and tight and now 3 cameras sometimes the norm in TV, we still fight very hard to boom as much as possible,  I 100% wire if we are outdoors and always ere on the side of caution and wire if there is even the remotest chance we will need them indoors.  

 

Some actors I have worked with prefer not to be wired unless completely necessary and one actor we had to wire their jacket as they refused to be wired .

 

On my last show I wired  about 70% of the time indoors. If I sat back and just decided to play wires all the time, it would be easier but trying to get a boom overhead  and get the few lines I can with a boom, I will.  As outdated as they are getting  to be I still try to provide the best mix that I can , the decision is left up to the dialogue and re-recording mixers at the end of the day and do try to provide as many options as I think will be necessary.

 

I have done complete episodes on wires and have been on shows where I have wired 100% of the time, I think it varies show to show.

 

Steve Morantz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with you, Steve. It's all very different on every show. I put mics on actors way more than I used to, and I do it willingly to allow camera to shoot what they want when all is working well, so I can save up objections for when it isn't. And the more I place lavs, the more I have to place them throughout in order to maintain a continuity of sound throughout.

 

Henchman has said that neither he nor his dialog editors listen to the mix - EVER.  They start with the boom ISO, and when there is "problem" they go to the next ISO, which may be boom 2 or may be lavs. Once they go to lavs, they mix the whole scene on the lavs, so he has asked we do a better job placing and monitoring the lavs. It's just not that easy.

 

My issue is that it is becoming rare these days to get every line in a scene on a boom. So presumably, Henchman's statement that he almost exclusively mixes his shows on lavs makes sense. But I can't believe, and still don't believe, that it is more efficient to dump the work of the production mixer and struggle to mix lavs when a scene might have played 90% on one boom. His dialog editor, following instructions to not listen to the mix, will have bypassed the great boom track once a single lav ISO was used in the scene. As I mentioned, it is most often the first line or two in a wide and tight situation that plays on a lav. So rather than spend time to blend the first line or two of the scene and then play the rest on one boom, he is struggling with clothing noise and various other issues associated with lavs. What if a scene is 4 characters for 3 pages? If the first line or two of one of the characters plays on the lav, and the rest of all the dialog plays on one boom, Henchman's method would have dumped the boom early and he would be mixing 4 mics for 3 pages.

 

I, for one, mix for a mix track. If actors are wearing lavs that I am not longer using, I am not going to listen to them. If I am using the boom, and I feel that it is the correct choice, then how am I supposed to know if a mic falls or is suffering from noise? If it worked for the portion necessary, then I have accomplished my goal. Some actors pull mics off once a wide is done. We do discourage this, but we also pick our battles. We require cast cooperation far too often to risk that by forcing certain actors to continue to wear microphones.

 

I think people in post often forget we work in a "live" environment. They see only the picture edit. The hours of work we do between those takes is often not understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Hench's defense, when a sound editor or RRM is under pressure they might well decide that it suits their workflow better to work with prefade isos from the start and build their mix from them rather than to start with a PSM's mix and try to repair it with isos that don't have the PSM's EQ and dynamics playing, and while having to guess-and-try at matching the relative levels of all the sources in the PSM's mix to get the fix to sit in the track properly.   If it's just a few fixes then it probably wouldn't be that big a deal (for me), but if I was having to do a lot of fixes from isos in every scene then the start-from-iso approach starts to make sense.  Once one starts down that road you have kind of established a "sound" for the project, and can make more matching issues for yourself if you don't work consistently.   But as Mr Crew said, even if your RRM goes totally with the "Hench Method", the PSM's mix is still very useful and necessary for other purposes within the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RPSharman says: "I, for one, mix for a mix track. If actors are wearing lavs that I am no longer using, I am not going to listen to them."

 

This is pretty standard procedure in my book. If a lav is needed for the scene and it is working well for when I need it (and I know it IS working well because I just used it, on the rehearsal, on take one, on take two, etc.), once into coverage or the lav is no longer needed to properly record the scene, I won't really listen to it anymore. Additionally, if for me to mix the scene properly the lav(s) are absolutely necessary, you can be sure I will be listening and verifying that they are working well --- otherwise I would not be able to mix the scene!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to change the subject, (this could be its own topic/thread I guess) but I find many of todays final mixes on Film and TV to be lacking in any realism, perspective, dynamic range, and subtlety. They are often over processed and compressed, almost hyper real. Not sure if it the style of more and louder being better or sound design gone wild, or perhaps no time to do it better as hinted at by Mark (henchman) Hensley. All I know is when it takes me out of the story, it can't be good for the product.

I think most mixers doing work in Film and TV have a relationship with post. I wish I could have that in commercials, but by their very nature it almost never happens other than some editorial house specs for camera and sound. Something like this...

CrewC

 

 

 

Specs--RPS OFFLINE EDIT SPECS — ADOBE PREMIERE PRO_FINAL CUT EDITORIAL.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to change the subject, (this could be its own topic/thread I guess) but I find many of todays final mixes on Film and TV to be lacking in any realism, perspective, dynamic range, and subtlety. They are often over processed and compressed, almost hyper real. Not sure if it the style of more and louder being better or sound design gone wild, or perhaps no time to do it better as hinted at by Mark (henchman) Hensley. All I know is when it takes me out of the story, it can't be good for the product.

I think most mixers doing work in Film and TV have a relationship with post. I wish I could have that in commercials, but by their very nature it almost never happens other than some editorial house specs for camera and sound. Something like this...

CrewC

And that is the problem. Pretty much all of the shows ive been mixing, the producers don't want realism. As I said before, they freak out when they hear even the slightest of tonality change because an actor turns away. And it soudns totally appropriate, but nit account to the producers.

Or you have someone 15 feet away, in a live room. Sounds appropriate according to the scene.

Nope. Not according to the producer. They wanted to hear it as of the actor was standing right in front if us.

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...