Jump to content

Do We Still Need a Production Sound Mix Track when Multi-Track Recordings Are Requested?


jon_tatooles

Recommended Posts

If you have more than one source that is contributing to the scene, if you're not mixing what are you doing? 

 

Holding a boom, following the characters and scene, trying to determine and prepare for what's about to happen in a non-scripted world, working with camera so we don't get into each other's way and can help each other get what's needed. Listening to what that producer wants...or playing Robert Drew and directing from behind the mic. And when I can, controlling the mix (for me typically: two channel...one boom...the other 2-3 lavs...so mostly mixing lavs). I love creating a considered mix; can't always happen.

 

Jeff, I totally get what you're saying. But only at an abstract level. My work is pretty different from yours; I don't have experience on big narrative films (and my audio craft & experience is nowhere near yours or Phil's or that of lots of people here; but I mostly know my limits so I get by). To be clear: no anger or anything on my part. But I'm regularly in situations where I could not create a good one-channel mix.

 

If anything here seems cranky, that's only because I'm not expressing myself well. No crankiness intended. This has been a fun discussion.

 

To bring this back to Jon T's question: It seems like most soundies would like to create great mix tracks, and seems like many or some do. But we don't all have the same definition of "mix track."  And our mix tracks seem to have different lives once we send them out into the world :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael says: "However thinkng your mix track is going to be used in the final audio post mix is simply a lack of understanding of that final mix process." That statement simply indicates that you do not entirely understand the final mix process on all jobs. On many projects, possibly not the ones you have worked on, the mix track is in fact the main track that plays in the movie. I know this from personal experience for two reasons: one is that I have done 55 movies the first 28 years of my career where my mix track is the only dialog track post has had to work with (no multi-track, no isos, one track only recordings) and somehow the post people have made it all work. Two, when I started doing multi-track recording (and I include even 2-track recorders) I still mixed to one track and rarely even bothered to lay down any isos for many scenes, and again, the post people seemed to be just fine with that. Realizing after awhile, certainly when we had more than the 4-tracks I had on my original Deva, it made perfect sense to record a prefader iso for any and all of the sources that went into my mix and so that became the normal and accepted procedure. I still continued to mix to one track as if there were no safety net, no isos to "save" me if I did a bad mix, and I also realized that it was a sense of pride and possibly a touch of arrogance that had made me NOT record the isos when I should have. I now record all my sources that went into my mix and I know that the isos have, at times, helped in post process, but I also know that the mix track is what has been used primarily in the majority of movies I have done.

 

Just to be clear, what I have described above applies only to the movies that I have done. No episodic TV, no reality shows, no large scale live musicals, etc. I will also add that I can completely understand why there are some people in post who are saying that the mix track they are getting these days on some shows is just about useless --- this is a sad but  harsh reality and an indication of how much the movie-making process has changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's worth mentioning that often ISO's never come into play until it hits audio post after a finished reel or picture locked cut is complete using an EDL to place it in the pro tools timeline. So no mix track would mean no track to edit too and a big mess of tracks for the picture editors to deal with and summed ISO's that will sound like a phasey mess.

 

Another huge problem with the isos is I don't know of anybody who's riding levels on those. That's just a straight pre-fader feed out of the wireless receiver, set at one level and then left untouched. The Mix Track is heavily ridden on all channels, particularly with certain mics ducked entirely when a character leaves the scene, etc. If they're all up all the time, you're going to hear the actor walk off stage, close the door, and then get on the phone with his or her agent yelling about money. And there's also the issue with two actors standing close together, where you'll get all kinds of phase issues with different lavs in different positions up at the same time.

 

Forcing the sound department to cut with all isos will give them a ton of extra work. If there's time, you can make an argument that this can work, but in reality I think the mix track will be faster for them to deal with. I can think of many cases where I went with a boom for 80% of the mix and then just filled in holes here and there with lavs to get us through the scene, and I would presume the dialogue editor did the same thing -- or at least went back to the boom iso and then cut as needed. 

 

It is sobering to talk to modern dialogue editors and re-recording mixers to find out what happens in the mix. The best experiences I've had have been to hang out on the dub stage and find out they've tossed out most of the ADR because the mixer decided the original audio actually was workable and sounded better. Good experiences can happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

." That statement simply indicates that you do not entirely understand the final mix process on all jobs. On many projects, possibly not the ones you have worked on, the mix track is in fact the main track that plays in the movie. I know this from personal experience for two reasons: one is that I have done 55 movies the first 28 years of my career where my mix track is the only dialog track post has had to work with (no multi-track, no isos, one track only recordings) and somehow the post people have made it all work

I should have clarified that I meant today's film making practice based on my experience and most certainly not all films as a whole. So please clarify for me Jeff. From what I understand the production mix we provide is for editorial, dailies, IFB feed, etc which is all critical to the film making process and the practice of using the production mix track as the primary track in the final film mix however was the standard for many years but hasn't that now changed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have clarified that I meant today's film making practice based on my experience and most certainly not all films as a whole. So please clarify for me Jeff. From what I understand the production mix we provide is for editorial, dailies, IFB feed, etc which is all critical to the film making process and the practice of using the production mix track as the primary track in the final film mix however was the standard for many years but hasn't that now changed?

I think it has changed and IS changing, drastically on some projects (the ones where they have said up front we won't even listen to your mix), but there is a little bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy at work here: as shooting styles get crazier and crazier, as sound mixers are being told not to worry about the mix, as many sound mixers are not even learning how to mix, as sound editorial is receiving really bad mix tracks, it may become the norm that the mix is only to expedite on set playback and initial picture editorial. My hope is that this trend, along with a few other trends I won't even bother to discuss in this thread, can be slowed down or reversed...  I may be left with hope and that's all...  who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there? How so? Sounds almost like you're trying to say that you mix a little less well when it's "only" for comteks. I'm sure you're not saying that.

To me, in a way, the comtek and dailies audience is the most important one, because it's for the director and its his/her show. They need to approve. It's of less importance for the post production, because they'll do whatever anyway. But the director and next, in dailies, the producers are the primary recipients of the "comtek" mix so I think it should be as good as possible

It's a question of what goes into a mix, and yes it was worded in a misunderstandable way.

I will usually not add an off camera lav into a "real" Production Mix. Usually actors don't deliver their lines as good when they're off cam. So if I mix them in, quality suffers.

For a Comteks mix, these lines might well go into the mix for a few reasons, mostly if ADs need them to cue extras, or if a director wants to hear all dialog.

 

I have yet to encounter anybody who says, "oh, don't bother -- just give us only the isos and don't do a mix track." The mix track is absolutely necessary for dailies and viewing copies at the very least, and I'd expect the editor would use it as much as possible except in cases where they needed to (rarely) dig into the isos for a problem scene.

I have more than once been told my mix would not be used at all.

Surprisingly often on that kind of project, I do hear exactly my mix on air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim says: "Jeff, I totally get what you're saying. But only at an abstract level. My work is pretty different from yours"

 

Understood. I have huge respect and admiration for the people who do the sort of work you mostly do (and I really don't like calling it "bag work" but it seems to be a common term) and I hope that everyone knows that my comments come from my own experience which is definitely heavily weighted to the feature film (movie) world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one here asks for "mix track" as far I know for feature film.

Post fader isolated track.

Vas, I don't understand this. If you are doing a feature "film" and you are not doing a mix, what are the Director, Script Supervisor and others listening to on set? What are people going to hear at dailies? What is the picture editor going to be hearing when starting to edit the movie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one here asks for "mix track" as far I know for feature film.

Post fader isolated track.

Post fader iso? Doesn't that knd of defeat the point of isos?

I rarely get asked to do a mix, but I do it, because it's SOP the stuff I do. If anything, I get asked to not do a mix, but that is so rare I can't even think of when that might have.

What I'm curious about, Jeff and others, do you record the mix track even if there is only the boom? Personally, I do that, but on various occasions I heard later that the editor and/or the audio post guys thought it was a stereo track, despite very clear metadata and a sound report...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

 

Just the boom.

 

Some mixers use only boom and in rare occasions use the lavaliers (when it is necessary), some mixers use boom and lavaliers always. For editing porpuses they hear the boom.

 

I am not agree or disagree with mix track; just different workflows. If you asking about my opinion: Mix track is good for director and first picture editing stage, but mix track is pointless at 5.1 post sound theater. The reason for this is you can't mix something with headphones properly when the final edit / mix / playback will be released in 5.1 (and especially with Dolby X curve monitoring). IMHO

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will usually not add an off camera lav into a "real" Production Mix. Usually actors don't deliver their lines as good when they're off cam. So if I mix them in, quality suffers.

For a Comteks mix, these lines might well go into the mix for a few reasons, mostly if ADs need them to cue extras, or if a director wants to hear all dialog.

I only do one mix and I do it as well as I can, adding all relevant and workable mics, and I tend to add in the off-camera mics, too, if they work. It's not really up to me to decide what a good performance is (even though I have a clear opinion on this), and sometimes the "half-acting" may be just what the director wants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm curious about, Jeff and others, do you record the mix track even if there is only the boom? Personally, I do that, but on various occasions I heard later that the editor and/or the audio post guys thought it was a stereo track, despite very clear metadata and a sound report...

First of all, I establish up front that I will adhere to what has become pretty much the standard procedure: Track 1 is the main production track (often referred to as "the mix track") which is the only track that should be used for on set playback (from Video Assist for example) and for dailies. Additional tracks, 2 through X will be prefader isos to be available for picture editorial and sound editorial as needed. Now, if I am doing a scene with one mic only, the boom for example, that goes to Track 1 post fader (my "mix") and also to its iso track but pre-fader. I may or may not enable the iso if there is only the one mic being used. If there is more than one mic (or source) that may or may not be part of my mix Track 1, I will always enable both isos, pre-fader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

Just the boom.

Some mixers use only boom and in rare occasions use the lavaliers (when it is necessary), some mixers use boom and lavaliers always. For editing porpuses they hear the boom.

I am not agree or disagree with mix track; just different workflows. If you asking about my opinion: Mix track is good for director and first picture editing stage, but mix track is pointless at 5.1 post sound theater. The reason for this is you can't mix something with headphones properly when the final edit / mix / playback will be released in 5.1 (and especially with Dolby X curve monitoring). IMHO

:)

Even with 5.1 I dare say that 95% (+/- a few %) of dialogue still come out of the center speaker. That's what we mix for. The rest is not our work, music, fx, etc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vas, 5.1 release print format is mixed for the most part with MONO elements, manipulated and panned to create the 5.1 surround sound space for the audience. So, my mix track, which is, of course, primarily dialog (and in mono) is just as useful in the final mix as any other dialog track (for example, the dialog editor's RE-mix of my iso tracks). Also, primary dialog tracks are rarely panned all over the place even in a big 5.1 surround mix since the convention of dialog in the center of the screen still persists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jeff. Since that is how I was doing it, too, I'm glad to hear that from you. Obviously, though, I need to make sure (surerer) that everyone in post knows it, too. (About the boom only mix, sorry, I should have quoted, but this thread is moving fast!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure, Constantin, post needs to know this right away before anyone has to sit through dailies with my Track 1 and 2 combined --- this has happened on more than one occasion, the explanation often is something incredibly lame like "I had no other way of having your dailies sound come out of both speakers in our screening room."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the post fader isolated track defeat the point of isolated tracks?

Because the ISOs purpose (amongst other things) is to be a backup to a botched mix (for whatever reason). If that botched mix is also how your isos sound, i.e. you can't fix a late fader move or whatever, you're losing the main advantage of the iso.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not referring the 5.1 to put the dialogue in other channels.

 

There nothing to mix or re-mix with only one source (aka boom). The rest tracks always going for re-mixing including the post (or pre) fader isolated track. The most important thing for me is the gain stage. If you are going to overload the mic preamp there nothing to do with pre or post fader isolated track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the ISOs purpose (amongst other things) is to be a backup to a botched mix (for whatever reason). If that botched mix is also how your isos sound, i.e. you can't fix a late fader move or whatever, you're losing the main advantage of the iso.

 

Why then the manufacturers has this option? It is also one question to every manufacturer which surround this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why then the manufacturers has this option? It is also one question to every manufacturer which surround this thread.

Just because it's there is no reason for me to use it. My recorder also offers 30fps fir TC and yet I don't use that.

There was a thread here some time ago about this very issue and one poster (from the "reality" world I think) offered good reasons for using post fader isos for his particular work, but for other work, especially movies, I really don't see the reason. To turn your question around: why post fader?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because post fader is more ready for edit and mix in final stage from pre fader. The mix part here always in post theater, not in location. If someone want a mix track and have different workflow; equipment has all of this features (and that's why manufacturers include pre - post iso, mono / poly etc) and you can provide it.

 

It is not the law; just different workflows and industries.

 

:)

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...