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

[Glen Trew]

... They ask, and were nice enough to hire me, so I try to give them what they want.  If they decide they want something else, I'll try to do that!

p

That's passive, in that the production sound mixing is being dictated by someone who is not the production sound mixer. Too often it is because of an evolved assumption that, as you put it, "editors are higher up on the food chain than a project's soundie". Sure, this is true in some circles, but it is certainly not universal, and not always the case in "little jobs". Is last week recent enough? I did a "little" interview job last week in Nashville. Talent sitting at a table answering the interviewer's questions in a quiet room, three cameras, one locked off, one operated on sticks, the other roving handheld, all fairly tight. I set up an overhead boom (Schoeps CMC641), recording double-system into a Deva 5.8, camera mics on, syncing with Plural Eyes. The editor/camera-op then asked me to wire the talent and put it on track 2 so he "had an option", and wanted the lav hidden. I said, "There's no way a lav will be as good of a choice as the boom in this situation, and a better use of two tracks would be to have the mix on track 1 (though it was just one mic, postfader), and the same boom, prefader, on track 2. I sounded like I knew what I was talking about, so he said, "OK", and everything was great. I had a lot of reasons for making those choices, most of which I didn't have the time or inclination to explain to a camera operator. but it was my call to make because i was the production sound mixer, which is as high up the food chain as it gets with production sound.

The message that the production sound mixer or "the project's soundie" is low on the food chain has been received loud and clear too often, and it's taking a toll. Of course, we all have to make a living and factor into our decisions the idea of getting rehired, but I think the best way to assure that as a production sound mixer is to be in charge of the production sound. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by Glen Trew

[Philip Perkins]

That's passive, in that the production sound mixing is being dictated by someone who is not the production sound mixer. Too often it is because of an evolved assumption that, as you put it, "editors are higher up on the food chain than a project's soundie". Sure, this is true in some circles, but it is certainly not universal, and not always the case in "little jobs". Is last week recent enough? I did a "little" interview job last week in Nashville. Talent sitting at a table answering the interviewer's questions in a quiet room, three cameras, one locked off, one operated on sticks, the other roving handheld, all fairly tight. I set up an overhead boom (Schoeps CMC641), recording double-system into a Deva 5.8, camera mics on, syncing with Plural Eyes. The editor/camera-op then asked me to wire the talent and put it on track 2 so he "had an option", and wanted the lav hidden. I said, "There's no way a lav will be as good of a choice as the boom in this situation, and a better use of two tracks would be to have the mix on track 1 (though it was just one mic, postfader), and the same boom, prefader, on track 2. I sounded like I knew what I was talking about, so he said, "OK", and everything was great. I had a lot of reasons for making those choices, most of which I didn't have the time or inclination to explain to a camera operator. but it was my call to make because i was the production sound mixer, which is as high up the food chain as it gets with production sound.

The message that the production sound mixer or "the project's soundie" is low on the food chain has been received loud and clear too often, and it's taking a toll. Of course, we all have to make a living and factor into our decisions the idea of getting rehired, but I think the best way to assure that as a production sound mixer is to be in charge of the production sound. 

​I got it--you like to argue, I like to work!  

In any case I agree with the shooter on your job.  You don't know how the project will be cut--often the "little jobs" intercut material from lots of different soundies and locations.  As someone who very often is the one who is cleaning up the mess in post I can tell you that having the lav in a situation like that (in addition to the boom) can often make for a better, more invisible edit depending on what (your) shot is coming out of or handing off to.  Sure, the boom may sound great to you on location, but you don't know how your track will sit in the cut.  So: options are good.

philp

[Glen Trew]

Clearly, someone likes to argue. I’m trying to do what I can to let others in this craft of production sound, particularly the newer ones, know that they can and should take the active role in production sound, and let them know that production sound requests that come from down the line, or by those hired to do something else, may be irrelevant and even harmful to the production, and should sometimes be declined.

What mess? When have you had to “clean up the mess” from one person being interviewed sitting in a chair in a quiet room, miced with an overhead Schoeps MK41 at arm’s length? Ever? Has it been as often as I’ve heard the mess of a boom inadvertently summed with a lav track (options are not always good) that was needlessly there because the picture editor, 2000 miles away, while at the In N Out Burger drive through, decided the talent should also be tracked with a hidden wireless lav? I’m betting my 40 years as a production mixer (the first 10 of those also involved in post) that you’ve never had a mess to clean up that was caused by the interview setup I described above.

You said I didn’t “know how the project will be cut”, etc. How do you know I didn’t know? Maybe I’ve been involved with the whole project. Maybe all that had already been considered, as it should have been, before the production sound mixer (me) made a decision production sound mixers are supposed to make.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Glen Trew

[Eric Thomas Rice]

I almost always boom post fade (left), lavs summed post fade (right), mono post fade mix of everything relevant, then everything pre fade ISO. Data is cheap so I give them everything and properly labeled. That way they have everything in whatever format they choose to focus on. 

I send the post fade mono mix to IFB. That way the director, scripty etc hear only the important parts as does post for dailies/rough cuts. 

I feel like that covers me on all angles. If a particular post team chooses they don't want my boom and lav separated mix and only the mono, they have the option to ignore those mixes. And vice versa. 

If I'm missing something or could improve on this as at least a starting point for my workflow mentality please let me know, but I can't see why any editor wouldn't be happy with those options presented. 

Cheers!

Edited May 29, 2015 by erice194
Grammar/spelling

[pindrop]

I almost always boom post fade (left), lavs summed post fade (right), mono post fade mix of everything relevant, then everything pre fade ISO. Data is cheap so I give them everything and properly labeled. That way they have everything in whatever format they choose to focus on. 

I send the post fade mono mix to IFB. That way the director, scripty etc hear only the important parts as does post for dailies/rough cuts. 

I feel like that covers me on all angles. If a particular post team chooses they don't want my boom and lav separated mix and only the mono, they have the option to ignore those mixes. And vice versa. 

If I'm missing something or could improve on this as at least a starting point for my workflow mentality please let me know, but I can't see why any editor wouldn't be happy with those options presented. 

Cheers!

​Are you talking about sending boom post fade (left), lavs summed post fade (right) to two camera tracks, and doing a mono mix track on a separate recorder along with the iso's.

If so what can happen is they (the editors in TV particularly) can just ignore the iso's and mix tracks which are extra work to sync up,  just sum the left, right camera tracks and go with that, including any, and all phase cancellation.

You sometimes have to be very careful your mix goes to camera (in TV) because if they're up against it in the picture edit, then amongst the first things to get sacrificed is any time for messing with sound, then this summation of camera tracks gets supplied to post, who may not even be aware there are iso's and/or a mix etc. and/or likewise just don't have the time to sync. it all up.

The next thing you know is that's what gets transmitted

[Eric Thomas Rice]

Sorry. I should have been more clear. On my 633, I'll pan the boom post fader left and the lavs post fader right. So on my traditional L&R channels, I have a boom mix and a lavs mix. I'll record the mono mix on X1 which is usually what is sent to ifb and camera hops. 

If if they don't use the sound and information that they paid me to give them, there's not much I can do but do my best to provide as best mixes as possible. Of course I want my sound used as much in the final edit and of course I know that post regularly uses mixes or files that I wouldn't, but there's not much I can do at that point. It sucks that they're taking shortcuts that affect the final product, but whatcha gonna do.

I sleep well know I gave them all available options to end up with quality sound. I can only lead the horse to the water. Whether they drink or flop around in the mud is their choice. 

Edited May 29, 2015 by erice194
Spelling

[pindrop]

I see thanks, I've had the above scenario I described occur and found it excruciating, and learned a lesson. Thought I was supplying them lots of options which were resoundingly ignored, for the most basic possible, just sum it all and go with that!

[Glen Trew]

I almost always boom post fade (left), lavs summed post fade (right), mono post fade mix of everything relevant, then everything pre fade ISO. Data is cheap so I give them everything and properly labeled. That way they have everything in whatever format they choose to focus on. 

I send the post fade mono mix to IFB. That way the director, scripty etc hear only the important parts as does post for dailies/rough cuts. 

I feel like that covers me on all angles. If a particular post team chooses they don't want my boom and lav separated mix and only the mono, they have the option to ignore those mixes. And vice versa. 

If I'm missing something or could improve on this as at least a starting point for my workflow mentality please let me know, but I can't see why any editor wouldn't be happy with those options presented. 

Cheers!

​Just to clarify: The question of the original post, "Do we still need a mix track", seems to have split into two subtopics...

Subtopic one is about the practice of “split tracking” booms and lavs on tracks 1 and 2, which I believe to be a holdover from thirty years ago when we were trying to figure out how to best use the new 2-track recorders, and, in my opinion, is still not a good use of a track.

 

Subtopic two is about who should make decisions about tracking... the person who was hired to be the production sound mixer, or someone else who might not even be on the set.

 

Back to your question about split tracking…

 

On the concerns of monitoring two split tracks (lavs on 1, boom on 2 - or reversed) I often hear people justify the practice, saying that they monitor tracks 1 and 2 as summed mono, so their mix is the same as if they mixed it on one track while giving post the option of groups. This can’t be true about the mix because if you decide that your preferred mix was just the lavs, then the boom track would be empty. Likewise, if you decided the boom was the best option for your mix, then the lav track would be empty. So, this practice pretty much dictates that the mix will be the lavs with a little boom mixed in, when, if fact, it could well be that the boom would be the best choice but no longer an option. (This could partially explain why people have gotten so accustom to the unnatural sound of multiple lavs.)

 

I firmly believe the better option is to have one postfader mix on track-1, to your taste with proper mono monitoring, and all mics isolated prefader on the remaining tracks. This gives post the possibility of having a track that saves the time of remixing, makes for a better mix for monitoring on the set, and truly gives post the chance to completely remix.

 

The throwback to this method is often, “Well what about when only 2-tracks are available in post, or when going directly into a 2-track camera?”. My answer is still to record the production sound mixer’s preferred mix on track-1, and decide what should be isolated on track-2. If it’s one person that is boomed and wired, then it’s a no brainer to isolate whichever is not dominate in the mix or just isolate them both prefader. In the typical ENG scenario of, for example, 3 people on lavs plus a boom, I still recommend putting the mono mix on track-1 and isolating the boom, prefader, on track-2. Of course, this makes it easy to add more boom to the mix in post, but then there’s the throwback, “Then you can’t reduce the amount of boom in the mix”, which is not true. To reduce or eliminate the boom from the mix in this situation, all the post mixer has to do is reverse the phase of track-2 add it to the mix, and the boom is then reduced or eliminated to taste. Granted, reversing the phase may seem like an odd inconvenience (even though we do it often on the set), and is probably a foreign concept to most, but it’s actually very simple to do.

 

Of course there are infinite reasons for exceptions to all of the above, which brings us back to the question of who should make production sound tracking decisions. I firmly believe that the person hired to be the production sound mixer (you) should make those decisions, not based on what someone said on a forum or based on someone not even on the set, but based on as much information and understanding of the process as possible, aided with an ever-increasing bank of experience. The best way to be respected and earn confidence as a production sound mixer is to take charge and be the production sound mixer.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Glen Trew

[mikewest]

I'm still haunted by my mixing to a Nagra 4.2 which ended in 1992 for me.

Mixing to DAT taught me to produce a tidy result in my years of episodics.

If it's a boom simple, and if it's two radios simple (maybe tidied up with a boom)

If it's 3 radios put the busiest on L track and mix the others on R track.

I still work like this listening L R but adding pre-fader iso's of the radios.

With smaller budgets, less rehearsals and shooting on video the iso's happily give post a backup.

Guess I'm stating the obvious to all my peers but that's how I see it

 

Cheers

 

mike

[Matthias Richter]

 

On the concerns of monitoring two split tracks (lavs on 1, boom on 2 - or reversed) I often hear people justify the practice, saying that they monitor tracks 1 and 2 as summed mono, so their mix is the same as if they mixed it on one track while giving post the option of groups. This can’t be true about the mix because if you decide that your preferred mix was just the lavs, then the boom track would be empty. Likewise, if you decided the boom was the best option for your mix, then the lav track would be empty. So, this practice pretty much dictates that the mix will be the lavs with a little boom mixed in, when, if fact, it could well be that the boom would be the best choice but no longer an option. (This could partially explain why people have gotten so accustom to the unnatural sound of multiple lavs.)

 

​This can´t be true? It is true. If I feel the Boom is all I need - then yes, I will unmount the RMs track. If I need any RM for a given line or even just a word, then there is just that on the RMs track - one single line or word.

The RMs track is not a mix-track in itself. It just supports the main-signal, the Boom. Just as it would on a mono-track.

The advance I see: if shooting a single CU, you (the editor) would expect a clean Boom-signal to work with. I would not want to risk to spoil that Boom-signal (even that there is the Iso too) with a RM signal from an off-cam line. I would not mix that RM into the mono-mix. But since it goes on a seperate track I will do it and have ALL actors ON-mic since they are all laved anyway.

But hey - I prefer it that way - others (most) like the single mono-track. It´s just a personal preference I guess.

[Joshua Anderson]

​This can´t be true? It is true. If I feel the Boom is all I need - then yes, I will unmount the RMs track. If I need any RM for a given line or even just a word, then there is just that on the RMs track - one single line or word.

The RMs track is not a mix-track in itself. It just supports the main-signal, the Boom. Just as it would on a mono-track.

The advance I see: if shooting a single CU, you (the editor) would expect a clean Boom-signal to work with. I would not want to risk to spoil that Boom-signal (even that there is the Iso too) with a RM signal from an off-cam line. I would not mix that RM into the mono-mix. But since it goes on a seperate track I will do it and have ALL actors ON-mic since they are all laved anyway.

But hey - I prefer it that way - others (most) like the single mono-track. It´s just a personal preference I guess.

​

But a tight boom, with added lavs on the same actor doesn't sound as good. Phase usually forces me to make a decision in mono to either have , all boom, mostly boom or mostly lav. But unless it's all boom, the boom mic then needs to give some space to work with the lav (even if I'm low on the boom fader). 

If what you mean is micing an on camera person only with a tight boom and bringing up lavs on off camera actors is also something I wouldn't like to do. Unless you can't swing the boom to those actors too or put another matching mic on the off camera actors, the lav-heavy sound won't match your tight boom when you do their coverage. Playing the wires on an off camera actor who you'd boom when it's their coverage is more of a last resort for me, not go-to plan. 

When I was using a DAT recorder, I would put the Boom on Left, any wires on Right and then monitor in Mono. I'd put a big note on the reports "L=Boom, R=Lavs, Please transfer in Mono." I still didn't just wire everyone and if we didn't have lavs, I think I remember switching the boom to go to both L and R. But, like Glen is saying above, all of that seemed completely unnecessary once we got track 3 plus. Now it's 1=Mix, 2-8 = ISO's and on special occasions, I'll use track 2 as a 2nd mix or sub mix (I had to do that the other day when I needed a mix that could be grouped together through a phone filter in post instead of forcing Post to take the ISO's and re-mix it just to get the filter effect in place). 

As far as the Jon's initial topic about the recorder hardware, I just want a nice, solid, small box. I'd like mostly XLR inputs and I'd like to use track 1 as a Mix from my mixer and the other tracks as the ISO's. The 788 does this for me. I don't need 64 tracks like the 970. I like having the limiters on the 788, which the 970 does not, even though I use limiters on my board. I don't need more Wi-Fi, Dante, etc. bell's and whistles that I won't use - especially if it adds size, weight or decreases dependability. Sometimes I will use the other headphone options like playing back a certain track or listening to a certain input. And I've used the M/S monitoring on the 788 for my stereo mic. 

 

Josh

[pkautzsch]

...Data is cheap so I give them everything and properly labeled. That way they have everything in whatever format they choose to focus on. 

...

I feel like that covers me on all angles. If a particular post team chooses they don't want my boom and lav separated mix and only the mono, they have the option to ignore those mixes. And vice versa.

​You may label everything properly, but this doesn't mean the first people who work with your files do read it. Unfortunately, it's not Audio people dealing with Audio for a long time, but assistant editors "thinking in pictures". Once the audio post team (the guys who actually know what to do with the data you deliver) gets involved, they receive an AAF or OMF which may have lost the metadata, or contains "rendered" files, or has other issues.

Worst case: they just slap every track on top of each other and then complain about lav rustle, phasing, and clipped audio. Even though the reports and track name metadata clearly state: Track 1 Mix, Tracks 2 through 8 Backup Isos.

[RadoStefanov]

A lot of times in reality TV there is no post mixer. The Video editor will just mute or delete a track and export a video file with summed stereo. Since all isos are in the center it is just dual mono file. In those cases less is more so I don't have a mix track. I just record Post Fade isos so at the end what ever they do they will have an OK ISO mix.

Edited May 30, 2015 by RadoStefanov

[Wandering Ear]

I'm not convinced that a lot of reality tv goes to air without a post mixer.  The QC specs for a show to go on air are very strict, and the networks won't accept a show unless the specs are right.  I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I haven't seen an editor who is set up to monitor LKFS and deliver within the legally mandated loudness specs.  There often isn't the feedback from audio post to set, usually they are cut so thin on time, they work with whatever the editor gives them, in the time they have, and that goes to air.

[Glen Trew]

​This can´t be true? It is true.

​The "this can't be true" statement was not meant to say that people don't work this way. It was only to say that monitoring summed mono cannot always result in a mixed lav track.

[Philip Perkins]

Hi Glen--going back a ways, yes, I've had consderable messes to clean up from a single boom mic in a room with a seated subject.  Intermittent back grounds, speakers with noisy mouths, rumbly stomachs and even noisy pacemakers.  Camera and monitor fans (coming and going), noisy camera sliders or dolly tracks, loud HMI ballasts, external or crew noise…why am I telling you this?   Re argueing, I'm sorry to point out that you keep lofting this ball back over the net, and intimating that my approach is defective or invalid somehow.  I understand very well that it doesn't work for you and your folks, I think you could get your mind around how it might work pretty well for what we're doing here.  Yesterday I did a unstructured 16 member panel discussion (round table) with lots of college students, a famous author and a former Secretary of State.  16 wireless plus 2 booms.  The editors have to bang out some kind of cut-down today, and decided that the best thing for them to start with was not my isos (will get to them later) but a split mix in which one channel was a mix of the  two "leaders" and the other was a mix of the everyone else.  This will allow the editors to easily pull one group up over the other in case of an overlap.  I'm very aware that you will still object to this methodology, but I guess those of us who see it as a good idea will just have to live with your disapproval.

thanks

philp

[John Blankenship]

I'm not sure why there seems to be a debate about what is proper methodology.  It's a dynamic thing -- always has been for me, and I imagine it always will be.  I've approached mixes just about every way listed, based on the project, what I knew (or didn't know) of the post process, and what was needed at the time.

In my book, the right way is whatever serves the project based on the conditions given, and the wrong way is whatever doesn't serve the project.

I'm concerned for anyone who thinks that they have the only answer for everyone -- their brain may explode some day.

[Philip Perkins]

Thank you.

p

[mikewest]

Wow Philip what a task!

Did you record 16 iso RM tracks?

mike

[Glen Trew]

Hi Glen--going back a ways, yes, I've had consderable messes to clean up from a single boom mic in a room with a seated subject.  Intermittent back grounds, speakers with noisy mouths, rumbly stomachs and even noisy pacemakers.  

​Phil, maybe if I ask it this way (again): What mess? When have you had to “clean up the mess” from one person being interviewed sitting in a chair in a quiet room, miced with an overhead Schoeps MK41 at arm’s length? Ever?

When you answered, you conveniently left out "quiet" and mic position/distance. Try again?

... Re argueing, I'm sorry to point out that you keep lofting this ball back over the net, and intimating that my approach is defective or invalid somehow.

The primary defect in the approach is in letting people who are not the production sound mixer make decisions about how production sound is done on the set.

[VASI]

Q: Mix track (mono). Are you mixing 50-50% boom and lavaliers or 70% boom / 30% lavalier -s or 70% lavalier -s / 30% boom? In other words: Parity or not parity?

Thank you

[Jeff Wexler]

So, here is one of the problems in this whole discussion of "do we still need to do a mix" topic. Everyone has a different concept of what "the mix" is and also what is its goal or purpose. For me, I could never characterize my mix track in "percentages of boom - lavalier" because I don't even look at the mix that way. The mix that I do is designed and executed to play as it should, true to the image, keeping in mind that the mix will never be perfect particularly if there are multiple cameras and multiple views of the same shot. With one camera, one view, the mix will often be perfect, and if I have kept in mind how all the various angles of coverage are to be done, how it will be cut following normal editorial conventions, each one of my mix tracks will work well for the scene.

So, my mix, on any given shot, will be my mix of whatever sources are needed to record the scene properly --- this may be 1 boom mic (in which case the "mix" is usually just a factor of gain and level, not mixing per se), 2 boom mics and a plant, a boom mic and a few lavaliers, or any one of a number of sources. Also, the mix at certain times may be characterized as "60% boom mic 2 to 40% lav, crossfaded from 80% lav to 80% boom, the plant mic brought in at 100% (but just for one line of dialog maybe) then back to 100% boom 1. See what I mean about trying to quantify the mix in percentages!

[Philip Perkins]

​Phil, maybe if I ask it this way (again): What mess? When have you had to “clean up the mess” from one person being interviewed sitting in a chair in a quiet room, miced with an overhead Schoeps MK41 at arm’s length? Ever?

When you answered, you conveniently left out "quiet" and mic position/distance. Try again?

The primary defect in the approach is in letting people who are not the production sound mixer make decisions about how production sound is done on the set.

​The answer to the former is "unfortunately yes, many times".  There are more ways to screw up a recording than just room/mic/cable/recorder.  Filmmakers, esp doc folks, can be quite creative that way!

For the latter:  well, I see filmmaking as a team sport.  I have a lot of experience and knowledge about production sound, but A: it isn't my movie and B: other people sometimes have good ideas too.

p

[VASI]

Jeff,

With parity, I meant boom - lav or boom - lav - plant etc in levels. Not mix as boom hundred percent - fade out - plant fade in etc. So, when you have boom and lavaliers are you having parity levels or lavaliers are going to "support" boom (aka 40% difference from boom) and vice versa.

Sorry, my bad formulation of my previous question.

Best

[Matthias Richter]

just trust your ears! They will tell you how much lav you need to support your boom - or smtimes the other way around.