MCooper Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 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. I worked for a TV production company for 4 years that did a wide variety of syndicated shows that would air on network television, and I can attest to the fact that 100% of our content did not go through a post mixer. It went straight from my mix on set (or in the broadcast truck) to FCP editors and out to the stations. And even in my broadcast work now at a legitimate sports network, I still often see ENG content sent to us from the editors that have mics split on CH. 1 and 2. (Lav isos, as opposed to a mix) and we are forced to mono out the signal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Anderson Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 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 I don't "usually" keep more than one fader up all the way, but if you adjust your trim pot down, you could achieve the same input level when pushing a second fader up to meet the first fader. So I don't know how you'd really come up with an accurate answer. I sometimes do scenes with hard fades and sometimes with soft fades. It really depends on what's working with the mics, acoustics and what the camera sees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ok, fair enough Thanks Joshua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Trew Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 I worked for a TV production company for 4 years that did a wide variety of syndicated shows that would air on network television, and I can attest to the fact that 100% of our content did not go through a post mixer. It went straight from my mix on set (or in the broadcast truck) to FCP editors and out to the stations. And even in my broadcast work now at a legitimate sports network, I still often see ENG content sent to us from the editors that have mics split on CH. 1 and 2. (Lav isos, as opposed to a mix) and we are forced to mono out the signal. Thanks, Michael. This quote, alone, is reason to abandon the "2-track split" or "split mix" where booms are mixed on one channel and lavs on another, and supports the concept of doing the best mono mix you can and iso everything prefader. If there are not enough tracks to iso everything, then group sensibly on the iso tracks. A question that arrises from Michael's quote is if the best practice may be to have the mono mix on both channels 1 and 2, since these channels are often going straight through the editing process to broadcast. However, something to keep in mind is that two identical tracks summed mono will increase the level by 6dB. In this case, the request that some broadcasters have of keeping peaks on the miix tracks 10dB below max (6dB rounded down) suddenly makes sense. In the end, it still all depends on the situation, which varies widely between different production types and even from scene to scene. So the final decision needs to be made at the moment by the production sound mixer. But the more knowledge the production sound mixer has about workflow, the more often that decision can be the best one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tambongo Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 What if you are doing a one man band kind of a gig? Running LET into camera L/R with 3-4 lavs and boom? I often prioritize the boom on one track and focus on the boom, and let the lavs open on the other without mixing. The lavs does not sound good because of phasing issues, but is it common to mix while you are booming..? Edit: So the question is. Do you mix while you are booming? Or do you sacrifice a good lav track to get a good boom track? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Reineke Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 "Is it common to mix while you are booming..?" Yes, for those that have 3+ arm appendages. But I do the same and prioritize the boom, except on a wide shots where you can't get the boom in there anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Yes, it is common, and not easy. If you want to leave your lavs wide open then they should be iso'ed for sure. Otherwise, what's the point? A "split mix" is exactly that, 2 mixes at once on separate channels, not an unattended mashup of mics combined together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.