Jump to content

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


jon_tatooles

Recommended Posts

Post fader ISO has it's place.  Although definitely not common practice there are exceptions to where it can be useful.  I worked on a show where talent is involved in lots of confidential information.  They absolutely do not want these conversations recorded when they're OFF camera.  Post fader ISO achieve this.  Also, many newer editors I have came across over these last few years have no damn clue what a mix track is.  When they edit, the drop all the tracks in so what you hearing is all the damn iso tracks mixed together.  Until it gets to a post house, all the rough edits/stringouts etc, sounds like absolute crap.  Post fader ISO recreates a "Mix" when their faders on their editing system is set to unity.  Again, this is not common practice, but there is a place for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 Also, many newer editors I have came across over these last few years have no damn clue what a mix track is.

 

Speaking from a editorial perspective, I rarely get a mix track because production doesn't ask for one and since the editor is often hired after the shoot, there's no communication with the sound mixer. So it is often the director/producer who doesn't realize the benefits of a mix. Therefore, you sync up and use the iso tracks unmixed and it can sound pretty rough, you do a little mixing if something is really loud or quiet but generally it is not part of the job, there's already enough things to worry about and post sound will eventually handle it.

 

However, a mix on track 1 is tremendously beneficial, followed by ISOs in poly file. That way during the edit you can solo the mix track and have a better sounding film all the way till picture lock, then post sound can take over and have full control with the iso files.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(and I really don't like calling it "bag work" but it seems to be a common term) 

 

Ya, I know what you mean. Here and amongst friends, I'll call it "bag work" mainly to distinguish from "cart work", but it's not a term I regularly use with producers or civilians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you have into the mix track only the boom; you are recording pre fader and post fader iso, since you have only one channel to deal. This is what I understand through comments.

 

After reading again this topic and other topics about mix track, I am coming with a conclusion for the mix track is only for director, producer and other people on set and post production to have an idea what's going on. "Having an idea" from "actual mix" in proper post sound theater is huge different since "sounds good to headphones" does not mean "sounds good to C channel/monitor".

 

I am trying to understand the workflow with mix track. What works and what not works since I am getting different feedback from both sides (location / post). How the mix track is workable in post with multiple sources into one track? How you can be sure about having the same noise floor from different sources into one file; via headphones? How can mix boom and lav to be sounded they same in one way when the post production says "not location EQ". How can be sure if you applied "EQ" in location; matching boom and lavaliers, to be sounded they same (in your headphones or in C channel/monitor)? Can you tell the producer or director "my mix track will be sounded the same in C channel in post from what you hear now via headphones"? That's why I am putting the "what works and what not works".

 

As for picture editor you are helping them when you recording the off camera dialogue. It's not their job to understand the mix track since they can solo the boom / booms track with on screen and off screen dialogue. Not a big deal IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading again this topic and other topics about mix track, I am coming with a conclusion for the mix track is only for director, producer and other people on set and post production to have an idea what's going on. "Having an idea" from "actual mix" in proper post sound theater is huge different since "sounds good to headphones" does not mean "sounds good to C channel/monitor".

Who or what the mix track is for seems to be somewhat dependent on your philosophy, however just because you're mixing on headphones does not mean that it will not be good enough for the cinema. Just because post adds EQ and reduces noise and adds ambiences (which you may have recorded on location) to minumize differences betweens cuts does not mean that they don't use your mix. It depends on your mix, it's not a matter of principle. If your mix is good enough they will use it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Constantin,

 

Isn't about philosophy. I think it is about what works and what not works. In my previous comment I am asking how the (let's say the ideal) mix track with multiple sources can be workable in post production (both edit and mixing stage).

 

If the post production going to leave a mix track as it is or not going to cut, split, apply EQ, compression etc and not going to use isolated tracks then I don't know.

 

If you leave a mix track into one scene and after (in other scene) you need to dig into isolated tracks (re-mix); are you going to match mix track or re-mix version? How this going to be sounded same? How you can have "continuity"?

 

We are talking about mix track for director, producer etc or in final edit and mix stage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're talking about doing both the mix track and the isos as best we can and letting post decide what they'll use for themselves.  We have pages of reasons posted already for why a mix track is useful and what it's useful for, and lots of different post scenarios presented where the mix track is anything from vital to irrelevant.  The bottom line for me is that usually both mix and isos are expected--that preserves lots of options for post.  It's more work for everyone, yes, but it allows various "modern" styles of filmmaking to have good outcomes, which they would not have otherwise.

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMEN.

 

I think we're talking about doing both the mix track and the isos as best we can and letting post decide what they'll use for themselves.  We have pages of reasons posted already for why a mix track is useful and what it's useful for, and lots of different post scenarios presented where the mix track is anything from vital to irrelevant.  The bottom line for me is that usually both mix and isos are expected--that preserves lots of options for post.  It's more work for everyone, yes, but it allows various "modern" styles of filmmaking to have good outcomes, which they would not have otherwise.

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Hi Vas,

 

There are several reasons the iso tracks should be prefader. One example: Let's say you are recording an actor with the boom and a lav, recording a mix track and isolating the boom and the lav on their own tracks. You are using just the boom in the mix because it sounds best this way, but suddenly the actor does something unexpected and the boom will not reach, or the boom gets bumped, or the boom battery dies... whatever. If the lav was being isolated on it's own track prefader, then a backup is possible. If it was isolated postfadfer, it wasn't being recorded at all until it was decided (after the fact) it was needed in the mix.

 

Also, when riding gain, sometimes you go up when you should have gone down, or maybe you grab the wrong fader during a complex dialog scene. If the mics are being tracked postfader, the iso tracks offer no backup. If they are tracked prefader, they are always available for another attempt in post production.

 

Why do manufacturers offer a post fader option? Because it's easy enough to do, and there are any number of unusual circumstances that would call for this option ("mix-minus" broadcast mixes come to mind). But isolation tracks for film/video production should almost always be prefader, for which the recording level is set with the mixer's trim control, which should produce a track that is, on average, at least 6dB lower than the post fader mix track.

 

gt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vas,

 

There are several reasons the iso tracks should be prefader. One example: Let's say you are recording an actor with the boom and a lav, recording a mix track and isolating the boom and the lav on their own tracks. You are using just the boom in the mix because it sounds best this way, but suddenly the actor does something unexpected and the boom will not reach, or the boom gets bumped, or the boom battery dies... whatever. If the lav was being isolated on it's own track prefader, then a backup is possible. If it was isolated postfadfer, it wasn't being recorded at all until it was decided (after the fact) it was needed in the mix.

 

Also, when riding gain, sometimes you go up when you should have gone down, or maybe you grab the wrong fader during a complex dialog scene. If the mics are being tracked postfader, the iso tracks offer no backup. If they are tracked prefader, they are always available for another attempt in post production.

 

Why do manufacturers offer a post fader option? Because it's easy enough to do, and there are any number of unusual circumstances that would call for this option ("mix-minus" broadcast mixes come to mind). But isolation tracks for film/video production should almost always be prefader, for which the recording level is set with the mixer's trim control, which should produce a track that is, on average, at least 6dB lower than the post fader mix track.

 

gt

 

Hi Glen,

 

Having only the boom in the mix track isn't the same as post fader iso? You have three tracks isolated actually. One the mix track (which contains only the boom), pre fader boom and pre fader lav. If you add later the lav in the mix track and the actor doing the same thing/movement etc you don't screw the mix track since the boom is out and lav in? You have two different "sound quality" into one track.

 

My approach with post fader iso. I "see" and use the lavaliers with different way. Lav isn't going to replace boom; boom isn't going to replace lav. For me is two different worlds. I'm not in the side which merge these two different worlds (maybe it's just me). Maybe I can merge (aka mix) one world (two booms or three - four wireless), but with pre fader isos, not post. Also with post fader is "scary" to ride faders and the fault is too easy to be done. Off course type of jobs like reality or heavy tv show or drama there isn't so much space for black art. Mix track and pre fader is a must or The King. No doubt.

 

In both options. Post fader, pre fader there is an extra work in post for sure. In my opinion with post fader (not riding) you can have a better signal to noise. Mic closer to frame line (aka mouth) less fader gain = better signal to noise. Mic higher from frame line (aka mouth) more fader gain = not better signal to noise.

 

So in post the re-recording mixer which has the pre-fader iso tracks going to do (not exactly) the same job as the post fader iso. With post fader iso you can handle better the headroom rather than with pre fader coming with trim relationship only. The trim gain stage is more aggresive for me from fader gain. The post fader iso merge this relationship (trim and fader).

 

With mix track: If any post people here or elsewhere found a way or solution applying EQ, compression, denoise etc into a single track with multiple sourses (booms and lavaliers) and sounds the same as a re-mixing scene (from pre-fader iso sourses) I will be happy to know it or read it.

 

Ok multicameras (wide & tight). I know it and I can understand the workflow very well with pre fader and the reasons for mix track and I have to agree with all opinions here, but is possible to record with only boom without lavaliers and this another story or different thread.

 

Happy Sunday

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see any reason to use post fader ISO's unless you are just itching to miss a whole lot of stuff. Pre fade ISO tracks cover your ass no matter what outlet you are recording for.

I did two different unscripted shows last year with on-air talent coming on and off screen. On my 633 I always used post fade ISOS to knock down confidential phone calls, urinating people (frequently without notice), complaints about producers, racist, sexist, and homophobic comments, comments that would elicit visits from the Secret Service, just to name what immediately comes to mind.

If the ISOs were pre-fade, id have to reach for the small knobs, or worse, dig into the menu, to dump those off camera, on mic comments.

I have read others state the same.

best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Jim Feeley brings up a good point about being limited in our mixing abilities while having to work on smaller productions. As a younger guy to the game, I wonder:

 

When you need to boom while working out of a bag, and be constantly moving on your feet, what would you more experienced guys recommend if several lavs and a boom need to be mixed down (assuming there is no dedicated boom op).  
I guess I kind of just assumed that it is impossible to juggle all of those tasks and still have a free hand to mix with. 

I mean, I am always sending a scratch to camera and ifb, but often it is set to a pretty static level if I need to be dancing the one-man-sound-team dance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible to juggle all of those tasks and still have a free hand to mix with.

Fixed your statement for ya!

I think it's important to note that a mix, either LR or a mono mix, has different applications for different worlds of what mixers do.  As such, accompanying them are different expectations and uses.

 

Of course, I'm as fresh in the game as you but for any one-man-band shoot, the only mix you'd probably ever be asked to do would be either an LR mix (Boom/Lav) or a reference mix (a tracking mono mix of your choosing).  ISO's would just be tracked to normal levels.  A mono mix wouldn't be expected for any omb unless they weren't holding a boompole (eg. a sit down interview or all lavs & no boom). 

 

After all, proper booming should be a two-hand operation.  And we only have two hands. or at least, most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a reality project last year.

 

Non professional "actors", cooking for each other in their houses and after voted for the best meal.

 

6 people

Three cameras

Only lavaliers, no way for booming

 

Hidden lavaliers > Tx > Rx > SQN > Mono mix > Wireless camera link

 

No recorder (recorder was one of the camera; the main camera)

 

No isolated tracks, no metadata, no post sound (poor picture editor)

 

Terrible stories

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentleman, thank you for doing all the work for me to define the benefits of a mix to newbie sound mixers from several different perspectives. Copy/paste, perfect!

 

On a related note, Glen Trew brought up a good point regarding the "two-track mix". That doesn't mean much for dialog when isos are recorded, too. No longer is two-track...multi-track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentleman, thank you for doing all the work for me to define the benefits of a mix to newbie sound mixers from several different perspectives. Copy/paste, perfect!

 

On a related note, Glen Trew brought up a good point regarding the "two-track mix". That doesn't mean much for dialog when isos are recorded, too. No longer is two-track...multi-track.

 

Not to us maybe, but it is to a lot of editors!  And they are generally farther up the food chain than a project's soundie!  They ask--we give!  You aren't going to start making recorder-mixers that record prefade isos and have a single mono output or mono internal mix track (only)  are you?!

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not to us maybe, but it is to a lot of editors!  And they are generally farther up the food chain than a project's soundie!  They ask--we give!  

 

Speak for yourself, Phil. They ask, I decide.

 

 

You aren't going to start making recorder-mixers that record prefade isos and have a single mono output or mono internal mix track (only)  are you?!

 

They already do, Philip, as do other recorder manufacturers. How those outputs are put onto tracks is up to the operator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speak for yourself, Phil. They ask, I decide.

 

 

They already do, Philip, as do other recorder manufacturers. How those outputs are put onto tracks is up to the operator.

 

Now I'm going to sound like Hench!  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!

 

Re outputs, sure, but the structure of the outputs sure seems to be around 2 mix or main output channels, plus others.  The moni menus are usually structured L/R, L, R, L+R, and then other possibilities, right?  Yes you can, fortunately anymore, use them however you want that your machine will route.

 

p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now I'm going to sound like Hench!  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!

 

Re outputs, sure, but the structure of the outputs sure seems to be around 2 mix or main output channels, plus others.  The moni menus are usually structured L/R, L, R, L+R, and then other possibilities, right?  Yes you can, fortunately anymore, use them however you want that your machine will route.

 

p

Take the bull by the horns:  It is a mistake and copout to approach production sound mixing in such a passive way. The assumption should first be that the production sound mixer was hired to make the best choices for what they encounter on the set, in conjunction with an understanding about workflow needs down the line. In preproduction meetings for the production mixing work I've done since the beginning of multitrack nonlinear production recording, I've told them how I want to arrange the tracks ("MONO MIX ON 1, ALL INPUTS PREFADER ON REMAINING TRACKS") and they've accepted it. Rarely, when a post super suggests "BOOMS MIXED ON 1, RADIOS MIXED ON 2, PREFADER ON REMAINING TRACKS" I explain that this always forces a remix (assuming just the booms or just the radios isn't the best mix), needlessly makes it more difficult to have the best mono mix for the recording and for the village, wastes media capacity, and lengthens transfer time, all for no benefit since everything is already on isolated tracks. Also rarely, when a post super suggests "MIX ON 1, MIX 6DB LOWER ON 2", I explain that if the gain structure is properly set between the sources, recorder, and mixer, if there is distortion on track 1 then there will almost always be overload distortion before it has a chance to be recorded on track 2. For 6dB of additional headroom on track 2 to save the distortion that's on track 1, then all of the non-distorted parts of track 1 for the entire production will have to have been recorded with 6dB more noise than necessary (while also needlessly wasting a track, adding transfer time, etc). On occasions where exceptions are warranted, the best person to make that judgment should be the sound mixer on the set. This, also, has always been accepted. As opposed to a butting of heads on the subject, post has always seemed grateful that the production mixer knows what they want, can explain why, and is willing to discuss options.

The L/R thing: With the exception of headphone monitoring, the L/R routing and tracking structure is a labeling holdover from the beginnings of 2-channel production sound (notably the Nagra IV-S and the Shure FP32), and has little if anything to do with the needs of present day production sound recording. When you record something on the track labeled "right" is it because you intend it to be on the right side of the image? Almost never. Labeling tracks "L" and "R" at the factory is like labeling the first two inputs "Boom 1" and "Boom 2", and clearly from this thread and others, the practice influences people to feel like they are should be sending two mix tracks. I believe a much better approach is to label the tracks - like the inputs -  "1, 2, 3, 4, 5..." and let the operator determine how they are used.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the bull by the horns:  It is a mistake and copout to approach production sound mixing in such a passive way. The assumption should first be that the production sound mixer was hired to make the best choices for what they encounter on the set, in conjunction with an understanding about workflow needs down the line.

The L/R thing: With the exception of headphone monitoring, the L/R routing and tracking structure is a labeling holdover from the beginnings of 2-channel production sound (notably the Nagra IV-S and the Shure FP32), and has little if anything to do with the needs of present day production sound recording.

​I totally agree with Glen's statement to "Take the bull by the horns" and avoid the passive "I'll do whatever you say" approach. In the old days when there were so fewer choices, back in the day before anyone was using the word "workflow", pre-production meetings were all about what we would be doing in production based on our script breakdown, location scouts, pre-production tests and so forth. There was rarely a time when a post-supervisor would dictate anything to the production sound mixer except for the expressed common goal of getting the best production sound possible. Things got a little more complicated when the first "stereo" recorders were available, most notably the Nagra 4S and later 4STC, and even at that time I always insisted on calling them 2-track recorders --- I was rarely if ever going to be recording STEREO L/R on the Nagra. Then things got more complicated with the introduction of DAT --- still a linear tape format, like the Nagra, but because it was DIGITAL there were some technical and psychological barriers to its widespread adoption initially. Of course, this leads us to the true digital revolution: non-linear file based production recording. Workflow discussions came to the front, file management, backups, media deliverables, all these things seemed to dominate, almost to the point there was little time or energy left to really think about our primary job, the job we were being hired to do: record great production sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The L/R thing: With the exception of headphone monitoring, the L/R routing and tracking structure is a labeling holdover from the beginnings of 2-channel production sound (notably the Nagra IV-S and the Shure FP32), and has little if anything to do with the needs of present day production sound recording. When you record something on the track labeled "right" is it because you intend it to be on the right side of the image? Almost never. Labeling tracks "L" and "R" at the factory is like labeling the first two inputs "Boom 1" and "Boom 2", and clearly from this thread and others, the practice influences people to feel like they are should be sending two mix tracks. I believe a much better approach is to label the tracks - like the inputs -  "1, 2, 3, 4, 5..." and let the operator determine how they are used.

 

I completely agree.  I never understood the talk about L/R in production (except for the occasional fx recording), or why some recorders are designed from the factory to default with a L/R mix, and labeled as such.  If anything it should be MIX1 and MIX2 since that's what you are actually delivering.  The only time I record 2 mix tracks is when I'm sending 2 mixes to camera, otherwise I mix in mono, and record accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passive?  You better have been smiling when you called me passive, Glen.  I am known in SF area sound circles as being something of a crank, if anything a little too "in their face" about how I want to do jobs (current major beef: cables to cameras).  But the LR mix or the split mix or whatever you want to call it is not just something I made up, or is a leftover from DAT or whatever negative description or put-down you come up with for it.  It has real utility on a whole class or type of jobs that I think you might not have much recent experience with.  If I really thought it was a waste of time I might fight the editors who ask for this on these little jobs (and there are many of them), but I don't think it is--I understand why they want it and it is a reasonable request that I can meet with no extra effort.  It serves them well as a fast flexible temp audio source that they can do quick edits with until they get to the isos, if they get to the isos.  I don't give a damn what manufacturers call the two channel outputs of the mixer/recorders--on music jobs I'm happy they are labelled left and right, and the rest of the time I don't care (they can be B and LM, for obvious reasons, or M1 and M2 or whatever).   For the record, I have never in the 3 decades or so (of total 4 working in sound) that I've been able to deliver a split mix had an editor be other than grateful for it.  So quit telling me that I shouldn't do something that is integral to the current workflow of a lot of my clients.

thanks

philp

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...