I'm a sound mixer not a track layer!

[Henchman]

 

As a side note:

What's going on with all the unintelligible dialogue on tv and features these days? It's mainly actors mumbling their lines, but is there nobody anywhere in the post chain going "uh hey, guys? Am I the only one that can't understand a word that is being said?". When I had dialogue that could not be understood I always made a note of it and also would talk to the post sound supervisor and just let them know so they could make the call on whether or not to move that concern up the food chain. Maybe that is happening and directors just don't care?

Funny you should mention this.

Because this is EXACTLY why we need lavs.

We have to gain that stuff so much, that using the boom results in an unacceptable signal to noise ratio.

And no, you can't ADR every line of a low talking actor for an entire show.

[Mirror]

You must work on some pretty crappy shows where the PSM can't tell when a lav is needed and when a boom is needed beforehand. Thusly your all-lav-all-the-time policy.

[Henchman]

Right now I am mixing "Last Ship". And the soundmixer Steve Nelson has been doing a terrific job, and getting us great tracks. More often than not, I don't have to use ADR, unless it is an added or changed line. Simply becasue there is a cleaner mic available, other than the boom. And I know he has been vocal on set, to make sure we get what he knows we need. And it shows.

So, if he can do it, why is it made to seem impossible by others?

And this is not an easy show.

I don't understand the statement "There's a lot more to working on set than getting all the words".

Isn't that by definition your job?

To make sure that dialog is recorded as good as possible under the given circumstances?

Instead if just kicking the can down the road?

You must work on some pretty crappy shows where the PSM can't tell when a lav is needed and when a boom is needed beforehand. Thusly your all-lav-all-the-time policy.

No, it's called covering all bases.

[Henchman]

Have any if you guys watched this yet?

[Philip Perkins]

I don't understand the statement "There's a lot more to working on set than getting all the words".

Isn't that by definition your job?

To make sure that dialog is recorded as good as possible under the given circumstances?

Instead if just kicking the can down the road?

No, it's called covering all bases.

No, it's called going along to get along.  Yes, there is definitely more to working on set than getting all the words, sad, I guess, but true.  PSM's do the best they can given the circumstances, and sometimes those circumstances mean no lavs, perhaps because of time, performance, diplomacy, set politics or other non-audio cause.  You can intimate that we don't know how to do our job, are lazy or even deaf, none of that will change the realities of what it's like on a bad day on set.  Yes--I did watch that video, for myself there were no surprises there.  There are, however, some things you might learn from it--for instance that that RRM's experience on-set gives him an understanding of what today's PSMs are up against, his general attitude that everyone is trying their best for their shows and that he as the RRM is often completely ignorant of the what it took to get the tracks passed to him.  We've had a couple of go-rounds with you here, this one among them, where the subtext seems to be that you feel entitled to tell us how to do our jobs, and intimate that there will be consequences caused by you if the work isn't done as you think it should.  Perhaps finding a more diplomatic way of asking for what you want might be another take-away for you from that video.  Usually that can you mention gets kicked by filmmakers/directors/producers who have other priorities than the production sound at that particular moment.  It's their film, and thus their call.

 

philp

 

 

[Henchman]

No, I was not saying nobody here knows how to do their job.

What I do see is an attitude from some not wanting to accept the reality of what is expected at the end of the road on the dubstage.

Hell, half the directors directing TV shows don't get it. Proof of that is a recent show, where a director shot a bunch of action scenes completely MOS, with lead actors who are actually delivering dialog.

You obviously must have missed the part where Greg talks about the limited dynamic range in TV, that brings out the imperfections and really magnifies noise issues. And how he starts with the boom, and then lavs when it's an issue. Well guess what. what if there's no lav to go to?

The days of smoothing out a noisy boom by adding more noise are over. At least they are in my book.

I know that there are situations where a lav is not an option. But the attitude of "you'll use what we give you, deal with it" is pretty unacceptable.

We are all in a service level job. I supply the producers with the mix they ask for. You guys should be delivering tracks that help us facilitate that, not hinder it.

Some get it, some don't. That's why some people do deliver what's needed every single time. And others don't.

Maybe some know how to explain to an actor and director, "look if we don't use a lav, you might have to redo this scene in ADR because of the noisy location."

Most actors and directors will then happily use lavs. . Because pretty much every actor and director I've worked with, hates doing ADR.

[RPSharman]

I don't understand the statement "There's a lot more to working on set than getting all the words".

Isn't that by definition your job?

To make sure that dialog is recorded as good as possible under the given circumstances?

You just answered your own question with the phrase "under the given circumstances".

Isn't your job to create the best mix with what you have been given?

You must trust that most of us aren't being lazy or neglectful of our duties. Just because one show can put a lav on everyone all the time doesn't mean another can.

Also, some mixers just suck.

On the shows you have discussed previously, tell the producers that on their next show it's be better if they lav'd everyone all the time. Let him/her make the decision. It's their job.

And, again, I am happy to place lavs when necessary. That's my call, on the day, given the circumstances. Putting lavs on actors just because simply isn't my normal MO. That said, last movie had lavs on all actors all the time, scripted to speak or not. It's because that's what that project demanded. We still had one actor who refused, from time to time. She was the one who whispered and was distracted if the boom got too close.

[dolo72]

Whats so difficult about splitting tracks per actor from a single boom track ? As long as every line is on mic I don't really see this as being loads more work than dealing with multiple tracks. Then level control is per actor is not a problem. Sounds to me like the 'editor' has not done any basic tracklaying before and should not be messing with sound.

The noise being talked about is a separate issue which can only be assessed on a scene by scene basis leading to a decision about how to record that scene.

lisala

[VASI]

Have any if you guys watched this yet?

 

Yes.

 

Doesn't mean to I agree with all what he say.

 

Collaboration and fixing the workflow before a project start; doesn't hurt anyone.

 

Some PSM not doing very good job, some post production not doing very good job.

 

[stevegrider]

"We still had one actor who refused, from time to time. She was the one who whispered and was distracted if the boom got too close."

I have run into this every now and then and it mystifies me. In 2015, wireless mics are just as much part of the process as lights and cameras. If you want to be an actor, there are things you have to do to get your performance recorded. Hit your mark, speak up, wear a mic, etc. Before you sign up, read the job description.

[Rick Reineke]

"Am I the only one that can't understand a word that is being said?"

- Absolutely not Dave. Some movies are so unintelligible, they should have subtitles like some reality shows.

[dfisk]

Funny you should mention this.

Because this is EXACTLY why we need lavs.

We have to gain that stuff so much, that using the boom results in an unacceptable signal to noise ratio.

And no, you can't ADR every line of a low talking actor for an entire show.

No...I don't think this is a lav vs. boom thing, and in reality, a boom mic properly placed is going to sound better than a lav mic under wardrobe, but that doesn't matter. I can hear dialogue on older stuff where wireless was never used, so again it's not a mic issue, or even a production sound issue (other than getting the talent to project). 

 

I'll use the movie Interstellar.

There is a scene on the front porch of the main character's house. John Lithgow's lines were delivered in such a way they he projected. His mouth actually moved. Matthew McConaughey's lines in that scene were delivered very low and his lips barely moved. This even happens on television, and sometimes the dialogue is delivered so quickly it just all runs together. I don't know anybody that likes this, and I gotta believe dialogue editors are saying something about this and being ignored? 

[Philip Perkins]

No, I was not saying nobody here knows how to do their job.

What I do see is an attitude from some not wanting to accept the reality of what is expected at the end of the road on the dubstage.

Hell, half the directors directing TV shows don't get it. Proof of that is a recent show, where a director shot a bunch of action scenes completely MOS, with lead actors who are actually delivering dialog.

You obviously must have missed the part where Greg talks about the limited dynamic range in TV, that brings out the imperfections and really magnifies noise issues. And how he starts with the boom, and then lavs when it's an issue. Well guess what. what if there's no lav to go to?

The days of smoothing out a noisy boom by adding more noise are over. At least they are in my book.

I know that there are situations where a lav is not an option. But the attitude of "you'll use what we give you, deal with it" is pretty unacceptable.

We are all in a service level job. I supply the producers with the mix they ask for. You guys should be delivering tracks that help us facilitate that, not hinder it.

Some get it, some don't. That's why some people do deliver what's needed every single time. And others don't.

Maybe some know how to explain to an actor and director, "look if we don't use a lav, you might have to redo this scene in ADR because of the noisy location."

Most actors and directors will then happily use lavs. . Because pretty much every actor and director I've worked with, hates doing ADR.

 

Well, I agree with everything said here, actually.  (Except I didn't miss that bit about the limited dyno range of TV--I live with that every day!)  Also, maybe not the "most actors" thing re lavs:  trust me, there are a lot of actors who look on that as not their problem.  But the really professional ones do get it, for sure, and understand why you are doing what you are doing.

 

philp

[Glen Trew]

I don't understand the statement "There's a lot more to working on set than getting all the words".

Now we're getting somewhere.

[old school]

This is standard practice today.

There is no standard practice other than we are hired to make the best decisions on the set on any given day for whatever shot we have to deal with. Not all shots warrant radio mics. Maybe you could learn a bit more about production sound recording realities before you dismiss a legitimate post from someone who does it Mark. I'm sure this would be true with post sound too. Personally I don't like many of todays mixes in TV, Film, and Commercials but I know not what they are fighting (directors POV's, bad production sound, Post Supervisors, sound designers who want to effect any and all sounds) so I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing the best they can given their particulars. Lets not throw stones or make pronouncements unless we know all that was happening on a shot/scene/show.

CrewC

[mikewest]

Wow I certainly started a flow of opinions.

 

Firstly I love using lavs since 1980 and have been accused of covering my a*se by using them

until they heard the results.

 

Secondly I use what is appropriate for a scene, what gives the best results and also what I can monitor consistently.

 

Saw a British show recently, no wide shots, all 4 actors with lavs, the sound had clarity but no quality.

 

Fine it was a stacked shot but as we all know the quality and ambience that a boom delivers is magic!

 

Cheers

 

mike

[VASI]

the sound had clarity but no quality

 

- Magic line

 

Thanks Mike

[Henchman]

 

Saw a British show recently, no wide shots, all 4 actors with lavs, the sound had clarity but no quality.

 

​Quality without clarity is of no use.

If you cant understand the words, then what's the point?

On the dubstage producers will always choose intelligibility over quailty.

[Philip Perkins]

​Quality without clarity is of no use.

If you cant understand the words, then what's the point?

On the dubstage producers will always choose intelligibility over quailty.

​That hasn't been my experience universally.   Some directors go for performance and emotion over clarity or intelligibility (esp re ADR), and still preferred a BG-full boom track over "dirtied-up" lavs, go figure.  In docs you are absolutely correct, and that is a battle I fight all the time.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2015 by Philip Perkins

[VASI]

​Quality without clarity is of no use.

If you cant understand the words, then what's the point?

On the dubstage producers will always choose intelligibility over quailty.

​

[Henchman]

​That hasn't been my experience universally.   Some directors go for performance and emotion over clarity or intelligibility (esp re ADR), and still preferred a BG-full boom track over "dirtied-up" lavs, go figure.  In docs you are absilutely correct, and that is a battle I fight all the time.

 

 

​Directors are rarely on the dubstage of TV shows.

 

[VASI]

Not true statement all.

Both about directors (not attending at post) and producers (choosing intelligibility over quality).

Don't generalize and speak for your experience. Again don't put "directors" or "producers".

[Henchman]

Not true statement all.

Both about directors (not attending at post) and producers (choosing intelligibility over quality).

Don't generalize and speak for your experience. Again don't put "directors" or "producers".

In all my time mixing TV, I can count the times  a director came to a mix on one hand. Usually it's for the Pilot, and that's it. 

I see associate producers, producers, show creators/writers, composers, music supervisors, sound supervisors etc. And pretty much every single time they will go for intelligibility. Wether it's using an alt take, ADR or me finding. A way to make it better to understand even though it might not be the "best quality". And it usually involves a lot of eq, noise reduction, timestretching, editing and gain leveling.

i haven't ever heard any of those folks ever say, "I can't understand the line, but let's keep it because it sounds amazing."

what I do see all the times after I have worked on it, and told them we are suffering sonic quality for intelligibility, that they will go with intelligibility.

 

Edited May 25, 2015 by Henchman

[VASI]

Mark,

Intelligibility isn't only a work part of PSM; also actor and you know that. Of course I am not even going to "teach" you with my comments and I don't even have half of your experience.

But I can understand this: Intelligibility is part of quality. Clarity is part of quality. Tone is part of quality. So quality is like virtue (areti / αρετή). Example: Quality is human face. Human face has ears, eyes, nose etc. When you have all parts in perfect size, dimension etc you have the perfect face. Lets say you have perfect ears and rest in not; then you don't have perfect face. In conclusion: When you have intelligibility does not mean you have quality dialogue.

I take this example (about human face parts) when Protagoras was trying to explain in Plato about teaching areti is possible.

[Constantin]

Vas, what's your conclusion from this? Should Henchman tell the producer (i.e. his boss), no sorry, I prefer quality over clarity so I will not go to the lav even though it's there?