Jeff Wexler Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 I think we can agree that ALL of the equipment that we use on the set is important, and it is of equal importance that we fully understand how everything works and what to do if any of it stops working. I came into this industry and specifically into sound, not through any formal training in electrical engineering, audio or acoustics, and pretty much had to learn all the technical stuff "on the job." Even to this day I fall into the category of someone who knows and understands a whole lot of technical stuff but from the perspective of its practical use. Don Coufal, my boom operator for the last 28 years (actually, for almost the whole of my career) spelled out what he felt was the important priority for new people coming into the movie industry in sound. He also came to the conclusion that the priorities have gotten quite screwed up in this out of control technical age. The conclusion is that the MICROPHONE is probably the most important, followed by the INPUT (typically the mic preamp) and then the RECORDING device. It was Don's feeling, and I have to agree, that current focus, understanding and attention is inordinately centered on the recorder and much less attention, considering its importance, is paid to the microphone. Just some thoughts that may provoke some discussion... but certainly no one should feel an obligation to respond. In a way, I am just experimenting myself, attempting to discover the power of group discussion and reflection. Regards, Jeff Wexler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry long Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 I believe as you that the mic and the person handling it are of great importance, also I happen to love specifically the cooper board with it's input transformers that can handle the mkh 50's when you're really pulling on them. As far as capture device, I believe in digital convienence, and whatever post wants these days. Would go on but it is better to stfu and be thought a fool than open my mouth and remove all doubt. Larry Long Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 The conclusion is that the MICROPHONE is probably the most important, followed by the INPUT (typically the mic preamp) and then the RECORDING device. It was Don's feeling, and I have to agree, that current focus, understanding and attention is inordinately centered on the recorder and much less attention, considering its importance, is paid to the microphone. Absolutely. I made pretty nice recordings on a cassette recorder with Schoeps and Neumann mics--I would say that the mic outweighs the preamp by a considerable amount, esp. in movie sound. The recorder means less now than it ever did--it's just a file. Just as important as the preamp, however, is the A-to-D convertor. (Compare even a modest DAT to the tracks recorded at the same sample rate and bit width on a "prosumer" video camera......) Philip Perkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OscarL Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Hi Jeff, nice new site, just put up a little contact site up myself, not this well made but a start anyway, and as said before by others, this site makes me want to improve my own... (www.soundimage.se). Now to the subject, as I see it, the most important part are the crew, if the mic is not in the right place it doesn't matter if it's a schoeps, neumann or a toy electret and if the levels in the chain are bad it doesn't matter how silent or transparent the mixer is etc. To know your tools and the environment you work in is the main key to a good sound. Regards to all from Sweden Oscar Lovnér Sound Image Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 [quote author=OscarL Now to the subject, as I see it, the most important part are the crew, if the mic is not in the right place it doesn't matter if it's a schoeps I agree entirely. As a matter of fact, when Don Coufal made the statements regarding the order of importance, starting with the microphone, I made the adjustment to that saying that the PEOPLE, the crew and their knowledge and experience, was the absolute number one consideration. Thank you for your input... you are right on this. Regards, Jeff Wexler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Backus C.A.S. Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 I agree that the crew, specifically the sound mixer and boom operator, and the ears and brain of said crew members are most important. Most normal crew people know what we do, but they don't know what to really listen for like we do. That comes from experience and determination to perfect our craft. Great site Jeff, as I read your credits it was like I was reading a list of every movie I have ever seen. BTW, I had the great fortune to work with your dad some years ago when I did all the sound work for Eastman Kodak's Motion Picture Film Research Dept., he was such a kind and gentle person on the set, one of my best location shoots ever. Tom Backus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelza30 Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 In the world of low budget, the crew is of utmost importance, and not just the sound guys. The camera guys who I ask to barney the loud BL4, the locations department who I ask to shut off the fridges in whatever dive bar in Texas you're shooting in, the PAs who have to lock down traffic, the ADs who always seem to forget wild lines and room tone in their schedules, and of course the beloved boom op without whom their would be only pain on my back. My crew in Austin is very friendly to sound once in a while, I'd just like them to understand how important to the film shutting off an A/C can be... As for gear, it's my mixer that is most important to me. Being able to provide the correct track assignments for a given scene, having limiters that can cushion, provide the correct powering for my T-powered Schoeps or my 48ph MKH-60, forgiving faders, nice pre-amps... Most pro-mics sound nice, it's getting their sound to right place that's important. But I see what you guys are saying... I feel a little out of my element on RAMPS being a newbie soundmixer. Hopefully y'all would appreciate some new blood in your mix on this new forum. Ben Lazard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tourtelot Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 My 1979 Chevy Van (sadly, probably dead in LA) and my EZ Up tent! A Schoeps won't keep you dry on a winter day in the PNW! D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry long Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Oh for gods sake! My chair! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 My 1979 Chevy Van (sadly, probably dead in LA) and my EZ Up tent! A Schoeps won't keep you dry on a winter day in the PNW! D. On "Vanilla Sky", night shooting in Brooklyn in December, my Pelsue pop-up tent with the electric heater was ABSOLUTELY my best friend... do I care what microphone Don has at the end of his frozen boompole --- no, he's out there, I'm in here (and I'm not coming out). Regards, Jeff Wexler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumix Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 On my current show, it's the 300 feet of video coax that keeps me as far from video village as possible, and the party fun fest there. Seriously, I used to think it was the microphone, but with the evermore frantic shooting style going on, the video monitor in front of me lets me know just which Schoeps should be open on which particular take. (Since the shot changes from take to take!) And thanks for this new board! BBB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd170user Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Would anybody have any suggestions on using Dat recorder with the PD-170? Greg Gross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 I think a good boom op and an average mixer can record a decent, useable track, with any pro gear. A great mic with a great boom swinger like don c or randy j etc... working together with an experienced mixer with top flight gear can still get K.O.ed by a production that does not give a shit about sound. I guess my point is that gear is very important, as is the sound crew, but unless you can establish a good working relationship with whole team, the schoot will be a living hell for you, the post prod. people, and your reputation. Regards, old school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd170user Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Thank you "old school" and I appreciate your post. Greg Gross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd170user Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 I'm sitting here looking at the simple stupid wind screen on my Azden shotgun mic. and realizing that its gotta go! I've just realized from reading posts here that its about as juvenile as you can get. I'm wondering if I can't experiment and make my own windscreens? Of course first thought is what type of materials would I use? Greg Gross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrallen1 Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Good to have a fresh place to learn. Thanks Jeff. It seems to me that the distraction of the recorder is like all pop culture, what is new is in. Fast pace has pushed the cables right off of my sets. So the 'new cables', wireless, seem to be the top of my list. In my old booming days, protecting the Duplex from cars, horses and vicious A.C. drove my worries. This connection was my lifeline and now it is the wireless. Can't wait for Saturday. As for all the new recorders, I agree, it is only the A to D that matters, the rest just needs to burn the DVD faster! All The best Nick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptalsky Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Along with everything said above, the other thing I would add is a director and AD that actually care about sound. Since I am almost always working with inexperienced directors, I always start them off with the same line: "If I ask for another take for sound, pretend the DP just told you that the last shot was out of focus". I don't ask often, especially if there is a lot of coverage on a scene, but when I know that there is a line (or set of lines of dialogue) that I have not gotten clean on any take, I will ask. It is amazing how using that one line seems to open their eyes. They would never hesitate to shoot another take if there is one out of focus, so why hesitate when the mixers asks for one more? Again, this works well with inexperienced directors and AD's. Not sure how well this would play on a larger, more professional set. ;-) Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Along with everything said above, the other thing I would add is a director and AD that actually care about sound. Since I am almost always working with inexperienced directors, I always start them off with the same line: "If I ask for another take for sound, pretend the DP just told you that the last shot was out of focus". I don't ask often, especially if there is a lot of coverage on a scene, but when I know that there is a line (or set of lines of dialogue) that I have not gotten clean on any take, I will ask. It is amazing how using that one line seems to open their eyes. They would never hesitate to shoot another take if there is one out of focus, so why hesitate when the mixers asks for one more? Again, this works well with inexperienced directors and AD's. Not sure how well this would play on a larger, more professional set. ;-) Phil That's a great line. I guess my only hesitation about using it would be that you are kind of saying that they aren't experienced enough to have noticed whatever audio interference happened and understand its ramifications. I generally am very specific about why I'm asking, as in "that truck that went by stepped on the line "xxxx"", or "I screwed up and did or didn't do X during that shot" (that they wouldn't have heard). It IS important to weigh what else is going on on the set, what the general mood is etc: sometimes it's better not to interrupt the flow no matter how bad it was. Philip Perkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptalsky Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Philip, Most of the directors I've worked with are fairly inexperienced, so it hasn't been an issue. And I do usually follow up with "and here's why". But, I also use the line to condition these inexperienced directors to forget about "fixing it in post". I also have rigged my comteks so I can talk to the director and script supervisor on a single channel (boom op goes on a different channel). This way I can communicate with the director directly (no pun intended), and the script supervisor can note it if we decide not to go on (this works when the director remembers to put his/her headphones on, of course.) I don't have two-way communication (yet) but at least I can let the director know immediately if there is a problem. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Harper Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 On a serious note...(aside from my Hollywood Chair and my EZ Up) the first and last piece of equipment in line make the biggest impact on the quality of the sound; this is the microphone and the speakers which convert changes in air pressure to an electronic signal and back. Changing the microphone or speakers will have a much larger effect on the sound than running the signal through a different mixer or into a different recorder. Of course, everything in the audio path down to the cables will have an effect on the sound but I would have to say the most important to the sound quality is the mic. That being said, I carry six Schoeps CMC6 preamps and 12 differnt capsules, so reliability on the part of the mic is pretty well covered. My mixer, on the other hand, is what I feel most closely attached to; it is what my hands are in constant contact with and is the heart of the audio chain. If a mic goes down, no biggie...if my mixer dies, I'm in trouble. I guess that makes my answer dependent on the word important. The most important to the quality of sound is the mic. The most important to the reliability and function of the audio chain is the mixer. The most important to my ass is the chair. Brad Harper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted March 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I carry six Schoeps CMC6 preamps and 12 differnt capsules, so reliability on the part of the mic is pretty well covered. My mixer, on the other hand, is what I feel most closely attached to; it is what my hands are in constant contact with and is the heart of the audio chain. If a mic goes down, no biggie...if my mixer dies, I'm in trouble. I guess that makes my answer dependent on the word important. The most important to the quality of sound is the mic. The most important to the reliability and function of the audio chain is the mixer. The most important to my ass is the chair. Brad Harper Well said, Brad. I agree with you entirely about the mixing panel, the thing that as a sound mixer you relate to, physically and tactily (is that a word?) the most, partially because the all important microphone (as most have agreed) is usually NOT in our hands, literally. You also touch on the reliability factor... the original question could be re-phrased as to "what piece of equipment do you rely on most". As I have said earlier, my experience with a digital mixer (no secret, it was the Cameo) un-settled me so much I am gun-shy about going back to a digital board. When using something new in the past, such as the first movies I did with DAT (when DAT was a completely unproven medium) and with the Deva (also such a new way of doing things, even moreso than DAT because it was non-linear and file based), it was not such a drama. I had my Cooper 106 (first one off the assembly line) and my ultra-reliable Nagra on the cart, so if the "experimental" recorder failed completely it would be no catastrophe. On the other hand, if the MIXING PANEL fails, all esle is irrelevant: the quality of the microphone, the reliability of the recorder, the choice of mic preamps, etc. When the panel has a problem, the whole show comes to a halt. I really had this point dirven home when I used the Cameo. I had become totally used to the Deva which had proved itself in the first week of work to be the MOST RELIABLE and predictable piece of gear I had ever used. So, the recorder part of the chain was taken care of, beautifully. When the new Cameo began to have difficulties (and I am being kind) I knew right away I would have to give up on it and go back to my Cooper. Regards, Jeff Wexler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Harper Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 The final straw on my Cameo was when I was doing an interview with Steven Spielberg and it reset (shut down), and I had to ask Steven to go back and repeat his answer because my digtal mixer had freaked out. He was courious about which mixer I was using... I was going to work with a sick stomach every day not knowing when it was going to bite me. Funny thing is i still have 80AHr of batteries on my cart from those days. You would think I would have lightened the load by now, but I love the power. Brad Harper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted March 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Funny thing is i still have 80AHr of batteries on my cart from those days. You would think I would have lightened the load by now, but I love the power. Brad Harper Reminds me of the comment regarding the use of Clear Sound, the production sound recording system that Tom Cruise had designed and built (and then hoped it would be used on his movies). The operational notes suggested that car batteries could be used to power the rig on location. After attempting to use it one of the sound mixers commented that he wasn't opposed to using the car batteries, he just didn't like having to keep the car running! Regards, Jeff Wexler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim apter Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Tom Cruise had a system designed?! Wow theres some movie trivia for me. As a young filmmaker, I find that access to decent microphones (schoeps, mkh series) is no that hard, as is access to all the new digital mediums of recording/storage (here in south africa we are using nagra ares-bb+'s quite a bit, we have nothing better than that)... but the most commonly overlooked section is the preamp. I realise you guys all know everything Im saying, but I think in the semi-pro and amateur world, people miss the importance of a good preamp fairly often. I gotta say, I think the mic and preamp go hand in hand - a weak link on either side and you're either recording tinny, horrible sound, or hissy horrible sound. Someone posted earlier about how some a/d converters are better than others (like dats versus handicam), but I think whats REALLY handicapping the handicam (yeah, now i feel all poetic) is the almost non existant pre's. I only say this because Ive seen people get decent results from Beachtek boxes and stuff on handicams.... am i talking garbage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Harper Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Jeff, As I recall, didn't you refuse to use his system? I think it was based around a Nagra and the Bryston noise reduction wasn't it? It did probably sound very good...but who want's to use someone elses equipment. Brad Harper 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.