Jeff Wexler Posted February 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 To both Phillip and Matthias, this seems to be getting into that territory where we are criticizing and assessing the potential usefulness of some thing that none of us have ever used! First of all, once it is a reality, if it is something that does not interest you, or your post people, then don't use it! The additional MixAhead track has ZERO impact on your current workflow other than tying up one track. If you do decide to use it, you may have to have a conversation with your post, make them aware of it, and then as the collaborators that you have already strived to be, you will discover whether it is useful or not. Phillip, "needing to listen through a 2nd location full mix of each take" is not the way it would be done, at least not by the post people who are already taking the time to listen to your mix track. As I said before, any post person who has already decided they're not terribly interested in your mix track, certainly will not be interested in listening (by fading back and forth between the mix tracks running) to your MixAhead track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Well, Jeff, I guess I'm wondering how the buy-in process from post would work, mostly, and I'm not really wanting to turn in a mix I haven't heard, with the idea that (as it might be sold to post) this might be a somewhat better mix than the "main" or "unassisted" mix it accompanies without really knowing that was true? Will the MixAhead mix always be better and would we sell it that way? Would it always be accurate, in that the system is determining (via a preset) how much to 2nd guess the mixer by offsetting the fader moves in time (earlier)? If the diffs are subtle, then we expect post to listen to both and choose, right? Budgeting the time for this auditioning is what I mean by "buy in" from post. But let's hear from some feature/episodic posties on this. No I haven't used this system yet. But the theory is interesting and a good topic for discussion I think. It seems like it could be the opening salvo of a big change in how location mixes are done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 We're only talking a fraction of a second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 OK. Please test drive and post some files, someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 MixAhead should not be subject of fear or doubt. You can make a better mix by having a fraction of a second to react to needed fader changes vs fading when it is too late. MixAhead will be a big factor in making a better mix for unscripted work and a safety net for scripted production. Post will have a choice to use it or not. In talking to sound mixers about this there is no doubt in my mind that it will prove itself to be a valuable tool for both production and post production. I am sure there will be many people who will be glad to share files when the Deva 24 comes to market. Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 14 minutes ago, Philip Perkins said: OK. Please test drive and post some files, someone. Phillip, it doesn't exist, yet, no one has done a "test drive", there are no files. As far as "selling" MixAhead to post people, the post people I work with I wouldn't try and sell one mix vs. another (the MixAhead mix, as you point out, I haven't heard), but I know that the majority of them would be very much up for listening to the MixAhead track for those brief moments while they are listening to my otherwise brilliant (monitored) mix track. This will be dirt simple in post environment and those people who are interested in experimenting with something new that could potentially help them out, it will be discovered whether MixAhead is a winner or not. Besides, there is NO DOWNSIDE --- MixAhead isn't going to cost any more, it does nothing to alter your potentially brilliant Track 1 mix --- let's give it a chance before we speculate it out of the picture before we even get to use it. If you, Phillip, remain so skeptical that it could ever fit into any of your workflow or jobs, then that's fine, it's not for you. I am thinking of the legions of people who told me when I first started making file based production recording with the very first Deva, why would anyone want to do that? Let's just stick with the tried and true methods for our work --- no need to get involved in all this digital computer stuff. You should try and have a little bit more of an open mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Sorry Jeff, I don't think the two are comparable changes. File based recording was an earthquake, this is slight tremor. We'll see how this plays out. I've used peak limiters with look-ahead for many years, so I'm not adverse to "ahead" type tech. I was far ahead of the curve back in the day in the SF area with the use of stereo Nagras, TC Nagras, F1/VHS, DAT, TCDAT, file-based recording, computer-based recording and a few other technologies, so I don't think I can be portrayed as being a Luddite either. But I do think asking questions and discussing the ramifications of changes to our workflow is healthy, whether anyone has used this particular new technology yet or not. If the topic wasn't to be discussed, then why is it here? I look forward to hearing some audio files to compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Never accusing of you being a Luddite --- I am well aware of your progressive and often fearless embracing of new technologies and new methodologies, and you've been at it a long, long time. I also agree that MixAhead is not in the same league as our adoption of digital recording, computer based, DAT, then file-based. I only used the analogy to indicate that many, many people were very skeptical when new things are introduced. Historically, what happens is a few adventuresome people are excited about these new things, try them out in production, then it either proves itself or not. All I am saying is, let's give this a chance (and we'll have to wait to actually get our hands on MixAhead and put it through its paces). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bash Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 I am really interested to see how this works out. I am not sure as to how my head will be able to adjust - 30 years of mixing where I listen and look for the clues as to when the incoming actor/contributor is about to speak. Looking for when they breathe, when the 'prepare' themselves to speak, when the rhythm or shape of the sentence lends itsself to an interruption and then being ready with the faders in the right place to make that work. Its what I do, and what I have done for years. I'd like to think that 'most' of the time I get it 'mostly' right. The way that I read Mix Ahead it may well do better than me some of the time, but unless I change my mixing habits/style/technique of 30+ years then sometimes my mix will be better, and sometimes Mix Ahead. How will post prod know when to go with which track, and will it be a faff to audition and switch between the two tracks. I have advocated for years that we should be recording our fader movements, and should give those to post prod with the mix and ISO trax. It would then be easy for post to 'see' what we did with the faders and when, but more to the point it will be SO easy to just grab a late fader profile on the screen and move it a fraction. It seems like a no brainer to me..... Have fun y'all, Simon B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thope Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, Bash said: I have advocated for years that we should be recording our fader movements, and should give those to post prod with the mix and ISO Saving metadata on each iso track that could be interpreted as volume automation in Pro Tools ( or whatever other daw you use) is a very exciting idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertolomi Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Bash said: I have advocated for years that we should be recording our fader movements, and should give those to post prod with the mix and ISO trax. It would then be easy for post to 'see' what we did with the faders and when, but more to the point it will be SO easy to just grab a late fader profile on the screen and move it a fraction. It seems like a no brainer to me..... Have fun y'all, Simon B +1000 Easiest way to fix mixes in the post.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berniebeaudry Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Any chance this could be implemented on the Nomad? Would be huge for unscripted bag work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Duffy Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 7 hours ago, thope said: Saving metadata on each iso track that could be interpreted as volume automation in Pro Tools ( or whatever other daw you use) is a very exciting idea! AES31-3 (2008) provides the perfect open standard container for this, but since Avid/Protools only supports AAF as their chosen open format, it's not widely used. AES31-4 was originally going to be an extension of AES31-3 to encompass AAF compatibility, but it came out recently and is just an XML (easily parsed) version of AES31-3. Putting AAF support into a production recorder is a huge task. AES31 support should be easier, but unless the major DAWs support it properly, the benefit is minimal. Chicken-and-egg situation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Another yay for AES31, a great standard ignored by Avid in favor of a terrible "nonstandard", AAF and OMF. I'm going to test the waters w/ posties on GS re them getting location mix fader movement metadata. Stand by... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Wow. Even by our standards this thread has weaved and bobbed more than most. As for the MixAhead, I'm not feeling it's need but it is way to early to tell it's value to the community until it's out and being used in the real world. I do think Bash is right as to the value of the fader movements recorded into the metadata for future use. Should be an interesting "Product" this new Deva. April is almost here. CrewC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundtrane Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 9 hours ago, Bash said: I have advocated for years that we should be recording our fader movements // Simon B Hear hear... So did I to someone you know last year... ------ Why not a preemptive AutoMix? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, soundtrane said: Hear hear... So did I to someone you know last year... ------ Why not a preemptive AutoMix? There is no way that an automix can do a proper job of production sound mixing. If it could it would of been done years ago. The decisions needed are only available with human control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Mr. Sanders, meet Mr. Dugan. (Kidding) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 I think this should be a new thread. More than happy to weigh in with my own experience if it gets rethreaded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry long Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) moved post Edited February 24, 2016 by larry long Attn: moved post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 I'm not sure exactly what this new thread should be --- of course, anyone is can start any topic they want. I will say that if the new topic is further discussion of MixAhead, this may be kind of pointless since it is not something with which none of us have had any real world experience. If it is a discussion about various auto-mixing processes (which MixAhead is not, incidentally) starting with Dan Dugan and of course followed by all sorts of others, this would be fine (though I would find it rather boring but that's just me) because we have all had experiences with auto-mixing routines. So, feel free to start any topic you want, that's what this forum is all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 You may have skimmed a bit, Jeff. In the most recent (Mr. Long's) case, the spinoff topic is the value and necessity of External Digital Clocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Sorry, I kind of skipped over the clocking post (maybe because it did seem oddly out of place). Thanks for the heads up, John. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry long Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 I thought it was a general discussion about the new Deva. I have talked with Glenn and I assume Brigen via email regarding the availability of word clock inputs on the next iteration of the Deva. I msg'd one of our respected colleagues privately as I was reluctant to get my ass handed to me on a public forum and he recommended that I put it up for debate. LL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Meanwhile re MixAhead: the responses from post mixers to my request for input on the GS Post forum were decidely cool ( no surprise there). Some thought it might be a good thing for making better temp mixes for editorial, but didn't think they'd use it themselves. I see these responses as both confirmation of what I thought (the use-of-isos as a starting point in post is very entrenched) and a confirmation of what Jeff said above: that a change like this will encounter resistance until the benefits are demo'ed and buy-in is gotten from folks farther up the food chain, but that is certainly possible because it's happened before. 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.