Jump to content

The Art of the Mono Mix!


Michael P Clark

Recommended Posts

"Variable phase" adjustments are common on most all digital mixers.  However the term Variable phase is not.

As we all know, phasing between multiple microphones is a factor of the distance, and therefore the time delay, of the sources arriving at multiple mics.  What these mixers actually do is allow you to *delay* any given input in very small precise increments.  The digital mixers that I have owned/used have all had this feature in addition to a regular phase "switch".

So, the "variable phase knob" is actually a variable delay control that allows you to obtain phase correction by being able to delay any given input or inputs in very precise amounts.  Generally, these mixers will allow you to delay an input by measured units of your choice of msecs, meters, feet, or samples.

For instance, the very simplest example is when you have two actors wearing lavs and you are having phasing issues.  You can very quickly estimate the distance between the 2 lavs and choose to delay one of the mics by that amount.  In most cases this will correct the phasing problem.

Be advised that the above is definitely an oversimplification of the process.  It gives you a general idea of how phase corrections are made using the delay function on a digital console.  Needless to say, things are a little more involved in the field where there may be many more mics involved and you need to determine exactly where the phasing issues are being generated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffrey Colon

Hello Group, Darren

I have enjoyed and am still figuring out you posts re: word clock... :-) 

I think it should be mentioned that delaying a signal to compensate for time differentials is fine as long as the mics are absolutly stationary... It's when the physical relationship(distance) changes that the effects of comb filtering become apparent.

For me the "art" of the mono mix is to watch for when two or more microphones become somwhere between less than 3-5 times the distance from each other than from the source (mouth)... Depending on actual volume, when the mics get into that ratio of space...one or more is going to be ducked... makes for some interesting finger gymnastics when people are ad-libbing,  and moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff wrote:

"I think it should be mentioned that delaying a signal to compensate for time differentials is fine as long as the mics are absolutly stationary... It's when the physical relationship(distance) changes that the effects of comb filtering become apparent."

Hi Jeff,

In theory this is true.  However years of experience dealing with phasing issues using this technique tell me that in reality this is not usually the case.  Nothing needs to be absolutely stationary for this technique to be used.  Good thing because, of course, nothing ever will be.  In fact, comb filtering can occur in any multiple mic environment regardless of which, or even if no phase correction techniques are used.

I mention this because I wouldn't want that statement to cause anyone to shy away from experimenting with this technique.  Phase correction through time delay works extremely well.  As with all phase correction, one must be careful as phase relationships are, of course, always changing in our environment of both moving mics and moving sources.

This is not the end all, be all solution; just another approach.  As always, there is still an "art" to it.  Careful listening and speedy fingers will always be our best friends.

Cheers,

Darren

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eric Lamontagne

Darren,

I shall have to try a time delay method the next time I have a digital mixer on my cart! Maybe a cameo, o1v, or something similar. For me my mix is always in the analog realm, and always worked out with level adjustments. I assume this concept is similar to Jeff C. Luckily now I iso my tracks so in a way I'm making my tracks future delay friendly:).

good luck out there

Eric Lamontagne (future IA sound guy........)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffrey Colon

I have to agree that what works in practice doesn't always follow theory... sometimes I'll have two or more mics mixed and it sounds great... and then there were those days when I didn't realize the countryman b6 was wired 180 out of phase.  As Darren points out, ISO tracks will always be adjustable from a phase time standpoint.  In the past I have only used the delay built in to the 744 to get a couple spot mics a bit more phase coherent with a mid side pair on an orchestral recording, this worked well... As of last week I replaced the Mackie Onyx with an O1v96...I'll have to give the time knob a twist one of these days...soon as I figure out my clocking scheme...

Jeff C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree that what works in practice doesn't always follow theory... sometimes I'll have two or more mics mixed and it sounds great... and then there were those days when I didn't realize the countryman b6 was wired 180 out of phase.  As Darren points out, ISO tracks will always be adjustable from a phase time standpoint.  In the past I have only used the delay built in to the 744 to get a couple spot mics a bit more phase coherent with a mid side pair on an orchestral recording, this worked well... As of last week I replaced the Mackie Onyx with an O1v96...I'll have to give the time knob a twist one of these days...soon as I figure out my clocking scheme...

Jeff C

What did you not like about the Onyx?  What's better for you w/ the Yamaha?

Philip Perkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I would like very much to bring this discussion back. Much have already been said but I would like to hear your input on how to approach non scripted material (reality) and even drama (scripted) with lots of ad-libbing. It's a new fashion in my country to let the actors improvise a lot (mostly because digital filmmaking is a lot cheaper than 35mm, so let's experiment). That new fashion seems to create the need for multitracking on scenes that otherwise would sound perfectly fine on one single boom. Any thoughts?

Gabi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent topic which lends itself to al sorts of discussions...  I can see this topic going all over the place (which is fine with me).

All these issues are so totally inter-related it is difficult to dissect it all. In the old days when there really was only one camera and one microphone, one piece of film and one track on ALL projects whether they were documentaries or full on dramatic feature films, this technical "limitation" dictated how films were made. When wireless mics came in, there was the possibility of giving more freedom to a scene, either a "real" scene in a documentary or a scripted, but possibly ad-libbed scene, in a drama. Much of the discipline that was standard procedure while shooting, necessary because there really was only one way to do it, this discipline was relaxed or abandoned altogether in some case.

Multi-track provided an additional tool to deal with all of this and did, in its own right, actually enables and perpetuate some of the practices you mention. The problem for the production sound mixer is the mono mix --- but that really is just a symptom, and indication of the larger issue for the director, producer and ultimately the audience. The final release for the majority of projects will be MONO at least for the dialog, so our attempts on the day to make a credible mono mix is the first place anyone is able to tell if it's working. My comments relate more to scripted drama than to real documentaries (not so-called reality shows or docu-dramas) since the challenges for the soundtrack on a documentary are much different.

Since the final product will be mono dialog, mixed from all the sources available, it means that some practical and physical discipline or design really needs to be in place while shooting. If the production wants you to mic everybody and let everyone speak whenever they feel like it, you (or anyone else) will probably not ever be able to achieve a credible mono mix on the day. This relegates your job to basically tracking (iso discrete tracks) with the hope that someone later in post can make it all work.

There is an analogy to recording music. In the old days when you went to record let's say a jazz combo, it could be easily done with one or two microphones --- it was up to the band to make it sound good! If the musicians really made it all work then your simple recording will be a beautiful piece of work. Cut to the present and think about recording a music group that is not really working so well together --- mic everything, put it all on separate tracks, just treat the whole session as a tracking session and hope that someone later can actually mix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if film schools are re-educating people with the understanding that although the technology is there to record everyone to their own track, overlaps bleed from one mic to another with varying perspectives, making editing the picture and the tracks VERY difficult and limiting.

Where this might work is in the 3-camera format, which has now become common in narrative with the lower cost of HD.  RVD will tell you that Ridley Scott does this on film, but he has the budget.

It makes recording accurate perspective almost impossible, which audiences and often directors seem to not care so much about that these days.  But, shot with three or four cameras on various lenses and matching sizes on different characters, one take can be selected as the favorite and all the action and dialog overlaps will match.

Shooting this happy-go-lucky style with one camera can be VERY challenging for the sound mixer, the script supervisor, and the editor.  If everyone is on the same page, it can be done, as reading RVDs threads about "Moonlighting" will tell you.  But I imagine that was more structured filming with professional actors and filmmakers.  Good luck getting that combination today!

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi everybody, this is my first post so i think i have to introduce me: i'm a 29yo italian sound mixer and i was most a reader than a writer on this blog until now. i apologize if my english is not always good, but i'm studying and practicing.

to the topic... experiencing in my country, i've seen that many times the problem is that instead of recording only what is really important for the scene, 'digital era' sound mixers waste their time thinking how to fill all of their free tracks... anyway, i agree with rpsharman that it's up to the film schools also try to teach how to use multitrack recorders in a proper way, depending of the work. it is obvious, but really it's what i think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi everybody, this is my first post so i think i have to introduce me: i'm a 29yo italian sound mixer and i was most a reader than a writer on this blog until now. i apologize if my english is not always good, but i'm studying and practicing.

Don't apologize ... your English is WAY better than my Italian! Your point, and what Robert says, is so important. So many new mixers have gotten so involved in their equipment and the technology that they forget to listen and think about what it is they are recording. The film schools, sadly, are just as much focused on all the tech stuff without enough consideration for the art, the creative decisions we all have to make daily in our work. I don't know how many of you have seen my signature that is on my emails but it is a quote from Ray Charles (talking to the famous recording engineer, Tom Dowd):

"I don't care if you've got ninety tracks... what does it sound like, baby"

- Ray Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that this topic came up again. I just talked about this in class the other day. I pointed out that on many films that were muti-tracked, most of what winds up in the film is the mono mix from the production mixer, simply because that’s the easiest thing to deal with in post. It’s great to have the split tracks when you need them, but realistically, the dialogue editor will only go to the splits if the mix somehow missed something. Or at least that has been my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also glad to see this thread resurrected. Some really astute observations in some excellent posts. While I think most of us value the art of our profession as highly as we do the science, it is the (I think) natural tendency of our discussion group to focus on the more technical aspects. While I might seem to some of you like one of the mixers that Jeff refers to, I think my posts to this group are not an accurate reflection of where the satisfaction I get and the joy that I feel when I am mixing LIVES. The obsessive preparation that we engage in and the technical mastery that we seek in our posts here enable us to be in the moment and LISTEN when we are mixing. I think this is true for most, if not all of us.

I am a strong proponent of the art of the mono mix, although sadly, it is one of the areas where I most need additional experience. The scripted world suffered a significant slowdown in the last year or two, just as I was hoping and preparing to transition more fully into it. I've done a fair amount of scripted projects and aspire to do many more, but my bread and butter continues to be to a large extent in the unscripted world. There is still a fair amount of mixing in unscripted documentary and reality projects, but it is markedly different from the beautiful finesse of mixing a tightly performed script to a single track. In unscripted and ad-libbed shoots it is often necessary to have more microphones open than one would like and there are certainly instances where a post remix from the isolated sources will result in a smoother mono mix and a significantly reduced noise floor. That being said, our mixes often go to air and not just to Comtek feeds and scratch tracks.

Anyway, this is an interesting subject and a fascinating thread. I find that different projects have different goals and priorities. Perspective sound, a sense of depth, intimacy, immediacy, intelligibility, hear the room, minimize the sound of the room....it goes on and on. While there are the technological means to try new and different approaches to sound mixing and recording, the old way of doing things is sometimes still the best. But not always. Depends on the project.

Paul Graff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"  There is an analogy to recording music...mic everything, put it all on separate tracks, "

and even more than just that,  multiple sessions, and different musicians at them...

hugely complex...

" I wonder if film schools are re-educating people with the understanding that although the technology is there to record everyone to their own track, overlaps bleed from one mic to another with varying perspectives, making editing the picture and the tracks VERY difficult and limiting. "

of course there are a lot of film schools, with different curricula, but way too many require only one sound class... just one term!  and even then many students don't want to take it, don't think it is important, don't think it is useful, and  they don't pay attention.  then there are the ones who just want to learn how to operate toys, and expect everything to be boiled down to 5 bullet points on a "quick start guide" for production sound. some schools still spend several of those 12-15 class sessions teaching operation of the Nagra, even though the school can't find new tape for the students to use!! (nor anyplace to resolve the tapes they record)and even then, it is usually only single mic (boom) or 2-3 wireless lav's, the students believing that booming is no longer useful,  or relevant!!

Yes, I discuss ISO recording with multi-tracks in all my classes, but as most schools have mostly 2-4 channel ENG type mixers -usually only 2 possible output channels, and no direct outs-, and 2-4 track recorders, so the student's capabilities are generally limited.  Mostly the students shoot on video formats and prefer single system sound, though now I'm getting directing classes that want to use DSLR's, and so double system sound is making a comeback! For that, the schools are either thinking along the lines: 'maybe an SD 788', or else thinking 'we can get a bunch of Zoom H4n's'

" I imagine that was more structured filming with professional actors and filmmakers.  Good luck getting that combination today! " Today's movie-school students don't want to lear what we have learned in the 100 or so years of movie-making (and visual storytelling), they just want to get the best toys, and "go play"... this is not just a sound problem, but they don't light, they don't rehearse, they don't plan, they don't prepare, they don't listen, and they don't solve problems, they just "go play"...

As a reminder, I'm always open to discussions of what my syllabus ought to include!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I might seem to some of you like one of the mixers that Jeff refers to, I think my posts to this group are not an accurate reflection of where the satisfaction I get and the joy that I feel when I am mixing LIVES.

Paul Graff

To set the record straight, I consider Paul to be exactly the sort of mixer I would hope we could all be --- someone who fully embraces all the technical stuff but never loses "sight" of the art of listening.

-  Jeff Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senator,

It's not just in "sound" classes that I hope these issues are being discussed.  Directors should be taught the limitations in editing that are created by poor decisions on set.  If perspective audio is a lost concept with multiple cameras and short attention span editing, then they should at least understand the concept of how this "free for all" shooting style affects their overall vision.  After all, it is about capturing performance, so having to re-record dialog due to poor shooting techniques should be a major concern.  Equipment can't overcome physics.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unfortunately, in the programs I am familiar with this is not happening...  I am usually disappointed at the lack of attention to sound in the shooting classes (production workshops, Directing workshops, etc) and while I'm often invited to give sound bootcamps to these classes, far to many of the instructors are letting their students "go play", rather than actually giving them instructions on what to do (shoot) and how to do it. I'm frustrated that instead of teaching them techniques, set discipline, etc. "inside the box", they are turned loose to be creative... and yes, mostly they believe they are already brilliant auteurs, and all they need are great arrows.

whenever they are showing stuff, and discussing, if there is a good project, the first question is aslways "what (camcorder) did you shoot that on"... ALWAYS!!

I watch students spend time lighting up empty spaces (sets), and then when the actors are in it, whatever light is there is what it is!  I watch them all put wireless lav's on when they are shooting anything, anywhere; even when it is two actors together having a conversation, even if it is in a small room or set and could (SHOULD) be boomed. well, nobody wants to be boomer, and when they do, they figure 3 feet up is pretty close,  of course they frame closeups with 3 feet of headroom, and on master shots, the head is dead center (isn't that what the little + is for?)

a couple directing instructors (with real experience, DGA members!) even get all fussy about having Comtek's for themselves, script, and the student director, but still let them use a one-person band sound crew, and rarely push for getting the boom close, and heaven forbid maybe changing the artistic framing that keeps a boomer away.  another thing is that one time the camera person (oh, yeah, they think pointing a camcorder makes them a DP, and only wimps use tripods...) says "boom-in", and the reluctant boomer pulls up 2-5'!! another take to get better sound?? haven't got time!

oh, yeah, and even though the sound class is a prerequisite to the advanced directing classes, when I go to do the bootcamps, it seems that more than half the students have not taken the sound class...

oh, sure, I have seen a lot of them pay the price of that on their projects, but it is frustrating...

and sorry,  rant mode=off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if "An Open Letter from your Sound Department" is still something to refer to when teaching sound classes (or any film school class for that matter)...

http://filmsound.org/production-sound/openletter.htm

And if it is, I quote:

"OVERLAPS - When possible, it's always better not to have them at all unless absolutely necessary because you can only be in one cut or the other. You may decide later you want to see both sides of the actor's dialogue. Remember, it's always easy to create an off camera overlap later if you still want it. Usually, the overlaps are simply because of a belief that the performance will be hindered. That argument loses credibility when the face of one of the overlapping performers won't be able to be seen at all. Of course there are times that overlaps must happen and both sides must be miked.

USING TWO CAMERAS - There is a proper way to use 2 or more cameras and an improper way. It is perfectly acceptable to use 2 cameras of the same approximate frame size at the same time. The sound mixer's nightmare is running one camera wide and another tight at the same time. This means that sound will be compromised because all the actors must be wired because the wide camera will not allow a mic to get close enough to the tight camera size. This can be resolved by the second camera only filming non-speaking actors, or not working at all during the wide master shot. Then, go to 2 cameras for all your coverage.

REHEARSALS - These are very important to the whole crew. It's fine to have closed rehearsals for actors only, but give one to the crew or at least let the boom operator see one. Otherwise, we can only guess where and how the sound will be delivered. The words we dread the most are "let's shoot the rehearsal". You might get lucky, but don't shoot rehearsals unless you are willing to do a lot more sound takes to work out the unknown problems.

AD LIBBING - It's impossible to mic lines no one knows will happen. If you want to keep an ad-lib, do another take for sound if they didn't get the line the first time."

Is it time to revise the "Open Letter" or is it time to remind people of it?

Gabi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a documentary recordist, or mixer depending on who's asking, and I've never had the luxury of multitrack, even though I own the kit, I know the edit will freak if they have to start mixing for me.

I've always done a two channel mix, usually as simple as a lav each side and the boom down the middle, but a series I've worked on lately with one presenter and a number of contributors, all boomed brought me back to the mono mix.... The Cos-11's sound better with a little CS3-e mixed in, so that's what I've been doing, easy for me, easy for the edit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Jeff would have recounted, many of us older guys worked with a mono Nagra 4.2 and

mixed to one track, a boom and 4 radio mikes.

It relies on rehearsals and actors who stick to a script.

That's when I became a sound mixer and not a track layer!!!!

Mike

www.mikewestgatesound.co.nz

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...