How Important is Live Mixing for Location Sound?

[Samuel Floyd]

I'm wondering just how important adjusting the mix is for location sound.

 

Why does it matter if the mix sounds good in a 2 track print that won't be used for a finished product?

 

It seems as though the job is much mores focused on capturing the best sound possible, then letting the post sound department figure out what's best for the mix. 

 

I imagine the dialogue editor would prefer the 2 track mix to be clean but how significant is that?

 

(New to location sound so if the question sounds stupid, my apologies)

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

Not all film & TV uses a full post sound workflow.  Not by a long shot.

Aside from live broadcast TV / news, a great deal of the commercial / corporate / doc market is finished by subcontracted picture editors working alone and doing the best they can with the raw audio that we supply.  The closer to production ready that audio is, the better.  If your mix track is good enough, it can and will be used in the final edit.  And if it isn't good enough, it may still be used in the final edit if production runs out of time / money, or if they don't have the internal skills to fix it.  I've heard my raw boom-L lav-mix-R camera feed used as the final mix without separating the tracks or bothering to fade down the lavs when they weren't needed.  I was profusely thanked for the excellent sound I'd delivered.  I politely accepted the thanks without asking who did their post...

It's only when you get into mid or high end drama (or student films that are teaching full post workflow) that post sound truly starts from scratch in re-mixing your raw tracks, and even then, they'll appreciate a solid mix track as a starting point.

Aside from that, your live mix is also used as temp track by the picture editor, and is heard live by anyone who needs to hear it on set.

Long story short:  Yes, your live mix matters.  It's nice that we now live in a world where bad mixes can be fixed in post, but ultimately, fixing it in post still costs money, so if you deliver a good mix it will be used, and will reflect well on you as a mixer.

[Constantin]

It’s not just the picture editor, the director will often sit in as well and may well judge you based on that mix. In case of a tv movie, at least here, they will have a final session with the producer and the network people, all based on the mix, so getting it right can be helpful for your career. 
 

But aside from that, how will I reliably be able to judge if the mics I‘ve placed on people and planted elsewhere work in the end as intended? A mix helps tremendously to judge if it all works. 
 

lastly, if I don’t mix, I get bored

[tourtelot]

'Cause bad dailies will get you fired?

 

D.

[Philip Perkins]

The higher the budget the less likely that your live location mix will see the light of day in a final mix.  But in spite of what other depts may tell you, it IS still important.  Production execs, directors, producers judge whether or not they've "got" a scene based on dailies, and generally there is no time to do much of a mix for this.  On the set, the director, script and other production types need to listen to dialog, especially if they are off in a video village and out of earshot of the actors.  For docs it is absolutely vital to deliver a workable mix, the understaffed post dept (ie a single editor) will be working with those tracks figuring out a story for years sometimes, and crappy camera mic audio or an unmixed stew of wireless mics will really hold them back.  In the old days we got rehearsals for the live-to-mono mixes we did on the set.  You are very unlikely to get a rehearsal for that stated purpose today, but your mix is very worth doing anyhow.

[Fred Salles]

I might add that in France, where the production sound mixer has also a "supervising sound" role, the premix is the way to convey your artistic choices/intent, or, to put it differently, "mark your territory". For example, if, according to the exchanges you and the director had in prep, and your understanding of the project thereof, you decide to give more "air" (more boom less lav) to a dialogue shot wide or not so, that is a direction the final re-re mixer would have to follow, unless he/she thinks it should be changed for a good reason, and in that case it can only be done with the consent of the director and/or you the PSM.

[Ontariosound]

And you will be judged on your Comtek mix.   

[soundpod]

The connection the director has to the actors and the emotions of the scene is through your mix.

I've had times when I feel like I've messed up a mix and the director has asked for another take because they didn't pick up on the subtlety of the performance that they were looking for, or maybe it just didn't feel right, and the mix can influence that.

I think a good mix is key to my job on set.

[tourtelot]

Here's the thing that I found out after the fact on a TV show I mixed for a couple of seasons.

 

The (super good) boom op and I danced through every set up. "You get him as he walks through the door.  I'll get her at the couch.  When he sits down, you get them both."  You know, we mixed the dialog.

 

Mostly one camera.  If an actor didn't need a wire for the set up, he didn't get one.  If an actor was wearing a wire, and at some point, didn't need it, I wouldn't pay any attention to it.  I would just mix the scene.  We did this every day for 22 episodes (!) a season.  The directors (and everyone else) sat through dailies in awe of how they sounded like a mixed program.  Everyone loved the sound department.

 

Then, in the second season, maybe half way through, we started to hear from the UPM that the producers weren't happy with the sound.  My boom op and I would just shake our heads in wonder.  We loved the sound, the directors loved the sound, the DP would come to the cart and compliment us on the dailies sound, the actors were thrilled with the tiny amount of ADR they were being ask to deliver.  WTF?

 

Come to find out that the Reree was talking behind our backs to production about how they really didn't like the mix and "didn't have the tools to fix it."  They wanted wires on everyone all the time (sound familiar?)  He never called me to talk about his problems.  The sound department was close to being fired and we had no idea why.

 

Once I put together the whole dynamic, the season was wrapped.  We were not coming back for season #3.  I called a meeting; I was incensed over how shoddy the communications had been and how the little rat of the Post Mixer had gone behind my back to prop up the shitty job he was doing.  Producers, UPM, post mixer and me.  I heard what everyone said.  I said my piece.  Producers went "hmm.  Maybe the location sound department was not to blame."

 

"We'd love to have you back for season #3.  Let's talk among all of us to see how we can make it better for everyone."

"We'd love to come back.  Our rates will need to double for next season."

 

Crickets.  Haha.

 

The moral of the story is, have everyone playing on the team play for the same team.

 

D.

 

[Philip Perkins]

Well, there is no accounting for creeps.  The RRM could have honestly preferred (and had experience with) all-lav shows and considered the all-boom approach old-fashioned, and he could have been getting post-producer pressure to make the show sound more "modern" (ie lav-dead acoustic).  Or he could just have been a grasping creep who wanted to own the show and do things his way.   A plenary meeting with all stakeholders including Mr. Creepster might have been interesting--he might have had to defend his approach and you could have showed how much faster/easier/less actor-hands-on/better sounding your approach was, but it's real possible that the outcome would have been the same anyhow...  Too bad.  The late John Coffey went public with his boom vs lav struggles on his last episodic ("Summerland"), similar scene, similar outcome, even as famous as he was...

[codyman]

I always just pretend my mix on the day is as though someone was watching it live on television in their living room.  What can I do to make it sound "good" overall?  Does the mix for this scene just need lavs because the boom is too far away?  Or does the boom sound great and forget the lavs?  Maybe it's a mixture of both.  Regardless, I treat it that way and then I consider the ISO's as the backups they can use in post if they like to make their own mix.

[ElanorR]

Your mix will get you your next job. You want the people who watch dailies to remember your sound because it sounds good.

[tourtelot]

1 hour ago, codyman said:

Regardless, I treat it that way and then I consider the ISO's as the backups they can use in post if they like to make their own mix.

The problem for me is that if I am spending the whole shot iso-ing RF mics for quality, I can't concentrate on the mix.  If I am concentrating on the mix, I have no idea about any problems happening on the RFs.  Then the post guys go and try to use the RFs and they sound like crap.  No wonder he was mad.

 

If the post mixer had been a bit more a team player, he would have brought his gripe to me and we together, along with production's artistic wishes could have solved it.

 

Also, and it is germane, post audio was non-union and being paid on a per-show basis.  Not a lot of incentive to do a creative job.

 

D.

[Samuel Floyd]

1 hour ago, tourtelot said:

The problem for me is that if I am spending the whole shot iso-ing RF mics for quality, I can't concentrate on the mix.  If I am concentrating on the mix, I have no idea about any problems happening on the RFs.  Then the post guys go and try to use the RFs and they sound like crap.  No wonder he was mad.

 

If the post mixer had been a bit more a team player, he would have brought his gripe to me and we together, along with production's artistic wishes could have solved it.

 

Also, and it is germane, post audio was non-union and being paid on a per-show basis.  Not a lot of incentive to do a creative job.

 

D.

This is my main reason for asking. Which part of the job to sacrifice... From my understanding based on the responses is that focusing on the mix will more than likely hold. ore significance...unless the post audio guy is a snake

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

I'd say most mixers would sacrifice good radio ISOs for a good mix.  The key to avoiding the situation that tourtelot found himself in is good communication with post — in advance.  And, when communication with post isn't possible (for example, when post hasn't been hired yet), falling back on a "mix-first" default is a safe professional choice.

 

Taking it a step further, when I operate as a one-man-band for docs, I sacrifice having a perfect mix for an excellent boom track.  I'm pretty good at booming one-handed while I quickly adjust faders, so I don't completely avoid mixing, but in my opinion getting everything clean on boom produces a more usable end result than a great mix made of lavs.  I don't offer a single-person sound dept. on anything except docs and corporates.  Scripted really does need a proper mix, and, being scripted, it's possible to get good rehearsals and make a good mix, so I won't do that without a boom op.

 

The exception is probably reality / unscripted production:  In that world, it's expected that you are running mostly or all lavs, the boom is an afterthought, and they want all the lavs as clean as possible.  I don't think they care much about the mix to be honest; I think they generally just want to work with the lav isos directly, but I have delivered a mix when I've done reality in the past.  I solve this by avoiding reality productions; in my experience, they ask way too much for far too little, and I hate the compromise of running all-lav.  I don't think it sound good, I don't enjoy the process, and I've felt overworked and underpaid every time I've done it.

[Constantin]

I don’t understand why the reasoning here is to sacrifice good isos for a good mix. 
in the mix you‘d have a mixture of boom and lavs, right? So if a lav goes bad, because of placement or rf, you‘d probably hear it in the mix, right?
My aim is to deliver as good a mix as I can, as well as usable iso tracks and good lavs. But as someone said already I think, when the boom works well enough, I‘ll ignore the lavs. 

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

Only if you are actually using the lavs in the mix.  If you aren't using lavs because the boom sounds good, you'll never hear the lavs, and therefore you won't hear if they aren't good.  You always have at least a minimum of one good track, because you are monitoring the mix.   But if post ignores the boom & the mix and goes straight for the iso tracks, they might not be working with the tracks you were monitoring, which means clothing noise (anything related to performance, really) can go unnoticed.

 

Maybe sacrifice is too strong a word.  But I think most of us have a tendency to ignore the lavs if the boom sounds good, and that's the gotcha here.  I'm pretty sure we all agree it's the right trade-off:  Make sure the boom sounds good and who cares if the lavs are dirty.  But post doesn't always think that way.

[tourtelot]

3 hours ago, Constantin said:

In the mix you‘d have a mixture of boom and lavs, right? So if a lav goes bad, because of placement or rf, you‘d probably hear it in the mix, right?
 

Of course not.  If the entire scene is adequately covered by overheads, in terms of what the sound department considers good, why would I even be listening to isos?

 

But, if the posties decide that they don't like the "mix" of overheads (maybe more than one), and go to listen to the RFs and there are problems, clothing noise, hits or the like, and they can't do what they want with what is given to them, they might be miffed.

 

"In the old days" I would not give them a choice.  If I needed RF mics, I'd be listening to them in the mix.  If the whole scene was taken overhead, I wouldn't even present an RF mic to post.  The call to have RF mics all the time started changing as I left the industry.  Being an old fart, I hate the sound of most current day TV sound.  It all seems like it all comes from 6" away from the actors' mouths even if they are standing across the room 20' feet away, not to mention that the scenes are overwhelmed by M&E.

 

D.

[Fred Salles]

I just had a conversation this week with a famous colleague who said that most of the time he delivers his mix and POST fader ISOs.

On scripted fictions obviously.

He has very good valid points about that choice.

ISOs are supposed to be a backup plan in case of unexpected issues. My colleague said when he makes a mistake in his mix he asks for another take (when the focus puller makes a soft shot we do another take right?).

Delivering PRE fade ISOs is actually encouraging post to do their own mix and not use yours. With postfader isos they can correct phase issues and make minor adjustments but they work with what you have chosen to mix. RF mic not necessary= blank track.

I have not reach that level of confidence to do the same but I think I should.

 

[Philip Perkins]

The smoking gun here is that Doug T's postie was an indie, who I'm guessing low-bid the post for the series and then found himself overwhelmed, overworked and being buried in notes from the producers.  Yes, he should have come clean in a private convo with the PSM so they could work out an MO that would work for all parties.  But some cats don't roll that way...

[tourtelot]

Am I still bitter?  :):)

 

D.

[VincentEg]

On 10/3/2024 at 10:46 PM, Fred Salles said:

I just had a conversation this week with a famous colleague who said that most of the time he delivers his mix and POST fader ISOs.

On scripted fictions obviously.

He has very good valid points about that choice.

ISOs are supposed to be a backup plan in case of unexpected issues. My colleague said when he makes a mistake in his mix he asks for another take (when the focus puller makes a soft shot we do another take right?).

Delivering PRE fade ISOs is actually encouraging post to do their own mix and not use yours. With postfader isos they can correct phase issues and make minor adjustments but they work with what you have chosen to mix. RF mic not necessary= blank track.

I have not reach that level of confidence to do the same but I think I should.

 

Being both in production sound and post, I dislike this approach. If he always gets another take when he needs it, it can work, but I feel like forcing his mix onto post gives a lot less flexibility. In the long timespan from the shoot until the finished mix, the direction dialogue should be going can change and you might end up needing that rf mic. This approach feels like he's not trusting post to follow his intentions when adequate and implies that he generally knows better what the scene should sound like than anyone that comes after him. Good communication and trust between set and post before, during and after the shoot should avoid that problem.