Beepy Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 I’m an experienced dialogue editor, hoping to solve a mystery with the help of you location mixers and boom swingers. I recently cut the dialogue for a TV series in which many of the slates sounded like the boom was pointed at the actors’ feet rather than their mouths. This was especially true on exterior slates. Every step and shuffle was crystal clear and all dialogue was off. I have been asked to give recommendations for the next season, so I would love to know what might have caused this. I don’t have much location recording experience, but here are a couple theories I have considered. 1) the boom op was miking from below rather than above (but even if this was the case, of course the mic should have been pointing up toward the mouths and away from the feet). 2) Perhaps the boom op wasn’t actually “swinging” and was instead miking from above and pointing the mic straight down somewhere between the actors. Don’t know if this has anything to do with it, but the recordist used an MKH50 for all slates, both interior and exterior. When Sennheisers are being used, I’m more accustomed to seeing MKH50s for interiors and MKH60s for exteriors. Any theories as to why this may have happened would be much appreciated, so that the producer can make sure the mistake is not repeated for next season. Fortunately, the lav mics were pretty good, so all was not lost. Thanks in advance. Quote
PMC Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 Was the production sound mixer a one-man-band? If so, he/she may have planned on using the lavs to cover dialogue and the boom to cover Foley/ambiance. Did the focus of the boom change for various takes? When I have to swing my own boom I focus it on actor A in a couple of takes and then actor B in couple of takes. Just ideas. Quote
rich Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 have you had any contact with the location team? was the mix track ok? i cant imagine that any long form job would have kept the location team on if all they were hearing on the day and in dailies was off mic dailogue. could be that they were relying on radios all the time? and as you mention it was only some of the slates, what were the shot sizes? was it the wide shots where the radios were mixed higher in the mix, and then when the boom could get in close, that was the favoured mic in the mix. the type of mic wont affect wether something sounds on or off mic. just its position. a MKH60 might have a bit more isolation from the environment over an MKH50, but i will be willing to bet that the MKH50 will sound more natural than the 60 when you can get it nice and close. (i dont have much experience with the sennheiser mics, but i find this with my similar type DPA mics) Quote
Axel Mishael Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 9 hours ago, Beepy said: I’m an experienced dialogue editor, hoping to solve a mystery with the help of you location mixers and boom swingers. I recently cut the dialogue for a TV series in which many of the slates sounded like the boom was pointed at the actors’ feet rather than their mouths. This was especially true on exterior slates. Every step and shuffle was crystal clear and all dialogue was off. I have been asked to give recommendations for the next season, so I would love to know what might have caused this. I don’t have much location recording experience, but here are a couple theories I have considered. 1) the boom op was miking from below rather than above (but even if this was the case, of course the mic should have been pointing up toward the mouths and away from the feet). 2) Perhaps the boom op wasn’t actually “swinging” and was instead miking from above and pointing the mic straight down somewhere between the actors. Don’t know if this has anything to do with it, but the recordist used an MKH50 for all slates, both interior and exterior. When Sennheisers are being used, I’m more accustomed to seeing MKH50s for interiors and MKH60s for exteriors. Any theories as to why this may have happened would be much appreciated, so that the producer can make sure the mistake is not repeated for next season. Fortunately, the lav mics were pretty good, so all was not lost. Thanks in advance. If it's tv series as you say it is more likely to being shot with a wide angled camera and a tight one, and there is when most of the times the boom's purpose is losing the battle, perhaps the mixer thought that giving you more pfx might be of some use. Axel. Quote
Beepy Posted January 14 Author Report Posted January 14 Thanks for the replies. The shoot had one sound mixer and one boom op, so not a one-man band. Focus of the boom did not change between takes. It was also a single camera shoot, so no having to keep the boom out of a wider shot than we see. Just went back and looked at some of the slates I had flagged, and most are medium shots with two actors in the frame from the waist up. Of course, there were some wide shots in the series but as you would expect, neither the voices NOR the footsteps have much presence in those. I had some contact with the production sound mixer when I first started on the job, but have not discussed this issue with him yet. I think the producer would rather act as a middleman. Also, I'm hoping to get some suggestions here that I can pass on with my complaints. 🙂 Anyone else? Quote
Johnny Karlsson Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 52 minutes ago, Beepy said: I had some contact with the production sound mixer when I first started on the job, but have not discussed this issue with him yet. I think the producer would rather act as a middleman. Also, I'm hoping to get some suggestions here that I can pass on with my complaints. 🙂 I would recommend talking directly to the sound mixer. Having a producer as a middleman might make it harder to communicate, and cause more confusion. Not saying this applies to ALL producers, but they are not sound professionals, so lingo may get mixed up etc. Quote
Axel Mishael Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 1 hour ago, Beepy said: Thanks for the replies. The shoot had one sound mixer and one boom op, so not a one-man band. Focus of the boom did not change between takes. It was also a single camera shoot, so no having to keep the boom out of a wider shot than we see. Just went back and looked at some of the slates I had flagged, and most are medium shots with two actors in the frame from the waist up. Of course, there were some wide shots in the series but as you would expect, neither the voices NOR the footsteps have much presence in those. I had some contact with the production sound mixer when I first started on the job, but have not discussed this issue with him yet. I think the producer would rather act as a middleman. Also, I'm hoping to get some suggestions here that I can pass on with my complaints. 🙂 Anyone else? As Jonny suggests, talk directly to the mixer... Quote
Izen Ears Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 Oh man, why not talk to the mixer first? Seriously, before the internet, before any producers - talk to the sound dept.! I hate when a simple question goes through producers and the next thing I know, everyone's coming up to me asking a weirdly specific question that should have only been between me and post. Please dude, contact the mixer. I will say the mixer absolutely should have made clear notes. Like "footsteps on boom, dialog on wires" for example. Do you have the sound reports, and if so what do they say? Are there additional tracks with the dialog clear on wires? Quote
The Documentary Sound Guy Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 I'll add my voice to the chorus, you need to talk to the mixer and understand what they were intending to send you. I do think mic choice may be part of it; a wider pickup pattern will be more prone to picking up footsteps if it's aimed straight down, but there's no reason the dialogue shouldn't be on axis unless the choice was deliberate. If the lavs are fine (and especially if they are what show up on the mix track), it's very possible the mixer expected the lavs to be used, and wasn't monitoring the boom track closely. Or it's possible the mixer hired a boom op that wasn't up to the task and fell back to the lavs. Your suggestion that the boom op was just hanging the boom between the actors rather than cuing between them does suggest inexperience or poor boom technique. But I'd have to hear it to be sure. Without talking to the mixer, the best we can do is a lot of could-have-been ... best to go directly to the source, especially if you will be working with this mixer's track on a regular basis. Quote
Olle Sjostrom Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 I like to, as we call it in Sweden, killgissa (to guess, like a guy does) which means you take a wild guess basically, so here it is: The mixer is experienced and good. The boom op might’ve been new. So the mixer puts all the attention to the lavs for those shots, and in the tighter shots they can get a good boom sound. I make this guess purely based on a job back in 2016 when I was offered a mixing job for a new tv show with 12 pages every day where if I wanted a decent salary id have to have an inexperienced boom operator. I wouldn’t hear of it so I split my salary with an equal instead. This production might’ve had the same solution. The boom op might not have been wearing headphones (which I have seen photos of, appalling), and since the mixer was mainly focusing on the radios, they might not have bothered listening to the boom in those shots. there’s also the possibility that the DP and crew was nervous about shadows or reflections with this supposed fledgling operator, so in those wider/half wide shots there’s just simply “no room for error”, that boom op might’ve burned some bridges already with the camera crew… Go to the sound mixer directly. He/she might have a good story or reasoning. Most of the time these things, as you know, have nothing to do with sound. Quote
OB1 Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 Is there a sound report? There should be and I'm feel certain any "mystery" will be solved. Quote
Beepy Posted January 14 Author Report Posted January 14 Thanks all. I have sound reports. Most slates have nothing in the "Notes" field -- just an occasional "Airplane" or "People talking". No explanation for why boom is off. Okay, message received -- I will try to speak directly with the production mixer. But I'm going to clear it with the producer first. I'm not willing to go behind his back when he expressly asked me to communicate through him. Quote
DanieldH Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 If the frame (or frames on multi camera shoots), light, sound ambience, general "conventions" of the production, children/animals in frame distracted by the boom, etc, etc ,etc do not allow a useful boom position for the dialogue anyway, steps are often the next best / second most "interesting" thing there is to point the boom mic at. Since you are there, get the walk or anything else that avoids foleyfoo. Unfortunately, the slope of the level of interest from the "dialogue top" is rather steep. 21 hours ago, Beepy said: the recordist used an MKH50 for all slates, both interior and exterior. How do you know that? 10 hours ago, Johnny Karlsson said: I would recommend talking directly to the sound mixer. ++1 for that! By the book at least, build a working relationship, if resources allow, pay visit on set and sniff some location air. However, there may be a reason, why this has not happened so far. There are a gazillion reasons, why the recordist took that decision, most, but not all of them are not reason for complaint. Quote
Constantin Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 I am curious what’s on the mix track, though, as that should highlight the mixer’s intentions Quote
syncsound Posted January 18 Report Posted January 18 On 1/15/2025 at 8:44 PM, Constantin said: I am curious what’s on the mix track, though, as that should highlight the mixer’s intentions Exactly. I've mixed plenty of takes where we couldn't boom the dialogue, due to camera framing, shadows, other, etc...For those takes, I ask my boom op to get me "feet and fill", which means cueing towards footsteps and off axis from talent's mouths (pointing the null of the boom mic's pickup pattern at their faces), so I can mix the boom track in as fill with the lav tracks without phasing/combfiltering. Quote
Constantin Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 On 1/18/2025 at 7:00 AM, syncsound said: Exactly. I've mixed plenty of takes where we couldn't boom the dialogue, due to camera framing, shadows, other, etc...For those takes, I ask my boom op to get me "feet and fill", which means cueing towards footsteps and off axis from talent's mouths (pointing the null of the boom mic's pickup pattern at their faces), so I can mix the boom track in as fill with the lav tracks without phasing/combfiltering. yes, that’s what I do sometimes, too. But I‘m sure you would put a very clear note in the sound report. Quote
syncsound Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 10 minutes ago, Constantin said: yes, that’s what I do sometimes, too. But I‘m sure you would put a very clear note in the sound report. I don't note that in my reports. Usually we're moving too fast. My notes indicate specific technical or location issues. Quote
Constantin Posted January 23 Report Posted January 23 41 minutes ago, syncsound said: I don't note that in my reports. Usually we're moving too fast. My notes indicate specific technical or location issues. But isn’t that technical? When you can’t use the boom because of framing, shadows, and whatnot? No, I will always note that in my report, but I do think that it would be pretty much self-explanatory from simply listening to the mix… Quote
syncsound Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 9 hours ago, Constantin said: But isn’t that technical? When you can’t use the boom because of framing, shadows, and whatnot? No, I will always note that in my report, but I do think that it would be pretty much self-explanatory from simply listening to the mix… To me, it feels like an over explanation. Besides intermittent issues (plane,truck), or a failure of some kind (dropout on this character's lav), any other notes are unnecessary, in my opinion. One listen to the mix should give post an idea of what's possible. Quote
The Documentary Sound Guy Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 The thing with sound reports is ... often post *doesn't* listen to the takes. They rely on the notes to find what they are looking for. And if they don't find it quickly, it might as well not exist. Quote
Fred Salles Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 On 1/15/2025 at 1:26 AM, Beepy said: Okay, message received -- I will try to speak directly with the production mixer. But I'm going to clear it with the producer first. I'm not willing to go behind his back when he expressly asked me to communicate through him. +1000 to contact directly the psm. But I would add something further: The fact that you "have been asked to give recommendation for the next season", combined with your producer "expressly asked you to communicate through him", smell funny to me. This is neither standard procedure nor an efficient one. It denotes more of a control freaks producer that do not trust his/her team, OR she/he has a good reason to not trust some of the team (I don't know maybe the inexperienced boom op is the son of the director and the psm is not in position to complain nor disclose the issue other than to the prod ??) ... Either ways if I am not wrong then it won't do any good to just communicate through this producer, it might actually do more damages than benefits. In my experience an experienced producer would put post team in contact with production sound team so that what post-production team might see as a problem might receive an explanation that will help solve it, before raising flag to the producer as "a complaint". Experienced producers know that prod and post team do not always have same point of view or ideas, and want to have to deal only with real issues, like if there is a real communication/ego problem between the teams or a real workflow technical issue for example. My advice would be to yes speak to the producer who required it but do not present it as a complaint yet, before you have spoken to the psm. Be diplomatic and try as hard as you can to find an explanation to what you have experienced. It might well be that the psm is not experienced either, or it might be any of the reasons given by my colleagues above. But only after talking to him/her you will be able to take an informed decision. You have to find out by yourself, not let the producer decide alone. Quote
The Documentary Sound Guy Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 8 hours ago, Fred Salles said: The fact that you "have been asked to give recommendation for the next season", combined with your producer "expressly asked you to communicate through him", smell funny to me. Both of these stood out to me as well. But I attributed it to the assumption that you'd already complained to the producer (intentionally or not), so the production mixer is already being treated as suspect. Either way, I agree, going through the producer isn't a good way to solve it unless the production team truly is the problem. It sounds to me like that has just been assumed, and the production mixer won't be invited back. This happens all the time, producers rely on post to tell them if the production files were "good", but they don't really have enough understanding to understand why, so if the production files aren't good, that automatically gets taken to mean the production mixer was bad, regardless of what the context was. I agree with the chorus telling you to talk to the production mixer directly, but I suspect things have already gone to far. Quote
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.