Mono Mix track vs. two-track Mix track

[Noah Timan]

I'm not extrapolating this method up into commercial feature films or episodics--those jobs will work their own way and have lots more expertise brought to bear on the problems.  (On many of my jobs it's about what the editor and I decide--we are the whole techno dept..) 

I think that's the key to this discussion -- my guess is that you and Glen are discussing different types of jobs and there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to workflow that will apply to all of them.

That said, some principles do work across the board.  I never understand the idea behind wiring a sit-down interviewee in the studio when there's a Schoeps ten inches from the subject's mouth, for example, just to put it on the other track because "that's how it's done, boom on the left and wireless on the right".  To me, it's like putting a Big Mac on the same plate as a fine cut of filet mignon and setting it down in front of someone.

[Philip Perkins]

I think that's the key to this discussion -- my guess is that you and Glen are discussing different types of jobs and there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to workflow that will apply to all of them.

That said, some principles do work across the board.  I never understand the idea behind wiring a sit-down interviewee in the studio when there's a Schoeps ten inches from the subject's mouth, for example, just to put it on the other track because "that's how it's done, boom on the left and wireless on the right".  To me, it's like putting a Big Mac on the same plate as a fine cut of filet mignon and setting it down in front of someone.

In principle I agree, but there are those people who actually prefer the lav sound, and then there are a bunch more who want the lav because someone told them they should have that first and foremost.  (With the boom as a maybe.)  One picks one's battles and the time and place to discuss this kind of thing, which is usually not on the set with a nervous producer from out of town who doesn't know me from Adam.  Maybe on the 2nd job with them we could broach that subject.....

phil p

[Noah Timan]

Apologies that this thread is getting sort of hijacked.

In principle I agree, but there are those people who actually prefer the lav sound,

I still haven't met them, I guess, at least not in a situation where the location is quiet and the boom is very close to the subject. 

and then there are a bunch more who want the lav because someone told them they should have that first and foremost.

This, on the other hand, is sounding more familiar.  I understand that folks learn to rely on the consistency of the lav versus the unpredictability of the boom, particularly in "bag work" scenarios that might be reality or documentary or EPK situations, where the boom is covering unscripted action on the fly and may not be in the right place.  However, it's both uneducated and lazy to jump to the conclusion that this makes lavs a better choice (or even worth bothering with at all) in EVERY scenario because they're a better choice in SOME scenarios.

I know you already know that, and I hear what you're saying about having to make a living and not wanting to rock the boat.  However, if we don't tell them, they're never going to learn on their own.  I'm not suggesting you fight a battle, or refuse to lav someone if that's what they want and explicitly ask for.  However, I am suggesting that if they are willing to listen to you, and you're confident you can get a real microphone in there (for a standard sit-down in a quiet place, it's a pretty safe wager), that perhaps you don't just lav as well anyway on your own "because that's what they usually ask for" etc -- because to me, if we do that, we are ourselves perpetuating the problem. 

Often the best-sounding end product is achieved by the simplest method.  When working with inexperienced/uneducated/understaffed post departments etc, having a single good track (rather than a single good track plus an okay mediocre track) also brings the added benefit that it's awful hard to screw up a single good mono track in the workflow.

[RPSharman]

I was on a job recently, and the producer was checking that I was using a lav and a boom for the green screen talking heads "like the last time you did it".  I told her the last time I just used the boom, as was the plan this time.  She said, "Oh.  Ok."

I have had this discussion on a few projects, and have told clients to trust me.  I have told them that the ISO tracks will be available, but I'm sure my mix will make them happy.  The editor usually agrees the mono track would be easier and better.

Just because something is what they are used to, it doesn't make it better.

But for narrative, there's never been a question.  Mono mix + ISO, although I am choosing more carefully these days when I am recording the ISO, if the lav or 2nd boom is just for a line or two in a boomed scene.

Robert

[Bondelev]

As someone who works in post, I would strongly recommend using one mono mix track + splits UNLESS you are specifically asked to do otherwise. 90% or the time that splits are given, the picture editors screw it up. I’m not blaming them, they are not soundies like us and rarely pay attention when cutting tracks, they have other things to worry about. It’s not their job and it should not be.

That said, there are times where it is appropriate to split boom and lavs when the pix editor wants it that way. Obviously a musical is one genre where it makes sense to deliver differently, as are reality shows recording straight to camera.

[Philip Perkins]

Apologies that this thread is getting sort of hijacked.

I still haven't met them, I guess, at least not in a situation where the location is quiet and the boom is very close to the subject. 

This, on the other hand, is sounding more familiar.  I understand that folks learn to rely on the consistency of the lav versus the unpredictability of the boom, particularly in "bag work" scenarios that might be reality or documentary or EPK situations, where the boom is covering unscripted action on the fly and may not be in the right place.  However, it's both uneducated and lazy to jump to the conclusion that this makes lavs a better choice (or even worth bothering with at all) in EVERY scenario because they're a better choice in SOME scenarios.

I know you already know that, and I hear what you're saying about having to make a living and not wanting to rock the boat.  However, if we don't tell them, they're never going to learn on their own.  I'm not suggesting you fight a battle, or refuse to lav someone if that's what they want and explicitly ask for.  However, I am suggesting that if they are willing to listen to you, and you're confident you can get a real microphone in there (for a standard sit-down in a quiet place, it's a pretty safe wager), that perhaps you don't just lav as well anyway on your own "because that's what they usually ask for" etc -- because to me, if we do that, we are ourselves perpetuating the problem. 

Often the best-sounding end product is achieved by the simplest method.  When working with inexperienced/uneducated/understaffed post departments etc, having a single good track (rather than a single good track plus an okay mediocre track) also brings the added benefit that it's awful hard to screw up a single good mono track in the workflow.

It's not about making a living, it's partly about doing what one is asked to do and trusting that maybe they actually DO know what they want.  I do not understand why people here get het-up about this issue of A: doing a lav and a boom on the same person on split tracks and B: turning in a mix that is a split boom/lav mix.  Folks, it's been working for me for a VERY long time, in spite of what you may think about it.  Perhaps we have different clients and different attitudes.  I work in post 50% of my time and know that these methods can serve very well there too.  If you guys and your clients don't go for this then don't do it.  My clients do, so I do.  I educate on the job about sound issues where I think it's appropriate and the audience is receptive (which is a very small part of the time), and somehow all these jobs come out well. 

phil p

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0674030/

[Morantzsound]

On the show I have been working on I have been doing a 2 track mix  with Boom on 1 and Lavs on 2 or if using 2 booms and no lavs in the mix I will split the booms.  They don't do telecine and the editors like to use the 2 track back-up as the master and will go to the additional tracks as needed. I was also requested to do this on the feature I did last summer by the picture editors and I did get a call from the sound editors after the fact who usually did not work in this matter but were very happy with it.  On the pilots I have done this year and all dayplaying gigs all mono mix on track 1.

Steve

[Michael P Clark]

Thanks for all the input. the more you guys talk about this, the more the Boom on 1, Lav Mix on 2, makes some sense. I'm not sure I would attempt it, until asked for. My mixer currently feeds two recorders out the mix buss(L/R) and that would compromise the feeds and BU/Dailies recorder. Not a deal breaker in any way, just a little different routing scheme. And since the work is 90% boom, they have the "MIX" I would typically provide anyways on Track 1. The separate Lav mix helps post if you can nail the Lav Mix, and they won't have to re-mix, or have more work. At this time I'll stick to the Mono Mix Track! Thanks again!

[Noah Timan]

I was on a job recently, and the producer was checking that I was using a lav and a boom for the green screen talking heads "like the last time you did it".  I told her the last time I just used the boom, as was the plan this time.  She said, "Oh.  Ok."

Excellent example of what I was trying to say.  Sometimes one's producer might insist instead of saying "Oh, Ok", and I completely understand politely acquiescing there.  But sometimes I smell folks just saying "well, I better lav as well and bus it to track 2, because that's what they expect", without any "checking" from the producer or any indication that it's required.  Maybe there's a fear of, "even if it doesn't make sense, what if later in editing, they don't have a lav track that they want, and then they blame me, and don't hire me again?"  I think that fear can be assuaged with the confidence with the simple logic that a solid boom track is going to work.  After all, we're the professional listeners listening, not them.  They're just (understandably) trying to do their due diligence, but they don't have the benefit of years of experience of recording sound.  If we can hear or expect that the boom track is not working or going to work well, and a lav will be better -- or even if it's a 50/50 on the subject -- by all means, go for it.  But if it's just being blindly done unnecessarily because of expectations when it's completely unnecessary, then to my mind, it shouldn't be a standard response.

Just because something is what they are used to, it doesn't make it better.

What he said.

[Noah Timan]

It's not about making a living, it's partly about doing what one is asked to do

I'm probably missing something, but I personally am struggling to see the difference there, if doing what one is asked to do contradicts what one believes is the best approach.

and trusting that maybe they actually DO know what they want.  I do not understand why people here get het-up about this issue of A: doing a lav and a boom on the same person on split tracks and B: turning in a mix that is a split boom/lav mix.

I'll preface by saying I haven't done much that requires this workflow in a long time, so take all this with a hefty grain of salt.  And, I don't speak for anyone else.  That said, I'll try to explain why it gets me "het-up":

As to A:

In a shooting situation where there is a question as to whether or not the boom will be in a good position 100% of the time (ie bag work situations where the shoot is uncontrolled and the action is live and unscripted), and there's a two track workflow (ie straight to a camera with two tracks only, etc), a 2 track boom/lav split makes plenty of sense.

However, in the example I cited that started this recent flurry (a sit down interview in a quiet studio), I feel that it doesn't make much sense.

I suspect we've all been in situations where we might be recording two tracks, and one is singing beautifully, getting a wonderful tonal color, etc, and the other is, well, just okay, fine, serviceable -- but not nearly as special as the other.  We're recording both and submitting both on the split tracks of a stereo leg.  There is a reasonable belief that whoever gets the tracks down the line is going to be able to hear both sides, and if one is significantly better than the other, they're going to choose the better one, ignore the lesser one, and move along.  However, there's hardly a guarantee that whoever gets the tracks down the line is going to subscribe to that philosphy we've agreed to (ourselves) on the set.  In that workflow, I don't think it's crazy to assume that someone is going to pick the lav track "because that's what works most of the time etc", and abandon the nice recording for the subpar recording just out of practice, or worse.

Will the "job go well" in that case?  Sure.  No one will know what was lost, and the sound will be issued to the final project via whatever capabilities the lavalier mic had to offer on that occasion.  No one will complain.  Never mind that there was a beautiful track provided by a Schoeps/Sennheiser/Neumann etc that was left in the garbage pail.  No one knows and no one has to know.  No one is suggesting that the use of the lav track will absolutely sabotage the project.  But that's not what's up for debate.

And the detriment to providing two tracks when one would have been sufficient?  There is rarely a guarantee, particularly in those small job situations, where one can assume a very competent, sound-enwizened set of folks are going to process the tracks.  By leaving two separate tracks of different quality, not only is one leaving it up to them to decide which is better, but one is leaving any and all editing/merging/squashing-track decisions up in the air for anyone in post, whether paying attention to sound or not, to claim them.  It's a dangerous assumption that someone is going to be diligently listening to both tracks later and in every instance deducing which one is better and using that one each time (and making transitions from one to the other work). There are all sorts of things that might happen -- and the percentage of good decisions on those types of jobs, in my experience, isn't always high enough to rest easy on.  The door becomes open to all kinds of horrors -- squashing both tracks together, using one track arbitrarily because of a momentary issue on the other, forgetting the other track exists, etc. 

As to B:

It doesn't make sense in the workflow of a narrative project (features, episodics, etc).  At that point you're either trying to complete one competent mix, or trying to complete two separate ones.  In my experience in today's narrative projects, you'd be lucky to get away with one -- two isn't likely.  In that scenario, we're all recording isos anyway, so the benefit of a lav sub-mix (when the lavs can be sub-mixed later, if necessary) is dubious.  More importantly, there's hardly a guarantee that by separating your mix anyone down the line will automatically assume that the two separate tracks are supposed to be summed together.  There's a Pandora's Box of hurt that's being opened at that point.

Folks, it's been working for me for a VERY long time, in spite of what you may think about it.  Perhaps we have different clients and different attitudes.  I work in post 50% of my time and know that these methods can serve very well there too.

Perhaps you can educate us.  I promise I am not trying to goad you here -- I do not mean any disrepect.  But honestly, maybe it'd be an eye-opener for me and perhaps others.  From a post perspective, when does a lav track exceed a well-placed boom (obviously, when the location isn't noisy)?  We all know about say, a subject leaning past the boom microphone, or a head drop, or a head turn that the overhead mic doesn't get sufficiently.  But is curing those ills worth the world of other problems or subjugations that opening this workflow opens?  Or are there other issues I'm unaware of?

[Matthias Richter]

I don´t really get the point why a split track that SOUNDS exactly like your mono mix is such a no-no for most of the mixers here. The only difference is I flip part of the sound signal to the right where you guys leave it all on the left - that´s the only difference. Both tracks will be imported into Avid or FCP just like they are. So my mix is still there.

IF there was an unpredictable event like actor touches the lav or a bit of phasing THEN the editor can still work with these 2 tracks and see if they can solve the prob.

Isos come into play when sound postpro is on. No pic editor wants 8-10 tracks to work with. But they do want a nice temp mix for the Director and Producer.

Well it is probably a question of what we are used to deliver ...

Matthias

[Philip Perkins]

Thanks very much for all the well-reasoned attempts made here to get me to see the light.  I will offer this last defense of how I've been working in this regard: A: using a boom and a lav mic on an interview and B: the original discussion of the boom/lav mix split delivery.  These are really more producer/post reasons for working this way, but that's who I work for.

A:

--you don't know how the film will cut, and having both mic types often helps me with matching, NR, EQ, and other issues.  As a postie I MASSIVELY appreciate getting both when having to interweave several voices, as well as the SAME voice from different interviews and situations.  (Thanks in advance!)

--As Matthias points out, the 2 mic thing is a form of insurance, and is viewed that way.  The boom covers lav noise/touch etc issues, the lav can certainly help if a BG noise comes up during a long interview--as we know, the lav might hear significantly less BG, and its best to have been recording it from the first.

--some producers have come to prefer the lav sound, and don't like room ambiance much at all.  I understand that some here have not run into such people, so I guess you'll have to take my word for the fact that they are out there, working and know what they want for their film.  I prefer the boom sound.  We do both and let the filmmaker decide later.

--some producers may be working to a spec sheet provided by an EP or post-supe.  I have been handed these many times over the years, and I don't see the point in arguing over boom only or boom+lav if they've asked for the latter.

B: the original boom/lav mix split deliver question:

--I'm asked to do this because it is a convenience to the editor, especially if they haven't loaded up the isos.  I agree that I'd rather they DID load up all the audio for a scene from the first, but there is a continuing resistance to doing this  around here--the editors are flying through all the material looking to make their first cuts and don't want to be encumbered by lots of audio tracks.  That said, they also want the ability to jump back and forth between boom and lav to solve audio edit or other problems as they make innumerable presentation projects to "sell" their cuts to the director etc..  I totally get that this method may be just a mid-market thing and that it won't work in a big time Hollywood situation, but for us it works very well indeed I assure you.   

Much has been made of how often post screws up audio tracks due to getting both of these splits delivered to them.  But if you never deliver this way, how do you really know?  In 35 yrs I've had maybe a handful of issues with this, and feel like today editors are hip enough to audition individual tracks and make their choice--at least that have been for me.

phil p

[studiomprd]

in other words: right or wrong, the customer is always right...

[old school]

n other words: right or wrong, the customer is always right...

Yes, if they are paying you and that is what they want.

CrewC

[Noah Timan]

I don´t really get the point why a split track that SOUNDS exactly like your mono mix is such a no-no for most of the mixers here. The only difference is I flip part of the sound signal to the right where you guys leave it all on the left - that´s the only difference. Both tracks will be imported into Avid or FCP just like they are. So my mix is still there.

If I'm guessing right, I believe you're talking about a different scenario -- one where you're essentially creating a mono mix by mono summing all the elements in your headphones and mixing, but splitting the elements out amongst two tracks.  (If I've got it wrong, apologies). That's different from *not* making a mix and simply recording two separate, alternate versions of the same thing, which was what I was ranting about earlier.

As far as the mono-sum-in-headphones, bus-to-two-track mix goes -- I personally fail to see the benefit in doing that.  If you are truly creating a mono mix but want to give post the option to adjust things later, why not just make the mono mix and send them the elements via prefader ISO?  That seems to be the best of both worlds, rather than a two-track mix that can be pulled apart, but might still have fader moves etc that befit the original (headphone-only mono sum) mix but do not benefit a "remix". 

Seems to open the door to a lot of confusion without allowing for much benefit.

If you get the mix right on set, then there it is, one track, simple enough to work with and how the dialogue is eventually going to want to be delivered.  If you get it mostly right but miss a cue on one line, the mix + one iso track for the duration of that one missed line will make it all work pretty simply and efficiently.  If you totally blow it, all the isos are there for someone to start from scratch.  That system covers itself pretty well.

Other reasons I can think of not to spread one mono mix over two tracks:

In many workflows, the usual practice on this side of the pond (and the preference of most editors) is to only import one track and not two. 

For example, we did a stunt shot (all effects) the other day that I recorded in stereo.  I liked the stereo version a lot, so I asked the transfer house to transfer that particular take to dailies as L/R stereo.  Here's what I saw the next day in the dailies report:

"According to the sound report,  (x) does not have a mixdown track, and the sound mixer has asked for this scene to

be transferred to dailies as STEREO L/R. Due to a software

limitation, we are only able to transfer a single audio file per

video clip into AVID. So, the .mxf files for (x) will include

LEFT CHANNEL AUDIO ONLY."

Now, this is on a bigger budget job where there's organization and pretty good communication.  On a small job with no communication, one might never know if this sort of thing happened. 

And this is but the first of many pitfalls that might happen to one's tracks (not far) down the line.  Other notable examples I've either experienced firsthand or heard tell of include someone in transfer or editorial mono-summing the two separate legs (probably not going to go well with the boomed-n-laved interview scenario), skipping one track or another when loading into AVID, followed by post sound getting only an OMF of what the assistant picture editor loaded in, ADR being requested due to a problematic lav track when the material was fine on the boom or vice versa, and so on and so forth. 

All of this for what benefit?

If it's an unpredictable documentary type situation, I certainly get why one might boom one side of a pair and put the lavs on the other, and let someone else work it out later, and run the small but not nonexistent risk that there might be mistakes and/or problems down the line.  However, in a very controlled situation, I fail to see the advantage in doing so, and why it might be worth the risk.  My .02.

[Philip Perkins]

If I'm guessing right, I believe you're talking about a different scenario -- one where you're essentially creating a mono mix by mono summing all the elements in your headphones and mixing, but splitting the elements out amongst two tracks.  (If I've got it wrong, apologies). That's different from *not* making a mix and simply recording two separate, alternate versions of the same thing, which was what I was ranting about earlier.

As far as the mono-sum-in-headphones, bus-to-two-track mix goes -- I personally fail to see the benefit in doing that.  If you are truly creating a mono mix but want to give post the option to adjust things later, why not just make the mono mix and send them the elements via prefader ISO?  That seems to be the best of both worlds, rather than a two-track mix that can be pulled apart, but might still have fader moves etc that befit the original (headphone-only mono sum) mix but do not benefit a "remix". 

Seems to open the door to a lot of confusion without allowing for much benefit.

If you get the mix right on set, then there it is, one track, simple enough to work with and how the dialogue is eventually going to want to be delivered.  If you get it mostly right but miss a cue on one line, the mix + one iso track for the duration of that one missed line will make it all work pretty simply and efficiently.  If you totally blow it, all the isos are there for someone to start from scratch.  That system covers itself pretty well.

Other reasons I can think of not to spread one mono mix over two tracks:

In many workflows, the usual practice on this side of the pond (and the preference of most editors) is to only import one track and not two. 

For example, we did a stunt shot (all effects) the other day that I recorded in stereo.  I liked the stereo version a lot, so I asked the transfer house to transfer that particular take to dailies as L/R stereo.  Here's what I saw the next day in the dailies report:

"According to the sound report,  (x) does not have a mixdown track, and the sound mixer has asked for this scene to

be transferred to dailies as STEREO L/R. Due to a software

limitation, we are only able to transfer a single audio file per

video clip into AVID. So, the .mxf files for (x) will include

LEFT CHANNEL AUDIO ONLY."

Now, this is on a bigger budget job where there's organization and pretty good communication.  On a small job with no communication, one might never know if this sort of thing happened. 

And this is but the first of many pitfalls that might happen to one's tracks (not far) down the line.  Other notable examples I've either experienced firsthand or heard tell of include someone in transfer or editorial mono-summing the two separate legs (probably not going to go well with the boomed-n-laved interview scenario), skipping one track or another when loading into AVID, followed by post sound getting only an OMF of what the assistant picture editor loaded in, ADR being requested due to a problematic lav track when the material was fine on the boom or vice versa, and so on and so forth. 

All of this for what benefit?

If it's an unpredictable documentary type situation, I certainly get why one might boom one side of a pair and put the lavs on the other, and let someone else work it out later, and run the small but not nonexistent risk that there might be mistakes and/or problems down the line.  However, in a very controlled situation, I fail to see the advantage in doing so, and why it might be worth the risk.  My .02.

I get that you don't agree.  What I don't get is why you keep asking the same questions?  I've answered above why I/we do both sorts of splits in discussion here.  The reasons are real, useful, and what is asked for as SOP on much of what I work on--I didn't originate any of this!  Split or not as you please!

phil p

[Noah Timan]

I get that you don't agree.  What I don't get is why you keep asking the same questions?  I've answered above why I/we do both sorts of splits in discussion here.  The reasons are real, useful, and what is asked for as SOP on much of what I work on--I didn't originate any of this!  Split or not as you please!

phil p

Phil, that was a response to Matthias' post, not yours.  Some of the questions in it were directed at him and ideas represented in his post, while others were just sort of wondered aloud.  None of it was directed at you. 

Additionally, the response to Matthias was written before I read your most recent post.  I chose not respond to that one since it seemed like you wanted to stop discussing these issues of "to bus or not to bus".  I apologize -- I did not mean to ruffle your feathers.

[Bondelev]

Phil -

I don’t think we’re disagreeing as much as you think. I’m just suggesting that you need to check with the editor (and post sound crew, if there is one yet) before committing to a split mix track.

Of course I’m also assuming that on a feature you have multichannel splits in addition to whatever your mix track(s) are. More splits are always better when you have the time, money, and work power to go back to them.

But I do think it depends on the project and everyone involved. Obviously on a big budget feature having splits is great. But the level of the projects I work on, often I get an OMF directly from Avid or FCP on the dub stage without any dialogue editor in between. The picture editor knows nothing about sound. This results in the following:

1) The editor didn’t know there were two tracks and lazily took one because it’s easier to cut in FCP that way.

2) The editor heard the boom on one shot and thought it sounded terrible so they threw out the whole track and used only lavs.

3) The editor heard a problem on the lav tracks and threw them out instead.

4) The editor hears phasing between tracks, and decides something is wrong, so he throws out one of the tracks.

And yes, I’ve had all of these happen.

I get the one track they picked on the stage, and never know there was more, or if there is, there is no budget for conforming, so it’s like they didn’t exist. Frequently this results in them spotting ADR where it should not have been necessary or, on a doc or reality, they end up not using a shot they could have used because they think the sound is unusable.

Granted, this is not your typical workflow, but you should know it exists, more and more for low-budget cable and internet. I’ve even seen stuff air where the only mix done was by the Avid editor. It never saw sound post. I think in these cases you have to keep it as simple as possible. That’s why you have to confirm with the client that they want splits.

[Philip Perkins]

Phil -

I don’t think we’re disagreeing as much as you think. I’m just suggesting that you need to check with the editor (and post sound crew, if there is one yet) before committing to a split mix track.

Of course I’m also assuming that on a feature you have multichannel splits in addition to whatever your mix track(s) are. More splits are always better when you have the time, money, and work power to go back to them.

But I do think it depends on the project and everyone involved. Obviously on a big budget feature having splits is great. But the level of the projects I work on, often I get an OMF directly from Avid or FCP on the dub stage without any dialogue editor in between. The picture editor knows nothing about sound. This results in the following:

1) The editor didn’t know there were two tracks and lazily took one because it’s easier to cut in FCP that way.

2) The editor heard the boom on one shot and thought it sounded terrible so they threw out the whole track and used only lavs.

3) The editor heard a problem on the lav tracks and threw them out instead.

4) The editor hears phasing between tracks, and decides something is wrong, so he throws out one of the tracks.

And yes, I’ve had all of these happen.

I get the one track they picked on the stage, and never know there was more, or if there is, there is no budget for conforming, so it’s like they didn’t exist. Frequently this results in them spotting ADR where it should not have been necessary or, on a doc or reality, they end up not using a shot they could have used because they think the sound is unusable.

Granted, this is not your typical workflow, but you should know it exists, more and more for low-budget cable and internet. I’ve even seen stuff air where the only mix done was by the Avid editor. It never saw sound post. I think in these cases you have to keep it as simple as possible. That’s why you have to confirm with the client that they want splits.

Thanks, my point was that those splits are generally done AS REQUESTED BY THE EDITOR.  As I said, I didn't invent this method--I'm following instructions re: it.  People who are incompetent, lazy or overworked will make mistakes w/ sound tracks.  But they can make those same mistakes with mix/iso splits as well.....

phil p

[Matthias Richter]

If I'm guessing right, I believe you're talking about a different scenario -- one where you're essentially creating a mono mix by mono summing all the elements in your headphones and mixing, but splitting the elements out amongst two tracks.  (If I've got it wrong, apologies). That's different from *not* making a mix and simply recording two separate, alternate versions of the same thing, which was what I was ranting about earlier.

As far as the mono-sum-in-headphones, bus-to-two-track mix goes -- I personally fail to see the benefit in doing that.  If you are truly creating a mono mix but want to give post the option to adjust things later, why not just make the mono mix and send them the elements via prefader ISO?  That seems to be the best of both worlds, rather than a two-track mix that can be pulled apart, but might still have fader moves etc that befit the original (headphone-only mono sum) mix but do not benefit a "remix". 

Noah that´s exactly how I (and many others over here) do it. We basically create a mono-mix (in the headphone) but send booms to ch1 and lavs to ch2.

In addition all the isos are recorded too (if recording on a multi-track). But these come to life in soundpost not in pic-editorial. Thats why the editor can solve a small problem often by using / working with these two tracks.

Everyone over here is quite used to it, so I never had a problem with it.

Matthias

[Noah Timan]

Noah that´s exactly how I (and many others over here) do it. We basically create a mono-mix (in the headphone) but send booms to ch1 and lavs to ch2.

In addition all the isos are recorded too (if recording on a multi-track). But these come to life in soundpost not in pic-editorial. Thats why the editor can solve a small problem often by using / working with these two tracks.

Everyone over here is quite used to it, so I never had a problem with it.

Matthias

Glad to hear it hasn't been problematic for you.  I myself personally can see marginal benefits to this system versus a regular mono mix, though, and an addition of all of the potential problems already noted (see Mr. Bondelev's post for further examples).  Of course, I know that in Europe working with two tracks of audio all the time is SOP, so there's probably less room for the sorts of mistakes that have been noted, since many of them revolve around two audio tracks being broken down to one (either by squashing two together or by removing one).

For me, in a feature/episodic situation, the mono mix provides the security that my mix can't be pulled apart in half and possibly never put back together again.  If I blow a cue, for example, I'll make a pretty loud note on the report (ie "so and so's line missing from the mix is on Track 3") and also have the script supervisor put it in their notes to the editor as well.  That means the editor should have clear information on how to find and "fix" the problem for the cut without having to poke around through many isos.  The isos are always provided to the editor, so even though they don't load all of them into the Avid all the time, the files are standing by in the edit room if they need to grab a line from an iso here or there.

But, to each their own...

[studiomprd]

" if they are paying you "

If they are not paying me, then they are not a "customer"  (and I'm probably not even there!)

[Michael P Clark]

Matthias, initially I read your method of mixing as creating Lav mix on track 2, regardless of the need for Lavs in the mix. Now, I read this, since you monitor in mono, that your Lav mix on track 2 contains lavs only when the scene calls for it. So most of the time, your track 2 Lav mix wouldn't have any audio at all, if the shot is 100% boomed. This last scenario makes far more sense to me now, but still not a way I'd like to work. And it seemed that you guys really make a lot of extra work for a mix(Track 2) that might not be used.

Do I understand this correctly now?

[Glen Trew]

But Glen, the split DOES make sense to and for the people who are asking for it.  The iso thing is great, but there are still some editors who don't want to (or can't) deal with that many tracks, but want the lav mix separate from the boom.  I understand this seems illogical to you but it doesn't to them, and I've asked again about it recently.  I sympathize with the editor trying to make a fast but presentable temp mix on FCP or Avid, so I give them what they ask for.  Maybe younger editors will be less reticent to import and drag along a bunch of isos--if they are then I've got the isos for them to do it with.  But I find that delivering them more than 2 tracks still requires a phone call or email to make sure what I'm doing doesn't slow them down.  I'm not extrapolating this method up into commercial feature films or episodics--those jobs will work their own way and have lots more expertise brought to bear on the problems.  (On many of my jobs it's about what the editor and I decide--we are the whole techno dept..)  What I'm hoping for is that eventually they'll have the tools (and the knowledge+attitude) to take a multitrack poly file that contains whatever they've asked for mix-wise +isos, but my folks aren't there yet (way too deep in picture+compositing issues for this, mostly).    Cheaper portable MT recorders like Nomad and the solutions that embed lots of tracks in HDSDI to be recorded on cameras or outboard video recorders may also bring about an acceptance of having more tracks going at the picture edit on smaller jobs....

phil p

Let's not confuse this as being about whether or not smaller productions can handle more than two tracks...

Of course it makes sense to the people who are asking for it, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense, or that it's the best way to utilize a limitation of 2 tracks. It makes much more sense to have a mono mix on track-1 and the boom on track-2, then in post production adding track 2 when less/no lav is wanted, or adding track-2 out of phase when less/no boom is wanted.

Glen Trew

[Matthias Richter]

Matthias, initially I read your method of mixing as creating Lav mix on track 2, regardless of the need for Lavs in the mix. Now, I read this, since you monitor in mono, that your Lav mix on track 2 contains lavs only when the scene calls for it. So most of the time, your track 2 Lav mix wouldn't have any audio at all, if the shot is 100% boomed. This last scenario makes far more sense to me now, but still not a way I'd like to work. And it seemed that you guys really make a lot of extra work for a mix(Track 2) that might not be used.

Do I understand this correctly now?

if I don´t have lavs in play then there will be no track 2. If the last bit of the shot needs the lavs then they show up just then on track 2. It´s no extra work at all. Just think of it as your mono-mix but the lavs are routed to that track 2. Mixing will be the same, it will sound the same, it´s just on 2 tracks. Thats all.