Mono Mix track vs. two-track Mix track

[Bartek]

my beef with splitting your tracks into L and R (DAT standard) , is first of all that  you are not monitoring phase coherence with respect to the boom tracks versus wireless tracks, at the point of capture, where it it the easiest to address the problem.  Say the telescinie people don't follow your instructions and collapse L and R and all of the sudden your dailies sound like they are an early 80's heavy metal band's demo tape,

this brings me to my second point that by giving telescinie 2 tracks to transfer that you are judged by versus one, doubles the chances of a mess in your daily tracks. For me track number 1 is THE track, you can always do submixes, we do have a lot more tracks available these days!!

[Eric Lamontagne]

While I would agree in theory a two track split mix, left boom and right 2ndBoom/body mics/plant mics, would work in principal the practice is outdated for several reasons. 

It was always a compromise to accommodate a two channel recording system many of us became very good at monitoring mono and being aware of phasing and delivering splits for post to sort out. The fact remains that we were still mixing and committing to the fader move. Our tracks may have to be delivered post fader thus creating lower recorded levels and inconsistent sources(ie. If you needed a body mic for one line it may not exist on the recording for the rest of the dialog). It was marginally better having two tracks than one, multitrack is my current standard.

I'm always mixing mono (even if that's spread over two tracks as requested my post/xfer house). Why not! This saves time because post grabs the first track and it serves as the best reference to support the picture.

Simple is better: I stepped into a medium budget show last year that sunk up all of the multitrack audio I recorded. They hand sunk it in Final Cut which didn't import my track names! The post audio editor had to hunt through all of my tracks looking for dialog without track labels. What a nightmare. I had initially started out recording the four "splits" I was sending to camera in addition to my isos. I'm glad I had a talk early on in the show with post and dumped this practice. What a nightmare!

Now I'm very adverse to recording additional channels when not needed or they don't sound great!

Eric

[I-HEAR_YOU]

For me, Track 1 (so-called "mix track") is THE track, not "casual" at all (but unfortunately these days, not as good a mix as it used to be). My philosophy, and in practice, is to mix to Track 1 as if it is old days (mono Nagra-style), as if it is the only track I have. What multitrack provides is the facility to break out all the elements, sources, that are being used to produce this mix (something we could not do in the old days when we really only had the 1 track).

-  Jeff Wexler

The biggest problem I see is that we have too many tracks ( 6+) to mix and the ability to actually get it right first time every time.

I find being able to ISO gives me a lot more flexibility and the POST guys/gals a chance to recover, if it all goes pear shaped.

[studiomprd]

a case study from former students:

a music video / chat  show with two hosts, sometimes guests, shot on 4 camcorders (3 x HH).

early decision made: boom (one ch) + mix 2 x hidden lav's (other ch) feed one camcorder (wired, monitor return 2 ch) and record "back-up" 2 ch double system; single person sound crew,  and the decision was also taken to fully hide the lav' in all the "hip" fashions- including noisy jewelry being featured. (since the beginning, the jewelry has been toned down a bit!)

The basic little studio that was built for this set is actually pretty quiet but unfortunately it has multiple varying RF issues.  Several editors work on the shows, and they use FCsP.    An original (incorrect) assumption that "post" would use the boom ch audio, and if needed select as needed from the wireless track, even included reports that that workflow was actually being applied.  There turns out to be no audio post, and the picture editors load both audio channels into FCsP and cut away... after several shows, reports began to drift back of audio issues, including noises (being cut around) and lower levels for one of the two hosts.  It now appears that the 2 channels of audio have been mixed, straight up, into a single channel that includes all the artifacts, noises, phasing, and other problems (like level imbalances between the hosts) that go with that methodology, no audio post and the capabilities of the picture editing software... All the stuff we have been discussing here (in several threads) on jwsound!!

[I-HEAR_YOU]

a case study from a student:

a music video / chat  show with two hosts, sometimes guests, shot on 4 camcorders (3 x HH).

early decision made: boom (one ch) + mix 2 x hidden lav's (other ch) feed one camcorder (wired, monitor return 2 ch) and record "back-up" 2 ch double system; single person sound crew,  and the decision was also taken to fully hide the lav' in all the "hip" fashions- including noisy jewelry being featured. (since the beginning, the jewelry has been toned down a bit!)

The basic little studio that was built for this set is actually pretty quiet but unfortunately it has multiple varying RF issues.  Several editors work on the shows, and they use FCsP.    An original (incorrect) assumption that "post" would use the boom ch audio, and if needed select as needed from the wireless track, even included reports that that workflow was actually being applied.  There turns out to be no audio post, and the picture editors load both audio channels into FCsP and cut away... after several shows, reports began to drift back of audio issues, including noises (being cut around) and lower levels for one of the two hosts.  It now appears that the 2 channels of audio have been mixed, straight up, into a single channel that includes all the artifacts, noises, phasing, and other problems (like level imbalances between the hosts) that go with that methodology, no audio post and the capabilities of the picture editing software... All the stuff we have been discussing here (in several threads) on jwsound!!

Point Taken !!!!!

[Angelo Waldron]

a case study from a student:

a music video / chat  show with two hosts, sometimes guests, shot on 4 camcorders (3 x HH).

early decision made: boom (one ch) + mix 2 x hidden lav's (other ch) feed one camcorder (wired, monitor return 2 ch) and record "back-up" 2 ch double system; single person sound crew,  and the decision was also taken to fully hide the lav' in all the "hip" fashions- including noisy jewelry being featured. (since the beginning, the jewelry has been toned down a bit!)

The basic little studio that was built for this set is actually pretty quiet but unfortunately it has multiple varying RF issues.  Several editors work on the shows, and they use FCsP.    An original (incorrect) assumption that "post" would use the boom ch audio, and if needed select as needed from the wireless track, even included reports that that workflow was actually being applied.  There turns out to be no audio post, and the picture editors load both audio channels into FCsP and cut away... after several shows, reports began to drift back of audio issues, including noises (being cut around) and lower levels for one of the two hosts.  It now appears that the 2 channels of audio have been mixed, straight up, into a single channel that includes all the artifacts, noises, phasing, and other problems (like level imbalances between the hosts) that go with that methodology, no audio post and the capabilities of the picture editing software... All the stuff we have been discussing here (in several threads) on jwsound!!

First... I'm not a student, and neither is the other one person sound crew.  I've worked 25 years full time plus OT supporting my family on this and related stuff. Wasn't it you Senator, who told me to concentrate on the boom, this is what they will use?.... you were wrong. After several shows... 40 episodes.. after asking producer and various editors every time I come in "how is the audio" they reply "it's fine.. good." Now after 40 episodes we get the "she's too soft" so I say I will favor her a bit more on the boom. Which track is she too soft on? They don't know because they are using both boom track and lav track straight up? We just find this out. This is a case of not enough money to hire a boomer and mixer or good sound editor.....what should I do... be a boomer or a mixer. Halfass the boom, or halfass the mix? I took the job as a sub because it fit into my schedule and recorded it consistent with what was before. I don't see this as an audio problem.....it's an editing problem. But I will be listening mono off the mixer instead of split off camera return.. trying to give them what they want so I can continue working as boomer/mixer.

Don't use this case as your own personal sounding board on this forum.

[I-HEAR_YOU]

First... I'm not a student, and neither is the other one person sound crew.  I've worked 25 years full time plus OT supporting my family on this and related stuff. Wasn't it you Senator, who told me to concentrate on the boom, this is what they will use?.... you were wrong. After several shows... 40 episodes.. after asking producer and various editors every time I come in "how is the audio" they reply "it's fine.. good." Now after 40 episodes we get the "she's too soft" so I say I will favor her a bit more on the boom. Which track is she too soft on? They don't know because they are using both boom track and lav track straight up? We just find this out. This is a case of not enough money to hire a boomer and mixer or good sound editor.....what should I do... be a boomer or a mixer. Halfass the boom, or halfass the mix? I took the job as a sub because it fit into my schedule and recorded it consistent with what was before. I don't see this as an audio problem.....it's an editing problem. But I will be listening mono off the mixer instead of split off camera return.. trying to give them what they want so I can continue working as boomer/mixer.

Don't use this case as your own personal sounding board on this forum.

Isn't it our job as the FIELD recordist to catch the best sound we can in the field, and POST to mix it to get the best mix?

I agree we are mixers as well as catchers, so if we give them both, don't we allow POST to clean up any problems that might be found??

Depending on the shoot Feature, corporate, commercial or drama. Some need to be mixed on set/field, while some they want ISO so it can be built up in POST?

The problem is that once recorded and it goes to post, it's too late!!

Because sound isn't seen during the shoot, it only becomes a problem when it is too late.

[studiomprd]

" concentrate on the boom, this is what they will use?.... "

that is part of the mis-information that passed by on its way around.

I was not trying to identify anybody, and certainly not to assign responsibility, but the point is that this is a case study in what this, and a couple other topics being discussed are about.  you have added even more weight to that...

" I don't see this as an audio problem..... "

it isn't, it is a "production problem", and one element is a lack of proper communications as well as lack of complete workflow testing and evaluation (which at least could have/should have been done with the initial episodes...).

and now maybe after all those episodes, everyone will get together with correct information, and actually all be on the same page.

[Marc Wielage]

It now appears that the 2 channels of audio have been mixed, straight up, into a single channel that includes all the artifacts, noises, phasing, and other problems (like level imbalances between the hosts) that go with that methodology, no audio post and the capabilities of the picture editing software...

At least a dozen times, I've personally stopped several dailies people who were transferring sound and picture where they blithely summed channels 1 & 2 together, and because one track was slightly out of phase (like a wireless that's a few milliseconds late), there were all kinds of artifacts. In every case, the sound mixer indicated on the sound report "use track 1 only for dailies" or "put channel 1 on track 1, channel 2 on track 2," but the dailies mixer ignored it.

Communication and common sense would solve problems like this. Me, I usually send an email to the editor after any short project where I give them an "oh, by the way" and tell them to use track 1 only, and that everything else is just an iso in case they need it. If it's a long-form project, a quick phone call to the assistant editor heads this stuff off at the pass.

--Marc W.

[WhyOne]

Just caught this thread, and almost don't know where to begin. So much confusion, especially as some of the posters are individuals I look up to with so much respect... OK, by the numbers...

1.  There is no one solution. We all are looking for some type of standardization in the new multi-track file based world, yet any mixer on any job who doesn't take any steps possible to satisfy the needs and desires of the editors on the job is ultimately shooting themselves in the foot. Bottom line is that when the production dust settles, the client is sitting in a comfortable room with the editor(s) listening to them either praising or damning the production mixer.

2.  Qualify your working modes. I mix for "single camera drama" (read that as three Alexas, two EX-3s, and a handful of DSLRS), and can speak on these specific issues, yet I haven't done an over the shoulder, ENG, or EPK type gig in twenty years, and I wouldn't presume to give any advice in that area.

3.  Going back to the earlier posts on this thread, I feel the need to speak on phil p's behalf. I have known Phil Perkins for over thirty years, and he along with a few choice others, was a role model for me. Unlike myself (I am essentially, at this point in my life, a production mixer for prime time, hour long, episodic network dramas), Phil's range of steady work runs from micro to macro, and he is as comfortable as a post as well as a production mixer. If one reads the body of his posts, he is the prime example of custom tailoring his approach to a particular client's particular needs, be it system, delivery, or budget. He delivers again and again, and he does not bullshit. Even if one doesn't agree with something he says, be assured that his view is well thought out, and based on real world practice.

That being said, back on track, on topic...

In the world of network episodic drama, time equals money, regardless of your position in the food chain. My recommendations for a successful venture:

Go in to the project with your well thought out game plan. As the production mixer, you have to satisfy several different groups of people with very different needs:

Dailies - Dailies go all over the place. Ten suits who know very little about production, yet can make your life hell, will have critiqued your work before you arrive on the set the next day. To satisfy them, the sound must be clean and appropriate to the picture, and never compromise PERFORMANCE, which is their greatest concern. The same requirements hold for your producers and actors, yet they tend to be much more knowledgeable. Dailies then go to the picture editor, where they are roughed into edited scenes. Picture editors are also responsible for "spotting" or making the first call for possible ADR, and are often required to turn in spotting reports every day.

Original recordings (often along with sync dailies) go to the Dialogue Editor, THE MOST IMPORTANT INDIVIDUAL in the post chain for the Production Mixer, who will scrub, buff, and shrink-to-fit your work, constantly tweaking until picture is locked and on its way to the Final Dub. They want EVERYTHING, presented in a consistent and logical manner, and if they don't have to go searching for things, they have more time to make your work sound better. The Dialogue Editor's work is first up in the dub, but the re-recording mixers also have instantaneous access to any ADR and your raw originals (at this point referred to as "Production"

Within these workflow qualifications...

MIX on Channel 1. Period. We are Mixers, it is what we do. We mix the sources available to create an appropriate soundtrack for the specific shots. Booms, plants, body mics, skillfully blended together to capture the drama. All of the additional tracks contain the isos of any sources used, any other sound events in the frame (ie. playback that is seen but not heard, etc.) and any sync ambiances that may prove valuable in the dub.

Telecine: Gently insist that your mono "mix on 1" be transfered to L and R for dailies. Every telecine house can do this easily, and it precludes any phase issues. If challenged, point out that you often need all seven of your remaining channels for sources (assuming you have eight channels available - the norm these days - though I acknowledge many of my colleagues require twelve or more...) Your levels need to be consistent, if they are not, the telecine operator may be tempted to adjust...

Picture Editor: Almost universally, Picture Editors prefer one track to cut by. Recently, as Avid and FCP can handle multiple tracks more easily, and drive real estate becoming less precious, many savvy Picture Editors like to have all of the isos also. If the isos have accurate metadata, they can quickly see if a bad word or line may be replaced by an iso or another take, and  they will not "spot" it for ADR. This saves time and your rep.

Dialogue Editor: Shot after shot, scene after scene, day after day, EVERY TIME THEY CAN USE YOUR MIX IT IS A HUGE SAVINGS OF TIME AND MONEY. Next to that, if all of the iso tracks occur in a logical order and have good metadata, they are happy if it's easy to find what they need (and if you know about an issue as it's going down, note it for them... Let them know you care

So... Before you start shooting, put your game plan in writing, have your Post Producer or Supervisor circulate the document through channels, tweak till all are literally "on the same page", and live by it. By generating this project immediately, you will be appreciated as "knowledgeable", a "big picture thinker", a "team player", and an "asset to the company". Additionally, at this point in time (before principal photography) you will probably know by name every person in the chain along with their phone # and email address, and they will know that you are available at any time to answer a question or make a clarification.

This has been my approach based on over two hundred fifty episodes.

Jay Patterson, CAS

[Jeff Wexler]

This has been my approach based on over two hundred fifty episodes.

Jay Patterson, CAS

I wish we could hear from someone who has had some experience...  just kidding! Wow, Jay, you have made the definitive statement here, this should be THE blueprint for anyone concerned about the primary issue contained in the title of this topic. I personally want to thank you for taking the time to write all these things down in such an elegant, eloquent and clear manner.

Also, I would like to add to the comments made regarding Philip Perkins: Philip is single handedly one of the most generous and knowledgeable people we have on this group and he has continued to tirelessly participate in any and all discussions where he feels he can be helpful. If the Discussion Group @ jwsound.net had an Awards Show, Philip would be getting the Lifetime Achievement award!