Multi-Track Recording - What goes where?

[ptalsky]

Hi all,

Up until now I've been using two track recorders (started with Marantz PMD670 and now a Tascam P2), but am starting to consider moving more towards a Deva (or at least an SD744) and was wondering how everything gets routed to the recorder.

For me, it's been easy up to this point.  I send the boom left, all the wireless to the right.  So, with a Deva IV or V, what do you do with all those tracks?  And, how does your mixer handle mutliple outputs (most of the mixers I've been looking at seem to just have two main outs, so how do you get the other 8 tracks over to the Deva V?)

Thanks in advance!  (BTW, Jeff, thank you for this forum.  It has been great to get directly to the answers without having to wade through any politicing like on RAMPS.)

Phil

[Philip Perkins]

Hi all,

Up until now I've been using two track recorders (started with Marantz PMD670 and now a Tascam P2), but am starting to consider moving more towards a Deva (or at least an SD744) and was wondering how everything gets routed to the recorder.

For me, it's been easy up to this point.  I send the boom left, all the wireless to the right.  So, with a Deva IV or V, what do you do with all those tracks?  And, how does your mixer handle mutliple outputs (most of the mixers I've been looking at seem to just have two main outs, so how do you get the other 8 tracks over to the Deva V?)

Thanks in advance!  (BTW, Jeff, thank you for this forum.  It has been great to get directly to the answers without having to wade through any politicing like on RAMPS.)

Phil

The mixer mixes a one or two track recording of everything and that goes out the main  L/R outputs to the recorder as what is now called a "dailies mix", for telecine etc..  The mixer either also has pre (or post) fader direct outputs for every input or you use simple Y cables of each source and route those to other tracks of the recorder (or another recorder) so you have recordings of each element of the mix separately, without any of the "ride" moves of the location mixer.  I think Jeff said that his MO is to always have track 1 or 1+2 be his dailies mix, and the others be split tracks as needed.  There are various strategies for how these tracks get deliverd, on what and to whom, depending on the production.

Philip Perkins

[Jeff Wexler]

The mixer mixes a one or two track recording of everything and that goes out the main  L/R outputs to the recorder as what is now called a "dailies mix", for telecine etc..  The mixer either also has pre (or post) fader direct outputs for every input or you use simple Y cables of each source and route those to other tracks of the recorder (or another recorder) so you have recordings of each element of the mix separately, without any of the "ride" moves of the location mixer.  I think Jeff said that his MO is to always have track 1 or 1+2 be his dailies mix, and the others be split tracks as needed.  There are various strategies for how these tracks get deliverd, on what and to whom, depending on the production.

Philip Perkins

For most of the people I have spoken to here in L.A., things have been settling down to this sort of basic approach. The areas where people tend to differ is mostly in the ways that they speak about what they are doing (which reveals as well, part of the differing concepts and approaches even while doing the same procedures). As stated above, the MAIN outputs of most mixing panels have been relegated to the task of only outputing a "mix" (that's why they are called mix busses) which only needs to go to Track 1. There are some who do 2 mixes, I guess, sending one mix to Track 1 and some other mix to Track 2. I do not entirely understand this and have never done it. So, however many input sources I am using, a boom mic, a second boom mic, a plant mic, a wireless mic (or several) on the actors, all of these sources are available to go "into the mix" by using the channel faders on the mixer (that send that source to mixer output bus 1, or left or whatever and then on to Track 1). These individual input sources are also available at the Direct Outs of most mixing panels that provide this, and can be sent out directly, pre-fader, to Track(s) 2 through 8 (or 10 if using a Deva V). Some or all of the elements, therefore, that go into the mix, are recorded discreetly pre-fader (not subject to the level part of the mix) on their own tracks.

There are differences to this approach which I see as: some people treat the "mix track" really as a slop mix to service only the dailies and in fact do not devote much in terms of effort to this mix (unlike the old days when we only had one track and ALL of our efforts went into the mix). This is understandable to a degree considering the large number of sources needed (6 to 10 wireless, 2 booms, music feeds, etc.) and the liklihood that a decent mix can be achieved on the fly. There are others, like me, who still try valiently to mix everything just as if we only had the ONE track, and I have to say that I really do not like referring to this one track as "the dailies mix". It is my sincere feeling that we need to continue to consider this mix very important and not just because editorial needs to have something right away to get started with. What I have found is that if the nature of the productiion is such that everyone is trying to do so much on every single setup and so many sources are needed that a good mix cannot be had, it is more than likely that a good mix will not be possible, even later in the comfort of sound editorial suite. In all fairness to those who only make a slop mix, I do understand why this is the approach, and it is fortunate that providing the additional discreet tracks gives the people in post a chance to do their mix later.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

I didn't mean to denigrate efforts of mixers like Jeff to deliver a great full mix of a scene--the sound editor part of me loves this idea no matter how many times I hear that millions of split tracks are a great idea and more important to get right than a mono or 2 track mix of a scene.  It was always no easy task to mix all the mics  in a scene to a good mono mix live on the set, and to do that successfully AND manage all the extra technology needed to do split track multitrack makes for some very busy sound people.  I think a major choice that mixers must make now is how deep they are going to get into the multitrack thing and keep it all together, and how they will justify the expense of doing so.  (Hence the discussion of the Yamaha digital boards, etc.)

Philip Perkins

[Guest tourtelot]

Phil, I think you have made a point that I have made and thought about a lot.  The multi-track capture adds not only extra work to the production mixer but to the sound editorial staff as well.  Every "split track" even two tracks requirers a pre-dub in post before even the most rudimentary sound editing can be done.  Now multiply that by 8 or 10!

As well, I still contend that a "mixer" does just that.  Anybody can capture 8 lavs and record them onto 8 tracks of a DV824.  That's easy.  Having an understanding of the technique of the scene and mixing 2, 4, 6 or even eight mics into one nice sounding track is a skill that I fear will be lost as producers and post production get cold feet about the ability of the sound mixer, and as skills are lost by attrition as we are allowed to do our good work less and less by the sloppy and hurried process of movie-making in the 2000s.  I just had a director tell me with a straight face that the way he proposed to get through his incredibly complicated pilot in 12 days (!!!!) was to use thre cameras "all the time."  I took a pass.

D.

[Philip Perkins]

Well, there is a whole school of thought that the way to "get through" cheap shows like that is to wire everybody and split out all the mics to separate tracks.  The result will sound like a Reality TV show.  If the producer and director are good with that, then let's go.  If they want their film to sound like the great films they studied in school, then they need to look at a more "classical" approach to their production sound.  Some of these people understand this and figure it is just another compromise they have to make to get the film done, others either don't know the difference, or actively like the lav mic sound.  Anymore, I often feel like I have to do the "lav on everyone in sight" thing so that then I have "permission " to also record the scene the way I want to (w/ booms and plants).  Generally, the booms end up getting used, even if they are maybe a little too far away, unless the situation has made it really impossible for them.  It's just so much faster to deal with (and cut. EQ, compress, NR and level) fewer tracks in post.  On a big film with a big sound crew, some post people feel that they just need clean words, and they'll do the rest.  I can see this for big action movies, but for a more intimate "actor" film it seems like the wrong approach, but it is a popular one.

Philip Perkins

[Guest tourtelot]

Mic'ing up 8 actors is a lot of work for an (often) two person team to go through if the sound editors are going to use the good sounding booms.  Anyone with any experience in a nice (ie. didn't get fired) way to persuade the post super, director, and/or producers that your mix will be the best sound for their picture?  I actually just worked with a director who, while he didn't understand the dialog capture procedure, he knew that he had been taught that the "real directors" liked the classic approach for sound, and fortunately, trusted me enough to deliver.  The most important thing for him was not to be recorded saying the f-word.  His employers were not big on hearing that and he made me promise to "protect him from himself" which I, happily, did.

D.

[ptalsky]

Okay, I guess this is where I'm lucky that I primarily work on ultra-low-budget, newby director types of projects.  They almost always use my mix without issue.  Unfortunately this will sometimes include the takes that I mark with a giant "X" in my log (as in, don't use this take, period).  Then I have to go through the process of explaining to them that they do not want to use the audio take where the actor decided on this take to scream at the top of his lungs rather than the controlled scream that he had been doing.  Oh well...there always appear to be trade-offs.

Phil

[Jeff Wexler]

Both Doug and Phil make very good points here and what I see is that the jobs that are probably the most problematical are the the jobs in the middle --- not the ultra-low budget, first time directors or the high budget, veteran directors --- both these extremes have their virtues. In the low budget newbie world, the sound mixer may be one of a very few knowledgeable people and you will actually be in a better position to dictate from a position of expertise (and the whole production can benefit). On the higher budget movies, assuming an experienced director (who, at the very least, was smart enough to hire an equally experienced sound team) you will be allowed to do the right thing more often than not. It is the medium ground, with a director who has had a little bit of experience (and makes up for ignorance with liberal doses of arrogance), a project that is "budget challenged" and under-scheduled, where "solutions" are often proposed by production managers and assistant directors who really don't have much of a clue.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Noah Timan]

Anyone with any experience in a nice (ie. didn't get fired) way to persuade the post super, director, and/or producers that your mix will be the best sound for their picture?

It's my experience (from conversations with dialog editors and supes) that it's not really necessary to persuade them -- they're already on your team.  Most sound editors are not going to take the time out of their busy schedule to load, pick through, reassemble, and remix numerous split tracks when your mix sounds great in the first place.  It's when the mix is problematic (or, if the schedule allows for the luxury, simply could be improved upon) that these tracks become necessary, or if no mix exists at all.  Just as we would rather use one mic than nine, so they would rather deal with one track than nine. 

The only other good and common instance of utilizing splits I can think of (when the mix is fine) is to reduce background noise -- often when in an extremely noisy location (next to the highway, on 5th Avenue, etc) and working with lav tracks, A/Bing the split lav tracks results in better S/N than using a live mix where both mics were basically left open, thereby doubling the BG noise.

[Jeff Wexler]

It's my experience (from conversations with dialog editors and supes) that it's not really necessary to persuade them -- they're already on your team.

I do know of some instances where the issue of multitrack did result, in two separate cases, someone NOT being hired and someone being FIRED. In both cases it was over the issue of NOT providing a mix but rather just handing in a bunch of un-mixed pre-fader isolated tracks.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Noah Timan]

There are some who do 2 mixes, I guess, sending one mix to Track 1 and some other mix to Track 2. I do not entirely understand this and have never done it.

I didn't really get this either at first when hearing so much mention of it in discussions, but Billy Sarokin reminded me on RAMPS that there are times when the two cameras are covering completely different action/dialogue simultaneously and the mix for each camera's shot is not the same.  In this case, sometimes you need a seperate mix for each shot, and both of those should go to dailies.  Hence the "two track dailies mix".

There are others, like me, who still try valiently to mix everything just as if we only had the ONE track, and I have to say that I really do not like referring to this one track as "the dailies mix". It is my sincere feeling that we need to continue to consider this mix very important and not just because editorial needs to have something right away to get started with. What I have found is that if the nature of the productiion is such that everyone is trying to do so much on every single setup and so many sources are needed that a good mix cannot be had, it is more than likely that a good mix will not be possible, even later in the comfort of sound editorial suite. In all fairness to those who only make a slop mix, I do understand why this is the approach, and it is fortunate that providing the additional discreet tracks gives the people in post a chance to do their mix later.

Another reason to work hard to make a dedicated mix is that post is not necessarily prepared nor budgeted with enough time to remix all of the production tracks from scratch with your iso feeds.   In an ideal world, the post team could take advantage of all of the tools and the ability to automate and go back and tweak and fix a mix, and sit around massaging the dialogue mix to perfection before even going to the dubbing stage.  In the real world, these folks are often under the same kind of ridiculous time pressure that we are under on set (or worse).  They are dealing with producers who have either completely underbudgeted the sound edit, are running out of money by that late stage of the filmmaking process, have an inflexible deadline to deliver a finished product and meet a pre-agreed upon release date, or any combination of the above.  Though the potential they possess for control (dealing with mixing elements of a recording, as opposed to a live occurrence, where one can stop, go back, fix things, etc) is superior to ours, there is often no resource of time to realize this potential.  So, aside of your very wise comments about a mix that doesn't work on set potentially not working in post either, we also can help out our brothers and sisters in post by getting it right the first time.  It may also help the overall movie and create more time for creative sound design, rather than dialogue repair.  And if that's not possible, or we screw it up and miss a cue or whatever, THEN that technology is in place for them to repair our mistakes or inabilities on set by delivering the isos.

[Bartek]

In the low budget world you as a mixer are in a position to contribute greatly to the production. If you can nail a good mono mix you can speed up the post process a great deal, keep the editor happy (future jobs!), and ensure that some intern is not put in charge of mixing of your tracks. If you are diligent with track assingment you can provide a great mono mix that meets your personal over ambitious standards and protect yourself if things go wrong,  I've alvays treated the additional tracks as back up!

On sound devices 744T and 442 combination I pan all wireless left, boom / hardwired mics in the center.

Track 1 Mono Mix

Track 2 Boom / Hard-Wire Post Fader

Track 3 Iso Pre Fader

Track 4 Iso Pre Fader

Of course this is not written in stone and being flexible and able to adjust routing on the fly is a part of the game.  Planning ahead is the key.

Bartek