4/6 channel recorder hysteria
Thomas Beach
where multi-channel recorders are concerned. I scoffed... dare I
say... laughed at what I referred to as a boat anchor when I first
read the posted reviews of the then, new Nagra V. Two-channel? What's
wrong with these guys, I thought. And admittedly, the ORB Drive
probably deserved every negative comment it received. Well, I'm
taking it all back. I read an article recently in Audio Media in
which a symposium of post-production sound editors were asked their
opinions regarding production sound. A very enlightening article, all
of them said essentially the same thing. Just give me good solid
two-track production masters and I'm satisfied. In fact, there was a
noticible sense of irascibility amongst them concerning the issue.
Two points in the discussion struck me as salient. Firstly, if the
production sound mixer knows what he's doing, then typical two-channel
split mixes will be more than satisfactory, as they always have been.
Secondly, it was pointed out that when they are presented with four or
six individual tracks, the post sound engineers have to spend
additional amounts of expensive studio time initiating a two-channel
mix before they can begin their own work. In essence, they have to
perform the work of the production mixer who has now been relegated to
little more than an audio routing technician. This of course
translates into a lot of extra time in post, which of course leads to
bigger bills for sound. Almost to a man, each of these gentlemen said
that good two-track audio by a competent mixer is all that is needed
in almost any situation, be it TV production or feature films. There
was mention of an occasionally desired third track which from time to
time would be nice or helpful. But this was the exception and not the
norm.
I realize there are probably very good reasons for dedicated four and
six channel machines. And I would enjoy hearing from others where
machines such as the PD-6, Cantar, Portadrive, Deva, 744T and others
can best be utilized. But I'd like to pose a question. Is more,
simply because it is easily had, better? Because the more I think on
it, the more I find myself revisiting my initial panning of the Nagra
V. After all, is it really likely that a company with such venerable
and innovative products in the past, could miss the mark by such a
wide margin as to find themselves the sole 2-channel entry in the
non-linear, field recorder market? I don't think so. To paraphrase
one panelist, lets put the 'mix' back in mixer. And as someone who is
in the market for a non-linear recorder in 2004, I am attempting to
make the best decision for my clients and myself as possible. Any and
all input is greatly appreciated.
Tom Beach
Charles Tomaras
"Thomas Beach" <film...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f3dabce.04011...@posting.google.com...
"Put the mix back in mixer" is all fine and dandy but the rules and the
tools have all changed in recent years. We are faced with multiple cameras
from multiple angles. Reality shoots with unscripted talent jumping in and
out of cars, beds, planes, and all other manner of contrivance. Ever
increasing noise and rf pollution. Increased needs for additional headsets
and feeds. More demands on the mixer with less help due to squeezed budgets.
If we all had scripts, boom operators, utility people and two extra hands
that would be great but that is usually not the case. I feel my job is to
present the cleanest audio elements I can to post production and not to tie
their hands with "only my best live mix" if I can provide additional
solutions for them. My only muti-track solution at this time is a DA-78
which I rarely use due to it's cumbersome nature. I'm looking forward to the
additional possibilities that this year's likely purchase of a truly
portable location recorder will bring me as I've had my hands tied by two
track recording on far too many shoots lately where compromises had to be
made because of the limitations of the two track format. They aren't
requiring the film or video to be mixed or edited in the field....why is
this somehow a requirement of sound given the increasingly difficult
situations we encounter? These post sound engineers have every tool
imaginable to make their jobs easier and more precise, including automation
and the luxury of a 2nd chance, yet they want us to do the mix for them as
well!
Jeff Wexler
amount of thought and attention. Thomas Beach does a very good job of
illustrating certain aspects of this subject but most importantly, Charles
Tomaras follows with a vivid description of the reality of production sound
recording.
Here follows some of my comments:
On 1/11/04 8:17 PM, in article FbCdnfWSTol...@comcast.com, "Charles
Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
> "Thomas Beach" <film...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7f3dabce.04011...@posting.google.com...
>> I confess that I initially jumped onto the 'more is better' bandwagon
>> where multi-channel recorders are concerned. I scoffed... dare I
>> say... laughed at what I referred to as a boat anchor when I first
>> read the posted reviews of the then, new Nagra V. Two-channel?
The reasons for Nagra coming late to the table with a non-linear recorder
are quite complex, but the choice to limit the Nagra V to a 2-track machine
I think came about more out of a hope that 2 tracks would be enough. There
was the hope that the demands of production sound recording would not
dictate that we would all need more than 2 tracks, and I think they were
wrong. By presenting a machine with only 2 tracks it was not going to turn
the tide back towards the old days when so many other elements were more
reasonable and ONE track was always enough (because that is all there was!).
>> I read an article recently in Audio Media in
>> which a symposium of post-production sound editors were asked their
>> opinions regarding production sound. A very enlightening article, all
>> of them said essentially the same thing. Just give me good solid
>> two-track production masters and I'm satisfied.
Many of the people in post production have given up on the expectation that
they will receive production recordings that make sense, whether it be 1
track, 2 tracks or 8 tracks. Picture editors, in fact, have also had to
suffer with multiple "tracks" (many cameras shooting all at once, trying to
"capture" the master shot AND all the coverage all at the same time) and
they long for the good old days when they had 7000 feet of dailies, a scene
well covered with lots of choices, rather than 30,000 feet of dailies and
not one angle that actually cuts nicely. Of course the people in sound
editorial would like to have one "solid two-track production" recording, but
often this is just not possible to deliver.
>> Two points in the discussion struck me as salient. Firstly, if the
>> production sound mixer knows what he's doing, then typical two-channel
>> split mixes will be more than satisfactory, as they always have been.
Not true. Even if the production sound mixer knows what he's doing if no one
else working with this mixer, the director, the actors, the location
manager, the cinematographer, knows what they are doing, the mixer will not
be able to deliver satisfactory tracks as he may have been able to provide
in the past.
>> Secondly, it was pointed out that when they are presented with four or
>> six individual tracks, the post sound engineers have to spend
>> additional amounts of expensive studio time initiating a two-channel
>> mix before they can begin their own work.
Much of this "additional amounts of expensive studio time" can be avoided if
the production sound mixer is allowed to do his job and record things
properly on whatever equipment/recorder will get the job done.
>>In essence, they have to
>> perform the work of the production mixer who has now been relegated to
>> little more than an audio routing technician.
This approach to movie sound recording has not come so much from mixers
fighting for their lives, but from directors and producers who do not
understand recording sound for picture. Many of these directors and
producers look at sound recording as rock and roll: put a mic on everything
that makes noise and some genius done the road (they mean the post
production crews) will make it all work. If you are recording a band that
really doesn't play very well, you may be able to create some kind of music
later if you put all the elements on as many tracks as you can muster, but
this is NOT the way movies should be made. The number of times in my career
I have heard a director say to me, while trying to solve some problem,
"can't you just put that on another track?" as if that was some sort of
panacea. Directors always look for "technical" solutions to their real or
perceived problems, when just going over to an actor and telling them to be
quiet when they are off camera would solve the problem.
>> Almost to a man, each of these gentlemen said
>> that good two-track audio by a competent mixer is all that is needed
>> in almost any situation, be it TV production or feature films.
When these "gentleman" actually receive "good two-track audio" of course it
is what they prefer, but being able to deliver this is NOT a measure of the
competency of the mixer but rather the "competency" of the production. There
are many times when if limited to 2 tracks, the people in post would have
nothing useful to deal with from the production tracks.
>> I realize there are probably very good reasons for dedicated four and
>> six channel machines.
There certainly is: without the additional tracks, EVERYONE'S hands are
tied, and the sound track will suffer.
>>And I would enjoy hearing from others where
>> machines such as the PD-6, Cantar, Portadrive, Deva, 744T and others
>> can best be utilized. But I'd like to pose a question. Is more,
>> simply because it is easily had, better?
No, of course not. Garbage is garbage whether it arrives at your doorstep in
one bag or 8 bags. For the production mixer to limit his or her options by
having only 2 tracks available, because the machine can only record 2
tracks, is not right. Proper utilization of the additional tracks (and I
would call ALL tracks beyond ONE to be additional tracks) can be an absolute
savior for the soundtrack.
The best practice in my experience, no matter how many tracks you have
available, is to pretend that you only have ONE track. When you talk about
putting the "mix" back in the mixer, for me it never was taken out. I used a
mono Nagra for years even after everyone else had gone on to the stereo
Nagra, but I was on mostly jobs where I could quite successfully deliver ONE
GOOD track and that was all that was needed. When I first used a DAT machine
in production, it recorded 2 tracks (of course) but that is because I
couldn't tell it not to. With multi-track recorders like the Deva I have
used for 5 years, I didn't change my style of mixing: I still delivered the
best mono mix I could on track 1. What IS different now, with so many tracks
available and so easily, is I can put all the elements that went into my
"hero mix" onto other tracks so that someone else can later make their hero
mix, if they have the time and money in the "expensive studios" in post
production. How can this be a bad thing, and why would I want to limit that
facility by having a Nagra V with only 2 tracks?
>> After all, is it really likely that a company with such venerable
>> and innovative products in the past, could miss the mark by such a
>> wide margin as to find themselves the sole 2-channel entry in the
>> non-linear, field recorder market? I don't think so.
They did miss the mark, unfortunately, and it is our loss but more so it is
Nagra's loss and Nagra's miscalculation. You have to remember that this is
from a company that built its reputation and its business on the Nagra audio
recorders, but has not relied on that product line for the last 20 years.
Nagra's bread and butter is top secret microwave surveillance gear for many
of the military establishments of several countries, and several other
product lines we don't even know about. The audio recorders I believe have
been built more for nostalgic reasons and issues of legacy pride in our
industry, and their hearts are not in it. In my early conversations with the
Nagra representatives regarding the use of Orb technology for the Nagra V, I
expressed real reservations about that decision, but was assured that a
company such as Nagra, with the history of dedication to thoroughly
researched innovative products, they knew what they were doing... they were
right and I was wrong, right? The rest is history.
>> To paraphrase
>> one panelist, lets put the 'mix' back in mixer.
I am completely in favor of putting the "mix" back in the mixer
(particularly in those ever increasing cases where the mixer has been
relegated to someone who is just laying down tracks) but it is very safe to
say that this will NOT happen by merely choosing a recorder with only 2
tracks. If Nagra is hoping that this counter-productive trend, taking the
"mix" out of the mixer, can be reversed by limiting their offering to only 2
tracks, they are even more out of the current loop than I thought.
>>And as someone who is
>> in the market for a non-linear recorder in 2004, I am attempting to
>> make the best decision for my clients and myself as possible. Any and
>> all input is greatly appreciated.
Buy a Deva V (10 tracks) and only use as many as you think you need. At
least the recorder will never hold you back. My present Deva has 4 tracks
but I freely admit (and proudly as well) that 90 percent of the 10 feature
films I have done I only used ONE track. But that's me. Others might have
done things much differently but the recorder of choice would not have been
the determining factor.
I think what Charles has said below is MOST relevant as it paints the
picture of the working recording environment many of us are faced with.
>
> "Put the mix back in mixer" is all fine and dandy but the rules and the
> tools have all changed in recent years. We are faced with multiple cameras
> from multiple angles. Reality shoots with unscripted talent jumping in and
> out of cars, beds, planes, and all other manner of contrivance. Ever
> increasing noise and rf pollution. Increased needs for additional headsets
> and feeds. More demands on the mixer with less help due to squeezed budgets.
And, I might add, increasing lack of knowledge from directors, producers
and others as to how to solve problems "on the day" and an impatience that
drives them to declare: "just give me whatever you can get..." and they
will deal with it later. The "it" that they often have to deal with later is
a mess, whether it is 1 track, or 2 or 10.
> They aren't
> requiring the film or video to be mixed or edited in the field....why is
> this somehow a requirement of sound given the increasingly difficult
> situations we encounter? These post sound engineers have every tool
> imaginable to make their jobs easier and more precise, including automation
> and the luxury of a 2nd chance, yet they want us to do the mix for them as
> well!
The good people in post are well aware of the state of affairs in today's
world, and I would say that almost ALL of the people I have dealt with have
been very kind and understanding, and have been extremely appreciative of
most all of the efforts we make during production to deliver well recorded,
useful tracks to post. As a production sound person, I have also been very
sensitive to the changing trends in post as well. They have decreasing
budgets, no time to do anything properly, they are expected to work miracles
(because after all, the work on the soundtrack is the last thing a director
or producer can do to "save" as movie that is in trouble), and so forth.
This is NOT a simple issue of how many tracks are available for the
production sound mixer. My advice would be, to protect an investment in any
non-linear recorder, buy the most fully featured recorder you can afford
that has enough track count to be able to record discreet elements of your
mix: if you typically require on many of your jobs, 4 wireless microphones,
a boom mic and a plant, you should have available at a minimum, 7 tracks.
Not that you would always have to use all 7 but how would you feel if you
knew that it was the best way to go and you just could not do it because you
bought a Nagra V in the hopes you would never need more than 2 tracks?
Regards, Jeff Wexler
William Sarokin
> which a symposium of post-production sound editors were asked their
> opinions regarding production sound. A very enlightening article, all
> of them said essentially the same thing. Just give me good solid
> two-track production masters and I'm satisfied.
I've had sound editors livid because I split tracks. Many of them only want
a mono mix and nothing else. They don't answer when I ask what I should do
when 2 cameras are shooting 2 different shots sometimes of 2 different
actors. I've found that for the most part film sound editors like a good
mono mix (or split tracks for 2 cameras) and as much as possible, iso mics
on additional tracks to call on if needed down the line. Music guys love it
if you put as many live mics as possible out there, even during playback
scenes, to get the little accents and ad libs from the performers. Anyway,
times have changed from the mono Nagra days. As much as possible we should
give the editors a good solid mix but also, as much as possible, give them
unmixed tracks so they can correct any problems.
Secondly, it was pointed out that when they are presented with four or
> six individual tracks, the post sound engineers have to spend
> additional amounts of expensive studio time initiating a two-channel
> mix before they can begin their own work.
Most production mixers do a one or 2 track mix as well as run multi track.
The editors only have to pull the mix track if they don't want to do any
additional work. The new decks offer from 6 to 10 tracks. This allows us
to do a 1 or 2 track mix and still give each mic it's own channel to cover
the missed fades, the adlibbed lines, the clothing noise, the buried rf mic
on the hug, etc.
In essence, they have to
> perform the work of the production mixer who has now been relegated to
> little more than an audio routing technician.
If that's how they see it they should get out more.
>Almost to a man, each of these gentlemen said
> that good two-track audio by a competent mixer is all that is needed
> in almost any situation, be it TV production or feature films.
In 1950 maybe. Not today.
There
> was mention of an occasionally desired third track which from time to
> time would be nice or helpful. But this was the exception and not the
> norm.
Ohh, I get it, when we have a 6 page scene on the streets of NY with 10
characters we should reserve 1 track for the one character who we know in
advance might ad lib a line. Yeah right.
. Is more,
> simply because it is easily had, better?
C'mon, give us a little respect here. We are professionals.
To paraphrase
> one panelist, lets put the 'mix' back in mixer.
It never left.
And as someone who is
> in the market for a non-linear recorder in 2004, I am attempting to
> make the best decision for my clients and myself as possible. Any and
> all input is greatly appreciated.
Tom, it all depends on the kind of work you do. In a controlled studio
environment where the actors hit their marks and stick to the script, then
yes, 1 track is enough. On a dramatic film, shot on location, with scenes
with many characters who ad lib and consider their marks to be rough
guidelines, then no. 1 track is not enough. Sure, if you're lucky and fast
and the gods are with you, you can get a perfect mix on the take that
everyone likes. But more likely than not they'll do 10 steadicam takes
where the camera blows it, but on the 11th, when camera is perfect, actor 3
will decide to adlib a line, actor 4 will hug actress 2 and bury both their
mics, actor 7 will miss one cue and throw his line in at another point, etc.
And the director will love it all. In those cases you can either record one
track and yell 'Sound Needs another (and another and another)', or you can
run multi track and let the sound editor fill in what was lost in your mix
from the iso tracks. Your call.
Billy Sarokin.
DJS
right, as they have in the past with the V. The ORB is ancient history, a
blip on the landscape, in this wonderful machines lifespan. The BBC are
looking at buying 100 of them. Review one as soon as possible, and use one,
you will not look back.
David
"Thomas Beach" <film...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f3dabce.04011...@posting.google.com...
Rob€rto
wrote:
> I read an article recently in Audio Media in
>which a symposium of post-production sound editors were asked their
>opinions regarding production sound. A very enlightening article, all
>of them said essentially the same thing. Just give me good solid
>two-track production masters and I'm satisfied.
Which of course sounds very logical to me, because it's easy to work
with, and gives them more time to be creative, or something...
But...
>Two points in the discussion struck me as salient. Firstly, if the
>production sound mixer knows what he's doing, then typical two-channel
>split mixes will be more than satisfactory, as they always have been.
Now that was and is not really the case. DA *8's , 2 DAT's, Nagra D,
Minidisc, everything was used to get more tracks. The fact that you
did not always had them, does not mean you did not need them.
I can show you actual prove of features i did, where the more tracks (
3, or 4 ) absolutely saved the take. And not saved as clean, but saved
as in , I got the live sound, the live performance, and both director
and talent loved me for that. I didn;t have to tell them the bad news
that serious phasing, or difference in background was the actual
F*ckup.
>Secondly, it was pointed out that when they are presented with four or
>six individual tracks, the post sound engineers have to spend
>additional amounts of expensive studio time initiating a two-channel
>mix before they can begin their own work.
I believe that's true. But maybe they ( post ) forget that *i* am on
the set, where the actual talent is performing, and then i do not mean
only for sound. There are a lot of things happening around a camera,
and 1 of them is Sound. To keep that flow going, more tracks sometimes
do miracles.
>In essence, they have to
>perform the work of the production mixer who has now been relegated to
>little more than an audio routing technician.
Well, i think this might be true when you get sound from a newbie, who
does not really know how to do it, and sees the amount of tracks as
his/hers lifesaver.
And yes, post has good reasons to look cautious, these things will
happen a lot more when these new machines are more common.
>This of course
>translates into a lot of extra time in post, which of course leads to
>bigger bills for sound.
True.
> Almost to a man, each of these gentlemen said
>that good two-track audio by a competent mixer is all that is needed
>in almost any situation, be it TV production or feature films. There
>was mention of an occasionally desired third track which from time to
>time would be nice or helpful. But this was the exception and not the
>norm.
On my last feature 70 % was 1 track, 10 % was 2, and 20 was 3 , 4, and
3 times 5 track. Now, in the old days, you delivered 1 Nagra D tape,
or 2 DAT tapes when things got tricky. I never heard any complaints.
> But I'd like to pose a question. Is more,
>simply because it is easily had, better?
No, and yes.
-Yes, If you can get it for the same price tag, and it has the same
quality, yes, more is better. By the way, just more tracks does not
mean a "'better"' recorder, i think every mixer will understand that.
-No, because for a lot of things 1, or 2 tracks are enough.
>Because the more I think on
>it, the more I find myself revisiting my initial panning of the Nagra
>V.
You are not the only one who thinks this. I also talk to soundmixers
who definitely don;t want a 6, 8, or whatever tracker, they just like
to have 2, maybe 4 for the cases where things go wrong.
I 'm very curious how the market will develop in the next 5 years & I
wonder how many "'budget'' models will appear.
> After all, is it really likely that a company with such venerable
>and innovative products in the past, could miss the mark by such a
>wide margin as to find themselves the sole 2-channel entry in the
>non-linear, field recorder market? I don't think so.
Well, they started with the 4 track Nagra D in 1991 (!), or 2, so they
know that more than 2 tracks can sometimes be very use full :-)
The D was "'upgraded"' to a 24/96 version around 2000, and i do not
think the V was meant to replace the D. The V is in fact a pumped up
ARES, and that was designed for press & reporter use.
But i also would not be surprised if Nagra will enter the market in 2
or 3 years with some $mashing Multitrack HD.
>To paraphrase
>one panelist, lets put the 'mix' back in mixer. And as someone who is
>in the market for a non-linear recorder in 2004, I am attempting to
>make the best decision for my clients and myself as possible. Any and
>all input is greatly appreciated.
Also, don't forget, Mfg's have put money in this, competition is
suddenly much bigger then before, and they like to get this back, and
even make a good living of it.
Therefore you will see ( and see ) a lot of Promotalk about
more=better=cheaper from various sources in various media.
So, as usual, all depends on your budget, and your personal way of
working, and the sort of business you are in. Filling tracks because
you have them is ( and always was ) a very stupid thing to do, but you
cannot blame the machine for that :-)
Roberto ( who thinks that soundwise my Nagra 4-2 could still do a
fantastic job on a lot of jobs, the only problem that they don't have
one in post )
Alan Chong
> know that more than 2 tracks can sometimes be very use full :-)
> The D was "'upgraded"' to a 24/96 version around 2000, and i do not
> think the V was meant to replace the D. The V is in fact a pumped up
> ARES, and that was designed for press & reporter use.
> But i also would not be surprised if Nagra will enter the market in 2
> or 3 years with some $mashing Multitrack HD.
Not sure about Nagra but Stellavox is doing something soon with Stelladata
recorder.
The Stelladata Portable Recorder
in project
Using extremely dense Flash memory technology for on-the-site recording. 2
or 4 channels recording. Built-in microphone mixer. 45 minutes autonomy in
96kHz 24bits 2 channels or 4 hours in 44.1kHz 16 bits mono. Fast downloading
to any computer-based recording Studio or to a local laptop by fast
Ethernet. Built-in cellular modem for data transmission from a remote
location when a computer is not accessible (news, etc...). Firewire
input/output.
http://www.stellavox.com/products.html
Alan Chong
Steve Grider
approach a project, whether it be mixed or multi-tracked, depends on
that particular project. I always make it a point to get with the
producer and post production to find this info out before I get on
set. I've done low-budget affairs in which they had no time for audio
post and I've mixed to two tracks. I've done features that scheduled
a month in post audio and I multi-tracked it. If your going to buy a
new recorder, buy more tracks than two. Better to have it and not
need it than to need it and not have it. (p.s. I bought the Deva
before I bought the DAT).
Frank Kruse
with the perfect final dialog stem on set. So why even bother about 2
tracks!?
I heard lots of dialog editors complain about the work when they get
deva shoots (as I myself being an editor and a recordist). You don愒
have to be a genious to find out that having to browse through 6
tracks of production sound takes six times as long as listening to one
track. but: you might find a lot better possibilities to edit on 6
tracks that on one.
Then there are editors that say that in the old days they got 2 tracks
of unusable sound, now they get 6 tracks of those. Someone allways
complains...
All this has nothing to do with the fact that you can record to
multiple tracks but the way you make use of them.
frank.
Stiletto2
scene (And a 46 channel mixer) for 47 on-screen speaking roles in the opening
long-take... what then?
Anthony Litton
always cut knowing how long the mix is going to be. If it's a big Hollywood
style movie that'll be mixing for months, I'll go wide and leave a lot of
options, and if there are only 3 days allotted for the dialogue premix I'll
make a lot of decisions and do a lot of volume graphing.
If I have a long time to cut, then it's great that the mixer can provide a
lot of tracks, thereby increasing the chances of getting the best possible
production sound. I'll have time to listen to them all and present the best
to the stage. But if I'm up against the wire, with changes coming thick and
fast and not enough time to do anything properly, then all those tracks seem
like a curse.
It's ironic that it's the low budget, tight schedule movies are the ones
that need the most work, but it's always the way. Those times when you don't
have the proper time or support to do the best mix onto one or two tracks
are usually the times when that's what we really need!
Anthony Litton
Frank Kruse wrote:
> It´s even less work for the editor when you only record 1 mono track
> with the perfect final dialog stem on set. So why even bother about 2
> tracks!?
>
> I heard lots of dialog editors complain about the work when they get
> deva shoots (as I myself being an editor and a recordist). You don´t
William Sarokin
patch (lets say I blew the mix and opened the wrong characters mic) and the
sound reports say 'pre-fade main boom on DVD track 5', is it easier,
cheaper, and/or quicker to loop the line or pull it from the dvd? I know
sometimes tagging something for looping is easier for the sound editor
because it sends it out of their hands and into someone elses. On a low
budget picture with a short sound post schedule which would you do?
Billy Sarokin
"Anthony Litton" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:btupii$bog39$1...@ID-168665.news.uni-berlin.de...
Anthony Litton
provided a mono (or minimally split) mix, with the other tracks available as
backup if needs be. More inexperienced mixers (who you're more likely to get
on a low budget show) can use multiple tracks as an excuse not to mix at
all, and that's what I'm moaning about. I don't have any problem with the
technology - I wouldn't for a moment suggest that you should be *forced* to
limit yourselves to one or two tracks - I just have a problem with the way
the technology can be used. It's a case, to quote Peter Parker's uncle Ben,
of "with great power comes great responsibility". So I suppose in the end it
all comes down to responsibility and professionalism. Doesn't everything?
And in answer to your question, even if there was no other track I'd
probably be trawling through outtakes to try and replace the syllable, word
or phrase that was missed rather than go immediately to ADR. More ADR means
more cutting time and more mixing time!
--
Anthony
William Sarokin
all, though I do know of one award winning mixer who doesn't mix either.
His theory is that the post mixer can always do a better job than the
production mixer because there are no surprises in post and you have the
luxury of re-do's. The reason he didn't provide a 'slop' mix was because he
didn't want to waste a track. Now that we easily have up to 10 tracks
available that should never be an issue.
Billy
Rob€rto
>Not sure about Nagra but Stellavox is doing something soon with Stelladata
>recorder.
>
>The Stelladata Portable Recorder
>http://www.stellavox.com/products.html
Let's hope they do better than the Stelladat 1 :-)
But the more machines, the better i think.
R
Thomas Beach
>
> There
There what? Your sarcasm serves no useful purpose to the discussion.
> . Is more,
> > simply because it is easily had, better?
>
> C'mon, give us a little respect here. We are professionals.
I'm sorry you took a legitimate question as an insult to your
professionalism Billy. Me thinks your too defensive.
>
> Tom, it all depends on the kind of work you do. In a controlled studio
> environment where the actors hit their marks and stick to the script, then
> yes, 1 track is enough. On a dramatic film, shot on location, with scenes
> with many characters who ad lib and consider their marks to be rough
> guidelines, then no. 1 track is not enough. Sure, if you're lucky and fast
> and the gods are with you, you can get a perfect mix on the take that
> everyone likes. But more likely than not they'll do 10 steadicam takes
> where the camera blows it, but on the 11th, when camera is perfect, actor 3
> will decide to adlib a line, actor 4 will hug actress 2 and bury both their
> mics, actor 7 will miss one cue and throw his line in at another point, etc.
> And the director will love it all. In those cases you can either record one
> track and yell 'Sound Needs another (and another and another)', or you can
> run multi track and let the sound editor fill in what was lost in your mix
> from the iso tracks. Your call.
>
> Billy Sarokin.
I recently studied "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" which as I'm
sure you are aware, was mixed entirely on the Nagra V. I don't know
Billy, but there sure was an awful lot going on with that film (BTW
the mixer said that from the outset, he knew this film had absolutely
no ADR budget), and the mixer not only did a great job with it, but
only raved about the Nagra V as his tool of choice. One feature is
not the end-all. But it seems to beg the question of whether some US
mixers are convincing themselves that they are unable to do the work
they used to do without the latest bells and whistles. Will we be
having this same conversation, trashing the notion of using a puny
10-track box when 24-track field recorders become available?
There. :)
Tom Beach
Brad Harper
Brad Harper
"Thomas Beach" <film...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Eric Pierce
Sorry for sticking my neck out here, but the "there" in question is your
word, not Billy's. It just got bumped out of the quote line. Just
didn't want to see this discussion go the wrong way because of such a
misunderstanding...
For my part, I mix mostly to DA-88/9, but it is my mono mix that makes
it to air. Having mics on there own channel pre-fade has saved me on
many ad-libs. I just make a note about ad-lib from such and such actor
on page X on track Y, so the picture editor knows that the line can be
pulled up on the dubbing stage and they will know right where to find it.
I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't provide a production track. What do
they do for dailies? What does the picture editor use?
Eric Pierce
William Sarokin
> professionalism Billy. Me thinks your too defensive.
I plead guilty. But I've been hearing this for 4 years ever since I started
using the Nagra D. Over the past year or so post has finally 'come around'
(as they did with DAT 12 years ago and the Nagra 40 years ago). I thought
we were over the hump, so I was surprised from your post that it sounded
like we were back at square one. I do apologize for over reacting.
Re: "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels", are you sure he used a Nagra V?
The film was shot in 1997. Perhaps he used a Nagra D. But whatever he
used, all our machines are tools to get a job done with the least disruption
to the set and with the least amount of looping in post. If you only have
one track you will need more time in production, more takes and more
cooperation from the director. Of course that is the ideal, but it rarely
happens. In the long run it's cheaper for a sound editor to listen to
another track to pick up a line than it is for a cast and crew of over 100
to take the time for another take to get something that already exists (if
you're running multi-track).
Billy Sarokin
William Sarokin
> >
> > There
>
> There what? Your sarcasm serves no useful purpose to the discussion.
I didn't think I was that insulting. ''There' was the first word of your
next sentence - 'There was mention of an...'
In 1950 maybe. Not today.
There
Rob€rto
<big...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I plead guilty. But I've been hearing this for 4 years ever since I started
>using the Nagra D. Over the past year or so post has finally 'come around'
>(as they did with DAT 12 years ago and the Nagra 40 years ago). I thought
>we were over the hump, so I was surprised from your post that it sounded
>like we were back at square one. I do apologize for over reacting.
Nah, but he does have a point that these more tracks machines will be,
or can be a problem for post.
Thats his point, and imo, a valid one.
You have sound people who use a "'letter"' to find their way on a set.
Maybe Post should make one to, for the same people :-)
R
William Sarokin
"Rob?rto" <Eigenl...@biertjedoen.com> wrote in message
news:m4a60057m3a1c0qti...@4ax.com...
>>
> Nah, but he does have a point that these more tracks machines will be,
> or can be a problem for post.
> Thats his point, and imo, a valid one.
Sort of. I worked once with a Soviet cameraman who had such a small film
allotment he was essentially cutting in the camera. Which of course makes
fewer problems in post. In competant hands multi-track gives post the best
of both worlds. They get a decent mixed track and a place to go to correct
problems in the mix. I think what causes more problems in post are
non-professional camera and sound people (and directors). If I give the
editor 1 mixe track and 8 pre-fade tracks, 90% of the time he or she can use
the mix tracks, but the other 10% of the time I have to believe that it is
better for everyone if the editor looks at find solutions on the pre-fade
tracks rather than flagging a scene for looping.
Billy
Jeff Wexler
> "Thomas Beach" <film...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> I recently studied "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" which as I'm
>> sure you are aware, was mixed entirely on the Nagra V.
I don't think that is correct... I believe the Nagra V had not even been
produced when that film was in production.
>> I don't know
>> Billy, but there sure was an awful lot going on with that film (BTW
>> the mixer said that from the outset, he knew this film had absolutely
>> no ADR budget), and the mixer not only did a great job with it, but
>> only raved about the Nagra V as his tool of choice. One feature is
>> not the end-all. But it seems to beg the question of whether some US
>> mixers are convincing themselves that they are unable to do the work
>> they used to do without the latest bells and whistles.
This is nonsense. When I did "Bound For Glory" in 1975, there certainly was
"an awful lot going on with that film" with almost every scene having
dialog, live music numbers, fights and stunts, David Carradine singing "This
Land is Your Land" on top of a moving train... etc., etc., and that film
had NO ADR --- all production dialog, all live music, with all production
sound recorded on a mono Nagra --- that was the main machine that everyone
used at that time.
Professionals need to be informed, choose the best tools for the job, use
these tools properly and sensibly. To "re-consider" a 2-track recorder, the
Nagra V, just doesn't make any sense to me. Considering how mult-track
recording capabilities should be used in today's world of production sound
recording is a valuable exercise (which is what this thread has become and
that's okay) but having those discussions to stimulate an interest in the
Nagra V is not so useful.
>>Will we be
>> having this same conversation, trashing the notion of using a puny
>> 10-track box when 24-track field recorders become available?
>>
No, we won't be "trashing" anything in the future (and we're not trashing
anything now). We will, however, hopefully be discussing in the future
whatever tools are available to us, and how they can be used most
effectively to do our jobs.
Regards, Jeff Wexler
Dave
<snip>
> This is nonsense. When I did "Bound For Glory" in 1975, there certainly
was
> "an awful lot going on with that film" with almost every scene having
> dialog, live music numbers, fights and stunts, David Carradine singing
"This
> Land is Your Land" on top of a moving train... etc., etc., and that film
> had NO ADR --- all production dialog, all live music, with all production
> sound recorded on a mono Nagra --- that was the main machine that everyone
> used at that time.
Was this the first feature film to use the Steadicam?
(sorry for the temporary thread hijacking)
dave
Rob€rto
<big...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I think what causes more problems in post are
>non-professional camera and sound people (and directors).
That is what he is writing, isnt it ?
> If I give the
>editor 1 mixe track and 8 pre-fade tracks, 90% of the time he or she can use
>the mix tracks, but the other 10% of the time I have to believe that it is
>better for everyone if the editor looks at find solutions on the pre-fade
>tracks rather than flagging a scene for looping.
Yeah, you..But how about others.
R
Rob€rto
wrote:
> but having those discussions to stimulate an interest in the
>Nagra V is not so useful.
And that from you ? :-)
R
Randy Thom
He/she makes suggestions to the director and picture editor, and they
decide in most cases. What to loop is a very touchy issue because the
actor and director usually don't want to do any more looping than is
necessary. 90% of the time the director would rather use production if
it can be used.
Also, regarding the little poll of editors in the magazine...
Many dialog editors operate under the same delusion that many
directors operate under, which is that a great production mixer and
boom op can get great sound in ANY situation. If the editors had been
frank they probably would have said that though they love to get one
or two track mixes from the set, many of the one and two track mixes
they get are very, very bad. The reason they are bad, of course, is
not that the production mixer did a bad job. The reason is almost
always that the production mixer and boom op got little or no
cooperation from the rest of the crew.
In my opinion, the production sound team's main job is to record
usable dialog for the final mix. In noisy, chaotic situations I think
they are more likely to be able to get usable pieces by recording each
mic on its own track rather than trying to mix two, three, four, five,
six mics onto one or two tracks. Yes it's more expensive and more
work in post, but if a few production lines are saved that way then I
think it's worth it. Obviously, the people who control the money
strings have to be convinced of that, and the director can be a huge
help in that regard if he/she is willing.
RT
"Anthony Litton" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<btuufj$bit6j$1...@ID-168665.news.uni-berlin.de>...
William Sarokin
>
> > If I give the
> >editor 1 mixe track and 8 pre-fade tracks, 90% of the time he or she can
use
> >the mix tracks, but the other 10% of the time I have to believe that it
is
> >better for everyone if the editor looks at find solutions on the pre-fade
> >tracks rather than flagging a scene for looping.
>
> Yeah, you..But how about others.
With others it's probably 95% mix and 5% other tracks, and less attitude to
boot. (Does 'to boot' trasnlate? I don't mean 2 movies about U Boats)
Billy
Charles Tomaras
Gooch is listed as recordist so I'm not sure what his role actually was in
the opening scene. According to John Pritchet there where 23 or 24 tracks
in the opening scene. He told me the entire story about it one day a back in
the mid 90's when I pulled cable for him for a few weeks. I can't remember
everything. He did say that Altman tried to add one more actor/line at the
last minute and there were out of RF mics and channels to record it.
"Stiletto2" <stil...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040112132125...@mb-m13.aol.com...
Marc Wielage
(in message <E0rMb.12900$dp1....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>):
> I've found that for the most part film sound editors like a good
> mono mix (or split tracks for 2 cameras) and as much as possible, iso mics
> on additional tracks to call on if needed down the line.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
Speaking as a guy who has done telecine dailies before, I can comment that in
the past, if we're confronted with more than two channels with production
sound, we generally ask the editor (or the post supervisor) "what do you want
us to do with the extra channels of audio?"
A few years ago, in the case of HBO's 61* (with Deva location sound by Jeff
Wexler), we worked out a system where Jeff would warn us when he needed to
use more channels, and we'd make a note in the log so that the people doing
the Avid digitizing could set up for those specific scenes.
The rest of the time, we just mixed the stuff to mono for the work cassettes.
At the same time, we also made a simultaneous 24-bit Deva-compatible copy of
all the original isolated tracks with timecode that matched the dailes
sessions. This took some time and effort to work out, but we came up with an
efficient workflow after a day or two.
That way, everybody was satisfied: the post sound people got direct-digital
24-bit copies of the location soundtracks; the editors got a simple 2-track
mix; and we weren't forced to constantly have to worry about where the audio
was going (and why) during a hectic dailies transfer.
BTW: Note that many modern dailies nowadays are being transferred to DVCam,
which provides the flexibility of four 12-bit 32K channels (deemed to be
better-sounding than analog BetaSP). DVCam has the plus of having much
better picture and sound quality than BetaSP, plus it cues much faster and
the cassettes are smaller and easier to ship. This method has become the
norm for a lot of A-level feature Avid dailies, particularly those being
simultaneously transfered in HD for preview purposes.
--MFW
John Coffey
Just 3 or 4 years ago, there was generally an an almost militant
approach by post against multiple tracks. Confusion reigned as to how
to use them. The general consensus was that it would take too long to
listen to all the tracks and post's time constraints would never allow
for that.
That stance has softened now to a more realistic approach. Everyone is
now realizing that only the mixed track should
be used, unless there is a problem with the dialogue. Then and only
then would alternate tracks be examined to save a word or even a whole
scene.
Multiple tracks are just a useful tool to be implemented only when
needed. Co-incidentally, during this time, there has been an increasing
importance on multi-track due to films and tv being shot with multiple
cameras....on a regular basis. When there was one camera shooting a
close-up, there was a better chance that it would be recorded perfectly.
Now, there are often two tight shots filming at the same time as the
master, while the directors are ever more intolerant of re-shooting
takes for sound because a noise, ad-lib or over-lap ruined the audio.
For those who record reality tv shows, multiple cameras or multiple
characters make multi-track a necessity.
We have all shot with one track for many years, but the times are
changing and multi-track is no longer an indulgence.
John Coffey C.A.S.
http://www.coffeysound.com
Jeff Wexler
"Dave" <dav...@gte.net> wrote:
> Jeff....quick trivia question:
>
> <snip>
>> This is nonsense. When I did "Bound For Glory" in 1975, there certainly
> was
>> "an awful lot going on with that film"
>
> Was this the first feature film to use the Steadicam?
Absolutely... and I was the first mixer who had to record sync dialog with
the one-and-only Steadicam prototype that Garrett Brown brought to our set.
Garrett had built it completely himself and it was based on an un-blimped
Arri 2C with the mag repositioned at the end of a long trough that the film
traveled through. When Garrett first built the rig up in the camera truck
and came dancing down the stairs from the truck, camera floating in air, we
knew this was a device that would produce amazing film. I was not looking
forward to having to record sound around this very noisy camera but I was
determined to get good useable production sound to go with what I knew would
be historic shots. We did succeed, both with the images and the sound, and
it was wonderful.
Note: for anyone looking up my credit on "Bound For Glory" I am credited as
Special Sound Consultant. I had just gotten in the Union, paid my full
initiation dues of $3500., and was promptly told that I would be placed in
Group III seniority and would not be allowed to accept employment until ALL
the Group I and Group II's were working (a situation, I was told, had never
occurred in the history of the Local!). So, the I.A. required the production
to hire a stand-by mixer and refused to allow United Artists to credit me as
the Sound Mixer.
Regards, Jeff Wexler
David Glasser
TV production shot in South Australia on a working farm. This show
has no studio component whatsoever, and 10 of the 11 main unit days
per 2 episode block are multi camera. This production was recorded on
DAT, with 3 or more speaking parts per scene, sometimes as many as 7,
usually one hurried rehearsal, one camera wide and the other picking
off a single. I decided to use radio mics for each cast member after
persevering with 2 booms, one rehearsal, poor internal acoustics in
the farm houses, and actors who quite often mumbled their dialog or
ad-libbed profusely. Many times I was even unable to use the booms
once the cameras were in close-up due to high winds on the farm.
Recording all this onto 2 tracks gave many problems with overlaps,
radio mic splats when the cast were on horseback over 200 yards away,
and usually one or two takes. Rarely was time allowed to record wild
lines (So what's new ???). How I wish I were able to record
non-linear multi-track !!! In Australia we are expected to provide
100% usable dialog on a production of this type, a daunting task
considering the production location is in an area of high winds for
most of the year!!
I had previously spent 4 seasons on 'Farscape' for the sci-fi channel,
recording on DA-98, and had become very used to the multi-track
environment. It allowed the dialog editor to retrieve words or
syllables which may have been lost if that actor's mic had been
combined with others in a 2 track mix. Overlaps and ad-libs were
preserved. The dialog editor became so proficient over the course of
the production, it took very little time using Pro-Tools to pull out
the required tracks.
For the next season of 'McLeod's Daughters' I am hoping the producers
will entertain the thought of multi-track. As the shooting season
starts next June, I doubt the HHB Portadrive will be in general
release by then, and I am still not sure that the PD-6 will stand up
to the rigors of being bounced over paddocks and subjected to the
constant airborne dust propelled by the high winds every day !! (
Surprisingly, the camera dept. constantly produces beautiful images of
rural Australia, bathed in constant sunshine and serenity). Four
tracks would not be enough, which rules out the current Deva II and
SD-744T. What to do??
With today's shooting schedules and limited rehearsals with multiple
cameras, 2 tracks limit the location mixer's ability to provide sound
post with sufficient material to produce a clean dialog track. I
remember the early 70's when I was able to record a feature with a
mono Nagra and a mic on a stick. Those days are long gone. I welcome
the advent of multi track location recorders. They will not make me
lazy or mix less; they will be a very, very useful tool providing
better individual tracks for the editors.
Regards,
David Glasser ASSG
Production Sound Mixer,
Sydney, Australia.
Nico Louw
Nico Louw
Location Sound Recordist
South Africa
John Rowley
to be not up to the environmental and physical hazards. One of my rental
units went to Africa and stood up to the test. Fostex used their experience
of the PD2 and PD4 to design their multitrack unit, as well as Chris Munro
using DV40's for user input into the design of the PD6 then beta testing.
You can shake the hell out of it without upsetting recording, due to the ram
buffer and the specially built 8cm DVD-RAM drive, as well as the proprietary
Verify-Write function. Unless you want to record music at say 192kHz, I
think it's a machine you can rely on, otherwise I wouldn't have put my money
where my mouth is. Incidentally, at least with the Deva II, you can shake
it to bits without dropouts due to a similar ram buffer.
A colleague's PD4 was hit by a (salt water) wave. Later he told me the
one mistake he made was pulling it apart to clean it, thereby dislodging the
rubber seal under the front panel.
I don't have a vested interest in promoting the PD6 over say the HHB
Portadrive or SD744T. But I do know that since Fostex upgraded software and
hardware to around V2.3 with the PD4, I seem to have almost no problems with
failure. Given the build quality of Sound Devices mixers, I suspect that
the SD744T is going to be similar.
I wouldn't hang out until June to purchase a portable multitrack. All
the manufacturers will probably present new equipment at NAB in April, then
have these items coming off the production line around June. Personally I
wouldn't want to buy serial number one of anything. Also if you want to get
the McLeods producers to get their act together, you probably have to
educate them.
John Rowley, ASSG
in...@soundequip.com.au
www.soundequip.com.au
"David Glasser" <soun...@swiftdsl.com.au> wrote in message
news:9d652f10.04011...@posting.google.com...
Thomas Beach
No problem Billy. I apologize for my own sarcasm in my tit-for-tat
response. I respect your views and your input. I admit that I am a new
mixer and still climbing the curve. Not having the benefit of
apprenticeship to date, I reach out here for guidance and opinions.
For that, I am grateful. I realize the tools we choose to use are
dependant on many factors, and I'm just trying to sort out the
difference between what "needs" and "requirements" are. I confess that
my previous experiences over the years as a part time mixer involved
the use of the Nagra 4.2 and IV-STC. I also confess to being somewhat
slow to change, questioning whether new is better in all cases. As to
my "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" referrences, I drew that from
the articles link on Nagra's home page. Perhaps I misunderstood the
article. The article clearly states the mixer having used the Nagra V
on recent features, which I can't recall by name at the moment. But
the "Lock.." referrence may have been a header, siting prominent work
by this UK mixer, with the rest of the credits having been mixed to
the V. I'll double-check and post a follow up. Finally, I plead guilty
to my affinity for Nagra. Maybe I'm just letting my loyalties get in
the way of making a better choice as I prepare to buy a recorder this
year. If I didn't referrence the article I spoke of in my first post,
it was in Audio Media Magazine a few issues back. Also, all panelists
were UK post people, so perhaps they have a different perspective
regarding production sound. I suspect they do.
Regards,
Tom Beach
Thomas Beach
> > "Thomas Beach" <film...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> I recently studied "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" which as I'm
> >> sure you are aware, was mixed entirely on the Nagra V.
>
> I don't think that is correct... I believe the Nagra V had not even been
> produced when that film was in production.
As I mentioned to Billy, I may have been wrong. Will check it out.
but having those discussions to stimulate an interest in the
> Nagra V is not so useful.
I can assure you Jeff, I'm far from shilling for Nagra. Do you feel
the same way about discussions which stimulate interest in the PD-6,
Cantar, Deva, etc. simply because they ARE 4-6-8-10 track boxes? I
don't understand your stance on discussions regarding current
products, regardless of manufacturer. Are you suggesting that anything
2-track does not qualify for discussion?
>
> >>Will we be
> >> having this same conversation, trashing the notion of using a puny
> >> 10-track box when 24-track field recorders become available?
> >>
> No, we won't be "trashing" anything in the future (and we're not trashing
> anything now). We will, however, hopefully be discussing in the future
> whatever tools are available to us, and how they can be used most
> effectively to do our jobs.
The Nagra V is a current tool available to us Jeff.
Respectfully,
Tom Beach
William Sarokin
If I remember correctly, I paid around $5700 for my first new Nagra. It was
a 4.2 with universal preamps and a special mod Nagra did so I could record
run and gun with 7" reels. The machine recorded to one track and used
50/60hz pilottone for sync. I still have that machine, though I haven't
used it in over 10 years. Over time I added Nagras to the stable. I had a
mini SN, a Nagra 3, a Nagra 4STC and lastly, a 4 track Nagra D. They were
all beautiful machines and did the jobs required of them reliably.
These machines will still do the job. But the job has changed dramatically
over the last 25 years. Of course, technology has changed too. You can do
the work with a Nagra 4.2 but you will have to make many compromises. When
I bought the Nagra D it offered 4 tracks of 24 bit audio, but even then I
knew it would only be on my cart for a few years at best (I kept it for 2).
What machine you use is based on the kind of work you do and the kind of
work you expect to do. Within the next few months there will be an
incredible number of new audio recorders released. There are more options
available to us than ever before. Fostex showed this weekend in NYC a
prototype of a 2 track hard drive/flash card recorder with time code that
will sell for < $2000. If you don't need more than 2 tracks for your work
it looks like a great replacement for similar machines that cost over
$10,000. But no one can answer which machine is right for you. We can talk
about the capabilities and features of each but we can't answer whether a 2
track flash card recorder or a 10 track machine that writes to HD, DVD, and
CF all at the same time will suit your needs. Once you decide on the
features you need we'll be happy to debate the merits of our personal
favorites until the cows come home.
btw, I saw your post on the distortion you were getting on the PD-4. Let me
get this straight. You had a Sanken in a Zeppelin, connected to a mic in on
the PD-4 but the signal was blowing out the mic pre on the PD-4 until you
padded it down by 30db. I'm not sure what it could be, but we can eliminate
a lot of possibilities. Did you try another microphone? Did you change
inputs? It doesn't sound like a mic powering issue. Did the situation
improve when the machine warmed up? Were you using a mixer or were you
plugging the mic directly into the PD4? If the pad solved the problem then
either the mic has suddenly started to put out line level instead of mic
level, or the mic pre in the Fostex has gone haywire. In either case,
either switching the mic or switching the input channel will tell you where
the problem is.
Other possiblities. Your headphone amp is blown. The input gain was set
way too high. There was a high level sub sonic or ultra sonic sound source
that was blowing things out. (Was the limiter engaged in the PD-4?).
Billy