Dedicated sound guy... worth the money?

It's all about quality control and the more you can do at each level of the process the better in all departments, if you try and do it all yourself then you have to make compromises as you can't be doing everything at the same time!
 
I like to put the shoe on the other foot for questions like this.... Hi, I'm a sound mixer, On past shoots, I've used an AC, but I've never hired a dedicated DP. Someone with a Grip truck, camera and lighting package. I'm wondering if it's worth the money. My gaffer experience is average to slightly above average. I know which lights to use in which situations, and I own a pretty decent light kit (a 1K, a 600w, a 300w, and a couple stands). My results have been mostly positive. I monitor the video feed on a 7" monitor while booming the shot, and generally get good video. Inevitably, I've had to perform Reframing in post on occasion, but I've always gotten a decent color look in these situations. In post, I've been able to fix my video to satisfaction within Adobe Premiere. So, again, my question is, what am I missing out on by not having a dedicated Director of Photography? What can they offer that I can't fix or address in post? Most of my audio experience has been in the narrative short, documentary, or corporate vid realm. I might be shooting a low budget narrative indie in the near future. What should I be looking for if I decide to up the video ante?
 
Last edited:
mcgeedigital said:
In my 25+ years in this business I have YET to come across a "sound woman". Until I do, "sound guy" fits just fine.
Click to expand...


In my 15 years in this business I have come across and worked with many.
Shawn Holden is currently the sound mixer on Suicide Squad in Canada
Jan McLaughlin is the multiple emmy award winning mixer on Nurse Jackie

Then you have Pud Cusack, Susan Moore-Chong, Mey Chan, Rusty Fisher, and many many more....and these are just the Production Sound Mixers (that's the proper term as that's what the credit title is). Then you have female boom ops and sound utilities that are too numerous to list here...and these are just the people I know personally.

I hate to be "that guy", but "production sound mixer" is the proper term. Yes, it is a field that has been dominated by men for a long long time, but times are changing.

To answer the question about turning knobs in the middle of a take or at a concert, my answer is this....
That person is a professional, don't worry about it. Do you worry when a focus puller changes focus? No? Then don't worry about the sound mixer doing their job. Do you know how a sound mixer has their audio channels routed? Do you know if they are doing a mix and isos? Do you know what kind of mixer they are using? These are all factors in how a sound mixer mixes. I may give a solid mix track and then have isos if I have, say, 6 inputs coming in. My directs outs from my mixer, which are my isos, are pre-fader, so any fader adjustments don't matter to the iso tracks, but my mix track is post fader. In a scene with 5 or 6 talent with wireless, you WANT your sound mixer actually mixing the mix track on the fly. That's what they do, and they know how to do it. I've seen it many many many times.

I think the question that needs to be asked to the OP is do you actually trust professionals to do their jobs?
 
I was the one who brought up turning knobs in the middle of a take. Yes, I would trust an established professional to do it, although I don't understand it. My reason for asking was for someone to explain it so I could learn --- or at least start to learn.
 
Yeah, in NYC I've worked with a number of female sound mixers. Some are good, some are bad, just like everyone else out there. BTW I'm talking about attitude. To make a living at it in a crowded marketplace you have to be competent at the very minimum.
 
combatentropy said:
I was the one who brought up turning knobs in the middle of a take. Yes, I would trust an established professional to do it, although I don't understand it. My reason for asking was for someone to explain it so I could learn --- or at least start to learn.
Click to expand...

In my reply I mentioned a detailed scenario that I've seen done on set many times. The short answer is this:
You need to do this if you are actually recording a mix track from a bunch of isos, and you don't want a bunch of mics open all the time because that makes for a horrible sounding mix track. The isos are recorded pre-fader and the mix track is post fader, so your isos remain untouched while you have a solid mix track. Having a bunch of isos has become the norm these days for many reason, some of which include huge casts (reality tv) and shooting wide and tight at the same time because directors don't like to shoot separate coverage for whatever reason like they used to, so it's harder to get a solid boom track that way. There are other reasons, but those are the two big ones
 
Thank you. That sort of makes sense. So each microphone is recorded to its own isolated track (an "iso"). But also an on-the-fly mix of all of them is saved to yet another track. And mainly all you're doing in that mix is turning down mics when they're not in use.

The question remains, though, why risk even trying to do a mix live on set, if you're already recording each mic to its own track? If it were me (and again, I'm new at this) I would postpone all of that decision-making until the comfort and quiet of a nice peaceful editing suite.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
Thank you. That sort of makes sense. So each microphone is recorded to its own isolated track (an "iso"). But also an on-the-fly mix of all of them is saved to yet another track. And mainly all you're doing in that mix is turning down mics when they're not in use.

The question remains, though, why risk even trying to do a mix live on set, if you're already recording each mic to its own track? If it were me (and again, I'm new at this) I would postpone all of that decision-making until the comfort and quiet of a nice peaceful editing suite.
Click to expand...

Nowadays the mix track is really only used for dailies. When I used to cut dialogue for reality tv I went to the isos even if the mix track was there, but that's reality tv. It's "unscripted" so you don't know what's going to happen. There would be boom and then each person would have a wireless lav, and I would cut in what sounded the best, and then it went to the dub stage.

For narrative work, a solid mix track is what I would prefer, but you need a professional production sound mixer that knows what they are doing in order to get that solid mix track, and THEN it has to be trusted that the picture editor doesn't throw screw up the transfer and not get the dialogue editor all the proper material. That's happened to me in the past. It's not really a risk for narrative work because if you are running production properly you've run rehearsals and most likely several takes, so everyone knows what's going on and there is no risk. That's why you hire professionals.
 
Ok, question: if the isos are PRE-fader, don't you run the risk of them getting recorded distorted (if someone shouts unexpectedly or something)? Seems like someone would still need to be manually limiting the dynamic range of those recordings to prevent stuff from ultimately coming in too hot/too low, no?
 
"if the isos are PRE-fader, don't you run the risk of them getting recorded distorted (if someone shouts unexpectedly or something)?"
There's always a risk of distortion.. mic, xmitter/recv. preamp, ect. That's why folks hire professionals, to minimize the possibility with proper headroom and quality limiters.
 
RE mixed track. Traditionally, and I would guess even now on decent budget films, the mixed track is used for dailies and is what the picture editor uses when editing. Sound post will use the EDL and the guide track of the film coming from the picture department to sync the iso's. The picture editor doesn't want to be hauling a stack of audio tracks around when cutting. Even when production sound was mono or two track, the mixed track went to the dailies and the picture department and the sound folks would post sync to the edited film.

On low budget indies the norm seems to be for the picture editor to sync all the audio tracks and then carry them all through the edit. It makes it sometimes easier for sound post since the OMF has everything (in theory) but the sound is almost always soft on sync since NLE's are not great tools for audio so the sound folks have to play with the bits to get them to look in sync, unless some smart person left the camera guide track intact. The feed to the camera on set is really the only reliable sync check, and even that can be off.

With a lot of iso tracks the reason to mix is A) so you can keep your job - as Dave mentioned having all the tracks feed one mix all the time will produce a mess. This is what the director is going to hear. If it sounds bad they are going to go looking for someone who doesn't hand them Cr@py sound. And B) the picture editor needs something to work with that reflects what the sound is probably going to sound like sort of, and not be so jumbled up that they can't tell what is a usable take.
 
Josh Bass said:
Ok, question: if the isos are PRE-fader, don't you run the risk of them getting recorded distorted (if someone shouts unexpectedly or something)? Seems like someone would still need to be manually limiting the dynamic range of those recordings to prevent stuff from ultimately coming in too hot/too low, no?
Click to expand...

It depends. If you hire someone who knows what they are doing, which means they have good gear, then that risk is very low, especially in scripted stuff. Like I said earlier, if you run rehearsals this is a non-issue. Only when an actor goes off script, or on reality TV can this become a problem, but even then, an audio professional knows how to properly set up their gain stages to minimize this, if not eliminate the risk of distortion completely.
 
David W. Jones said:
I like to put the shoe on the other foot for questions like this.... Hi, I'm a sound mixer, On past shoots, I've used an AC, but I've never hired a dedicated DP. Someone with a Grip truck, camera and lighting package. I'm wondering if it's worth the money. My gaffer experience is average to slightly above average. I know which lights to use in which situations, and I own a pretty decent light kit (a 1K, a 600w, a 300w, and a couple stands). My results have been mostly positive. I monitor the video feed on a 7" monitor while booming the shot, and generally get good video. Inevitably, I've had to perform Reframing in post on occasion, but I've always gotten a decent color look in these situations. In post, I've been able to fix my video to satisfaction within Adobe Premiere. So, again, my question is, what am I missing out on by not having a dedicated Director of Photography? What can they offer that I can't fix or address in post? Most of my audio experience has been in the narrative short, documentary, or corporate vid realm. I might be shooting a low budget narrative indie in the near future. What should I be looking for if I decide to up the video ante?
Click to expand...

This is such a hilarious (and useful!) response that is deserves to be quoted and brought back to life! :)
 
No. Save your money. We've used homeless people, children, my brother-in-law. Sound is a no brainer. I had a llama help us on one shoot...

Of course hire a pro! I just gaffed on a shoot. I've been doing sound for almost 10 years now. Nope, they didn't want to pay anyone for sound. They got a new PA to do it. Gave him a Zoom, told him what button to push, and off they went! The guy was pointing the mic at the wall, the camera, the ceiling, everywhere but the Raley's mouth. Un years past, I would have said something. No more. Let them learn the hard way (sounds harsh but director did not seem like the kind of guy who wanted to hear your opinions.)
 
scottfs said:
No. Save your money. We've used homeless people, children, my brother-in-law. Sound is a no brainer. I had a llama help us on one shoot...

Of course hire a pro! I just gaffed on a shoot. I've been doing sound for almost 10 years now. Nope, they didn't want to pay anyone for sound. They got a new PA to do it. Gave him a Zoom, told him what button to push, and off they went! The guy was pointing the mic at the wall, the camera, the ceiling, everywhere but the Raley's mouth. Un years past, I would have said something. No more. Let them learn the hard way (sounds harsh but director did not seem like the kind of guy who wanted to hear your opinions.)
Click to expand...

Yep. Sounds harsh, as well, but I actually pray for failure now when people wanna be cheap b@$tards and do stupid stuff. I wish I could say that it works though, but it doesn't. As long as it's not a TOTAL failure, it's all good because they saved a few bucks(in TV terms).
 
Ha ha and then the poor editor has to deal with all the **** and when they realise it's no good it then gets dumped on an audio post guy to try and rescue what is there.
 
JT, if you are satisfied with the results you are getting, then a production mixer isn't needed. Let's look at the two extremes: No one in the television news business uses a production mixer for field work. It's a two-person crew, talent and camera operator. They produce hundreds of hours of product every day with very satisfactory results. But a proper feature film production wouldn't dream of shooting without a production mixer.

While you have been satisfied with the results, you are now going to do a narrative. I have to agree with what others have said. I would not do a narrative without a production mixer. If you are the director, it is impossible to properly listen to sound and to watch the scene acted out at the same time. It can't be done. Will you notice the refrigerator turning on and ruining the atmosphere of the scene? Will you notice that a door closed nearby in the last take? Are you going to be sure that every take's sound is good? No, you can't do it. It's all about taking the production quality up another notch. To get really good sound that makes your narrative just that much better, you want the mixer.
 
Paul F said:
JT, if you are satisfied with the results you are getting, then a production mixer isn't needed. Let's look at the two extremes: No one in the television news business uses a production mixer for field work. It's a two-person crew, talent and camera operator. They produce hundreds of hours of product every day with very satisfactory results. But a proper feature film production wouldn't dream of shooting without a production mixer.

While you have been satisfied with the results, you are now going to do a narrative. I have to agree with what others have said. I would not do a narrative without a production mixer. If you are the director, it is impossible to properly listen to sound and to watch the scene acted out at the same time. It can't be done. Will you notice the refrigerator turning on and ruining the atmosphere of the scene? Will you notice that a door closed nearby in the last take? Are you going to be sure that every take's sound is good? No, you can't do it. It's all about taking the production quality up another notch. To get really good sound that makes your narrative just that much better, you want the mixer.
Click to expand...


That is incorrect and very misleading. If you're referring to LOCAL television news, then yeah. Network, it can go both ways depending on the situation and network, but you will probably see camera AND audio. I've turned hundreds of hours of content and LS's with no 'audio guy' and just as much or more with.
 
Another thing to consider, appearance. I am shooting an interview tomorrow with an A-list Hollywood talent who is on a current pretty successful TV show. Single camera, sit down interview, one against green screen, then switching to a real BG shot that I will have set up in the same room. With this sort of talent who will inevitably be accompanied by a manager and or publicist, it would be unqwise to one man band it, even though I have shot thousands of interviews by myself with me doing it all. Having a sound mixer there as well as a grip/PA/utility with me is the right choice. Even if the grip/PA/utility does nothing during the interview, having the sound mixer and a grip will make us look like a "real crew" to the talent and her publicist.
 
puredrifting said:
Another thing to consider, appearance. I am shooting an interview tomorrow with an A-list Hollywood talent who is on a current pretty successful TV show. Single camera, sit down interview, one against green screen, then switching to a real BG shot that I will have set up in the same room. With this sort of talent who will inevitably be accompanied by a manager and or publicist, it would be unqwise to one man band it, even though I have shot thousands of interviews by myself with me doing it all. Having a sound mixer there as well as a grip/PA/utility with me is the right choice. Even if the grip/PA/utility does nothing during the interview, having the sound mixer and a grip will make us look like a "real crew" to the talent and her publicist.
Click to expand...

One of the guys I used to shoot for used to say, "Put on the dog & pony show", when we would go out for some clients.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top