Did the Soundie make a mistake or did I?

A

Andy9

Well-known member
Just finished a 4-day TV doc shoot with a wireless audio hop from the mixer into my camera (I was camera).

On the last day of the shoot I was going through the camera settings for some reason (sitting next to the sound guy) and I noticed that my usual -6dB limiter was still switched on. When I'm working without a soundie I tend to put levels really low (general peaks around -20dB) with a -6dB limiter to catch the odd explosive laugh / cough. Obviously there is no good reason for a limiter on a properly monitored audio-in from a mixer. Oops.

The sound guy didn't exactly tell me off but he did strongly suggest that it was my fault the limiter had been left on and that I should try not to do this again in future.

Now, regardless I will watch out for this in future. I'm curious though, if everyone agrees that it was my fault! My perception was that when I hand over my camera to a soundie for them to set up, they are taking responsibility for the audio - including audio settings on the camera. It's not as if the audio settings on the Sony FX6 are difficult to navigate, they are all laid out in one section.

Maybe my belief that the sound guy is responsible for ALL audio is influenced by just how overworked I am on a typical doc shoot. With a main camera, gimbal camera, drone and lighting I'm doing what a decade ago would have been several people's jobs (even if we discount helicopter pilot). I understand that sound is not easy (!) but it seem like the role of sound guy hasn't changed anywhere near as much in that time. Surely the sound guy can handle all of the sound! What do you think?
 
Could go either way...but more would agree it's the sound person's fault if the camera was indeed provided and it was communicated that he/she should check the camera's settings.

This should be obvious for some crews, but per usual communication is best because some sound people might just hold a boom/mic people up and work with only their own equipment (and may think they aren't expected to change camera settings, even if related to audio).
 
NorBro said:
Could go either way...but more would agree it's the sound person's fault if the camera was indeed provided and it was communicated that he/she should check the camera's settings.

This should be obvious for some crews, but per usual communication is best because some sound people might just hold a boom/mic people up and work with only their own equipment, and may think they aren't expected to change camera settings.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's definitely a communication issue. In this case there was no specific communication about who was responsible for the camera settings, we both assumed each other was responsible. This is a really good sound guy with a lot of pro experience so I wondered if perhaps there are established norms about camera audio settings (e.g. camera op is always responsible) that I wasn't aware of.

Edited to add: He must have checked at least some of the audio settings for the wireless hop (and the shotgun on the camera was going into the mixer). I just assumed he'd check all of them.
 
Last edited:
With so many different cameras available now, and new norms as new generations slip in (not in this case but in general), talking about it - as archaic as that is, ha - will always be best.

It sounds like you had way too much on your plate, which I think we all know what that is like, and anyone in the world could simply forget.

Or you assumed, like most videographers/cam ops, that you can relax and stop worrying about sound because it will all be taken care of...but there will always be too much room for error no matter the camera or the experience.

I guess the audio sounded fine though?
 
NorBro said:
I guess the audio sounded fine though?
Click to expand...

Somewhere between occasional and general audio peaks are flattened off - it sounds fine to me. Judging by Premiere Pro's audio meter it looks like the FX6's -6dB limiter kicks in at -9dB. The original recording from the mixer peaks very occasionally at -3dB. I'm sure the client will never realise if I don't tell them but I will mention it and recommend using the 'backup' audio from the mixer, especially for the interviews. They might have been planning to do that anyway so it's not a disaster.
 
Ive been on many shoots were “big money” soundies go into bits of the menu i didn't know about.

the guys with a cart and skyway wheels and sharkfuns on c stands

They are worth that cash because they are responsible and competent - they “carry the can”

my current job the soundi is a young (and experienced and goood) boom op

hes not an experienced HOD and that shows in his lack of detailing of this nature

so its “production”s fault and we need to develop a radar for reliance on those around us??
 
I'm not in that world of production, but here's my take:

Depending on the camera, there can be trim levels, line-level, and mic level options buried in the menu, and I wouldn't trust a person not familiar with the specific camera to find all the audio settings and dial them in correctly.

Not everyone is as competent as they think/claim they are, so it's best to trust, but verify.

You're not at fault, but that won't stop others from blaming you if something is messed up beyond repair, so sometimes you have to do other peoples job for them or at least check their work.

Why wouldn't a backup recording at the mixer be standard practice, particularly when you're susceptible to wireless interference?
 
I'm assuming from your description that the audio was re-transmitted from the mixer to the camera via the hop, so the primary recording would have been done in the mixer bag with the camera hop being the backup. I've always considered the on-camera sound to be a reference only in these scenarios and never particularly concerned about the nuances of it because it's only meant to be used if there is a problem with the primary recording (and there almost never is). Is that not the case here? Is it really considered too much work to sync audio vs having to use audio that has been transmitted twice (or once, if the boom was wired)?
 
CharlesPapert said:
I'm assuming from your description that the audio was re-transmitted from the mixer to the camera via the hop, so the primary recording would have been done in the mixer bag…
Click to expand...

All of your assumptions are correct. And it’s absolutely possible that whoever handles post sees it this way and does everything properly.

I wouldn’t bet the chocolate biscuit budget on it though. I’ve had work broadcast on national TV with the sound from the lav and the scratch audio from the camera’s shitty internal mic along for the ride.
 
Andy9 said:
Just finished a 4-day TV doc shoot with a wireless audio hop from the mixer into my camera (I was camera).

On the last day of the shoot I was going through the camera settings for some reason (sitting next to the sound guy) and I noticed that my usual -6dB limiter was still switched on. When I'm working without a soundie I tend to put levels really low (general peaks around -20dB) with a -6dB limiter to catch the odd explosive laugh / cough. Obviously there is no good reason for a limiter on a properly monitored audio-in from a mixer. Oops.

The sound guy didn't exactly tell me off but he did strongly suggest that it was my fault the limiter had been left on and that I should try not to do this again in future.

Now, regardless I will watch out for this in future. I'm curious though, if everyone agrees that it was my fault! My perception was that when I hand over my camera to a soundie for them to set up, they are taking responsibility for the audio - including audio settings on the camera. It's not as if the audio settings on the Sony FX6 are difficult to navigate, they are all laid out in one section.

Maybe my belief that the sound guy is responsible for ALL audio is influenced by just how overworked I am on a typical doc shoot. With a main camera, gimbal camera, drone and lighting I'm doing what a decade ago would have been several people's jobs (even if we discount helicopter pilot). I understand that sound is not easy (!) but it seem like the role of sound guy hasn't changed anywhere near as much in that time. Surely the sound guy can handle all of the sound! What do you think?
Click to expand...

Seems like a "trust, but verify" situation. If things go sideways with the audio, I don't think you'll take the heat. After all, the sound guy configured your camera. But I think it makes us really valuable hires when we can fix problems beyond the scope of our own responsibilities (especially regarding things the producer didn't consider, but not only that)
 
Andy9 said:
I wouldn’t bet the chocolate biscuit budget on it though. I’ve had work broadcast on national TV with the sound from the lav and the scratch audio from the camera’s ****ty internal mic along for the ride.
Click to expand...

or the editor might be too lazy to sync it up and there's nobody on their case about it
 
Andy9 said:
I wouldn’t bet the chocolate biscuit budget on it though. I’ve had work broadcast on national TV with the sound from the lav and the scratch audio from the camera’s ****ty internal mic along for the ride.
Click to expand...

mmmm -- now you are making me crave a dark chocolate digestive biccie. Or even better--I'm guessing you might be Aussie from the "soundie" thing?--a TimTam.
 
CharlesPapert said:
mmmm -- now you are making me crave a dark chocolate digestive biccie. Or even better--I'm guessing you might be Aussie from the "soundie" thing?--a TimTam.
Click to expand...

I’ve probably picked up “Soundie” from spending too much time online. The McVities digestive is the choccie biccie of my people.
 
ahalpert said:
Seems like a "trust, but verify" situation. If things go sideways with the audio, I don't think you'll take the heat. After all, the sound guy configured your camera. But I think it makes us really valuable hires when we can fix problems beyond the scope of our own responsibilities (especially regarding things the producer didn't consider, but not only that)
Click to expand...

All good points. And I think it’s a sign of a well-run and happy production when people feel free to step out of their lanes occasionally, especially creatively. One of the nicest interview shots I set up last year used a skylight as a hair light with 300 feet of varied depth behind the subject (large museum) - a shot suggested by the sound guy.
 
Andy9 said:
I’ve probably picked up “Soundie” from spending too much time online. The McVities digestive is the choccie biccie of my people.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh. Yes, I am English-born so these were quite familiar around my house. In my youth I was obsessed with Bakewell tarts from Marks and Sparks, a little sweet for me now (but I do still like that almond flavor, orgeat etc). It was a dark day when they stopped importing the "real" Cadbury's goods to the US also.
 
the currecnt production we have the 'cristmas tree' orgainisation of siwtchers, splitters, whatever.

if the oudie give a real feed to the director/scriptie it get to them 6 frames before the picuture which can be odd.

this is the main reason a check and test and comple routing ws neded

the actual sound is going on the recorder and thats the simple bit.
 
My .02. I work in a world where sometimes the audio coming into camera is what’s used. It’s not just reference or “scratch”, so it needs to be “right”.

Also, some of these newer cams, like the FX6, have stuff hidden many levels deep in the the menu and illogical settings and I don’t expect every audio guy to know every nuance of every camera. When it’s your camera, you need to take some responsibility on certain things. Usually, when I hand my camera to an audio guy, it’s in a state that they only have to make basic, logical adjustments. Not deep dive through the menu and double check every single possible permutation of settings that could screw things up.

I do miss the days when audio wasn’t in a menu and was just a couple of physical switches and dials on the body. Line/Mic/+48; Front/Wireless/Rear. Feed the camera tone, “zero it out” and that was it.
 
Andy9 said:
All good points. And I think it’s a sign of a well-run and happy production when people feel free to step out of their lanes occasionally, especially creatively. One of the nicest interview shots I set up last year used a skylight as a hair light with 300 feet of varied depth behind the subject (large museum) - a shot suggested by the sound guy.
Click to expand...

I don't mean step out of your lane, per se. But if you have the time and presence of mind, you could check to see if the limiter was disengaged by the soundie and then ask them about it if you feel you need to before turning it off.

What I meant with regard to producers usually has to do with grabbing a shot they didn't specify. An extra piece of coverage, a wider take, or a static version that's easier to do an effect to. Probably more relevant for shooting b-roll and/or shooting without supervision. Or it could be a situation where you raise the idea with the producer and push them to grab the shot. Or it could be that you brought a piece of gear they told you not to bring but you suspected would be needed. Or it could be that you saved a backup of the footage and eventually the producer lost it. The point I'm making is that you might not be the person who gets blamed if they run into trouble down the line. But the producer will be grateful if you save the day.
 
So, I am curious about the scenarios where the on-camera audio is being used vs the audio being recorded on a mixer. I get the scenario where there is no separate audio recording other than on camera, where that becomes the primary audio recording. I also understand very fast turnaround scenarios where the extra step of syncing would be a problem. I'm just curious to hear more from those who are indicating that the on-camera audio is used preferentially or treated as primary even when there is a separate and more complete set of tracks being recorded by a sound person via mixer and recorder.

My experience with that latter scenario (and again tell me if this isn't typical) is that any and all audio sources whether wired or wireless are recorded on separate tracks by the sound person, and then a mix track is sent via wireless hop to the camera as a reference. For that on-camera audio to be used as the primary source seems illogical given the inability to separate out the tracks plus the degradation of having been transmitted twice.

Does that scenario really exist? Oy vey.
 
I think using recorder mix to camera audio is normal at fast turnaround jobs.
many competent soundies will provide a mix that os “good enough”
recording the individual track to a pro recorder is a backup so when things go sideways (crinkle shirt, enexpected laugh or cry) the source audio can be visited to get rid of problems that were in the mix.
in stills i shoot raw and jpg - 90% of jpg are good enough but at times the raw has to be visited
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top