Field Mixer ?

Thanks. I'll print out this thread and use as a resource. Very helpful boards. It's appreciated.

And I'm sure once I get the items and test them out I'll have a whole new set of questions :)
 
Noiz2 said:
I taught for awhile and the students were very hot to record lots of tracks (you can record four mics into the H4n). The problem is that more is not really what you want, you want good. It's a lot harder to get good when your juggling a lot of inputs that when you can actually hear all at the same time.
Click to expand...

Hey Noiz... I find this interesting... and of course I'm not arguing with you, as you certainly know a lot more about film-production sound than I.

But, it seems to me that MIXING more mics is clearly more complex and trouble-prone than fewer mics... but multitrack recording more mics need not be. Levels can be set a little conservatively, and don't have to be balanced against each other 'til post; and in fact one can act as if one has fewer mics, just treating the others as a backup. That is, if one does the best one can with fewer mics, recording an extra track or two of, say, wireless lavs at conservative levels doesn't seem to me like it would hurt, and can likely occasionally help...?

(also, I'm not sure if the H4n is the best example... it records 4 tracks, but in pretty limited ways, no? That is often indeed a case of just recording 4 tracks because they're there... not I think what the OP is discussing regarding redundancy of boom and lav mics...)
 
Hey ullanta, I think part of the issue with multi-track recording gets to be it's just so many things being recorded that focus gets lost and a general "we've got all these tracks, at least one will be good" mentality sets in. If you set conservative levels, have rock solid limiters and a low-noise, pro quality recorder then after initial levels are set you might be able to get a little more lax with the lavs and focus on keep the boom levels perfect. The issue from my experience is that with all those channels recording, many times that first step of initial levels for all the channels was never set since it involves solo'ing each channel and adjusting levels accordingly, then keeping an eye on them.

Mixing down to 2-channels lets you put the boom in your left ear, lavs all in your right ear (through your cans) and then you can always hear exactly what's going on in both channels and limits the surprises about what hit one channel when you were solo'ing another channel.
 
Field recorder

Field recorder

I'm hearing great things about the MRANTZ PMD-661. I need to improve upon my H4N and I think I'm going for this. Call the guys @ B&H - they'll fill you in.

JJM
 
Gohanto said:
If you're looking for weaving sound into a film, I highly recommend reading "The Conversations" about Walter Murch. He was both editor and sound designer on a lot of films Godfather, Apocalypse Now, and even the Touch of Evil re-cut trying to make the movie match Welle's intentions. He talks a lot about how sound functions as story elements in the films he's worked on. It's not really a technically book, but from the story/sound point of view it's a great read.
Click to expand...

I second the book but lets not get too carried away with credits. Walter generally does on or the other. He has a few times mixed films he's edited but I don't know if he ever was the sole editor and sound designer on a film. Apocalypse he was one of a number of editors and Godfather he is only credited as post production consultant. Cold mountain he edited and mixed. He's a very talented guy (He's also an astrophysicist, really) but he's also smart enough to not try to do too much at one time.
 
story2rewrite said:
It's really good working with the sound too. I'm a screenwriter trying to learn the art of filmmaking so I'm always thinking about story and now that I start using sound it really comes into mind as I create scenes, tension, storyboard...I not only storyboard the pictures I want but I also write the sounds involved, whether it's live and what I'll need or if it's in post with some sort of effect or foley sound.
Click to expand...

BTW it's Foley not foley. It's always capitalized because it's someone's name.

Most of us learned a lot of what we know by doing (often badly at first), so don't think I'm saying not to do your own sound. But if you can get someone with some experience you can avoid making the mistakes they already have and generally have a better time.
 
ullanta said:
Hey Noiz... I find this interesting... and of course I'm not arguing with you, as you certainly know a lot more about film-production sound than I.

But, it seems to me that MIXING more mics is clearly more complex and trouble-prone than fewer mics... but multitrack recording more mics need not be. Levels can be set a little conservatively, and don't have to be balanced against each other 'til post; and in fact one can act as if one has fewer mics, just treating the others as a backup. That is, if one does the best one can with fewer mics, recording an extra track or two of, say, wireless lavs at conservative levels doesn't seem to me like it would hurt, and can likely occasionally help...?

(also, I'm not sure if the H4n is the best example... it records 4 tracks, but in pretty limited ways, no? That is often indeed a case of just recording 4 tracks because they're there... not I think what the OP is discussing regarding redundancy of boom and lav mics...)
Click to expand...

Oh lets get into a fight ;~)
Actually I think we agree. I mentioned the H4n because that is what the OP has and that is what all the students ran out and bought so I'm familiar with it's issues. The film I worked on the "production sound guy" used a lot of small recorders and the producer used a pair of lavs into a PT system. The producers tracks were pretty much the hero tracks for the film because most of the others were just garbage. The "sound guy" really had no idea of what he was doing and his "plan" was to just cover everything. And he did, sort of. When I brought his tracks into my system I couldn't see a waveform. I think his average was probably around -40 or so.

My point was that in most of the cases I have dealt with the "idea" was if we stick mics every where then were covered. And all they got was a bunch of wasted disk space. In all of those cases I would have kissed them on the lips for just one properly boomed track in stead of the slew of ambientesqe tracks.

Now with a decent mixer and a good recorder then yes you have a different story. You still have a bit of a pain in post because if you have four tracks I have to listen to four tracks and pick one. If you have two then it's much quicker since you have to compare each to all the others it's not linear but logarithmic. Two tracks = one comparison, four tracks = six comparisons or in one case 12 tracks sixty six comparisons... And if they are all bad as was often the case you do a lot of rechecking to try and find the least bad one.

And on a low budget budget.

Boom with a Lav backup is a fine and good idea and one I whole hardily endorse.

BTW not sure I have all that much more production experience, I'm mostly a post person.
 
JimboWHO said:
I'm hearing great things about the MRANTZ PMD-661. I need to improve upon my H4N and I think I'm going for this. Call the guys @ B&H - they'll fill you in.

JJM
Click to expand...

If your going to get a new recorder, especially for production work, I would strongly sugest you see if a larger format box can be managed in the budget. The PMD-671 is a much easier box to work with in the field. I have one and I like it a lot. That said I would buy the Tascam P2-HD if I were buying today because of the better support/ firmware updates and generally more "professional" attitude toward their users. Marantz support is more along the lines of a consumer company, it's not bad but if your a professional it's really nice to be able to talk to an actual technician than just a customer relations person who has no specific knowledge about your box.
 
Ah yes, Noiz and Gohanto... we are just agreeing from different angles!

And Noiz.... more than I, more than I! I can count my film production gigs (outside of music for film) on my fingers, and have a few left over!
 
Things aren't often set up this way in lower budget but...
I wonder if a pair of Oktava hyper booms (to divide swinging chores when needed) feeding a mix pre or 302 (nice limiting on both) and simply recorded to 2 tracks might give better results than multiple lavs, a boom and resultant iso tracks. If you're not excessively mobile and could stand using a cart setup, you might be able to use a less expensive/more readily available studio mixer and an outboard comp/limiter. Just a thought.
I saw an indie movie recently with a "star" in it. Seemed like the less known actors were boomed. But then the star came on and it sounded like he was miced with a terrific wireless lav planted/hidden perfectly in his winter wardrobe. Great fidelity..and it sounded just as good no matter how close he was to the camera and no matter where he turned. It also sounded incredibly contrived....
 
Last edited:
Even when recording iso tracks, this is when's feeding my in-ears, boom in left, lav mix in right. If I hear clothing noise (always in my right ear), I can quickly pfl the lav channels on the mixer to find the culprit. At the end of the take, call a note to the scriptie, and move on. 9 times out of 10, it's the boom that's used in the final edit.

Gohanto said:
Mixing down to 2-channels lets you put the boom in your left ear, lavs all in your right ear (through your cans) and then you can always hear exactly what's going on in both channels and limits the surprises about what hit one channel when you were solo'ing another channel.
Click to expand...
 
It all depends on how scenes are being shot, especially on multi-camera shoots. The reason we are seeing a proliferation of high-track count production recorders is because directors like to shoot side and tight at the same time, often times making it impossible to boom the shot, so everyone has to go with wireless. If it's just a one camera shoot, then really all you need to do is boom, even if you have multiple talent. A good boom op can cue and get good mic placement with several people in one scene, I've seen it done, and it's impressive.
 
Gweilo66 said:
Things aren't often set up this way in lower budget but...
I wonder if a pair of Oktava hyper booms (to divide swinging chores when needed) feeding a mix pre or 302 (nice limiting on both) and simply recorded to 2 tracks might give better results than multiple lavs, a boom and resultant iso tracks. If you're not excessively mobile and could stand using a cart setup, you might be able to use a less expensive/more readily available studio mixer and an outboard comp/limiter. Just a thought.
I saw an indie movie recently with a "star" in it. Seemed like the less known actors were boomed. But then the star came on and it sounded like he was miced with a terrific wireless lav planted/hidden perfectly in his winter wardrobe. Great fidelity..and it sounded just as good no matter how close he was to the camera and no matter where he turned. It also sounded incredibly contrived....
Click to expand...

If you have a 2-man sound team, one usually handles boom-op duties while the other is free to setup remotely and mix from a cart (away from the set so they only hear what the mic does, excellence insurance that the audio is clean and good). The advantage of bag-recorders is obviously that it's easier for a solo (i.e. lower cost) sound guy to boom and watch levels at the same time.

On the indie movie you mentioned, may not have even been the sound guy. Sometimes the director even just wants the sound to do strange things in post. Just ask the re-recording mixers on Public Enemies...
 
gpforet said:
Even when recording iso tracks, this is when's feeding my in-ears, boom in left, lav mix in right. If I hear clothing noise (always in my right ear), I can quickly pfl the lav channels on the mixer to find the culprit. At the end of the take, call a note to the scriptie, and move on. 9 times out of 10, it's the boom that's used in the final edit.
Click to expand...

Definitely, I was more referring to situations where there isn't a mixer in front of the multi-track recorder so tracks can only be listened to in isolation. Like I wouldn't want to run production sound into a 744T without a 442 or 552 in front of it.
 
Yeah...multicam and mixed wide & tight make lavs inevitable. But even when booming with a single cam, methinks it nice to maintain some audio perspective and not overdo the following..especially when an actor is changing distance from the camera.
As an experiment, I just purchased a hypercardioid isomax to use as a plant mic if needed in a WS. I'm thinking small like a lav so as to be easily hidden, yet with more directionality to afford some reach from wherever planted. We'll see.
 
davefisk said:
It all depends on how scenes are being shot, especially on multi-camera shoots. The reason we are seeing a proliferation of high-track count production recorders is because directors like to shoot side and tight at the same time, often times making it impossible to boom the shot, so everyone has to go with wireless. If it's just a one camera shoot, then really all you need to do is boom, even if you have multiple talent. A good boom op can cue and get good mic placement with several people in one scene, I've seen it done, and it's impressive.
Click to expand...


Kind of OT but...
This is one of the unfortunate side affects of "affordable" gear. Multiple cameras have a lot of the same problems as too many tracks. An experienced team with a lot of pre planning can pull it off but I've seen it a lot with folks who are still learning how to work the camera. They are just learning how to stage for a single camera and they toss a second one it "to be safe" and it ends up screwing up the A camera, and your sound. Most narrative films should not be shot like a reality TV show. It's not just taste (and I will admit I'm not a big fan of the feel of reality TV) but a lot of stories don't work well when shot that way.

I understand the logic and in their shoes I would probably be pushing for the same thing. But later I would be thankful if someone pulled on the reins.

More than one camera is not easier and it doesn't give you the coverage you need unless you have the experience to really plan the moves and your operators move like dancers.
More often than not with new filmmakers you get lots of B roll and very little A.

The exception of course being stunts that your only going to get one or two shots at. In that case get every camera you can to cover.
 
Gohanto said:
Definitely, I was more referring to situations where there isn't a mixer in front of the multi-track recorder so tracks can only be listened to in isolation. Like I wouldn't want to run production sound into a 744T without a 442 or 552 in front of it.
Click to expand...

Hey, the 744t at least has a lot of monitoring flexibility, and will let you group tracks to different ears however you want…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top