It seems to me that mixing should come after, once all the audio is recorded. By mixing on set, you are limiting your options, since once something is mixed, it cannot be changed afterwords. I mean you don't see DPs, color grading, during shooting, that all comes in post, once all the footage is in the can, and can be studied more. So why do it with audio, on set? Thanks.
What is the point of mixing on set?
- Thread starter ironpony
- Start date
I think "mixing" on set is a misnomer. certainly, if you only hace access to 2 tracks of recording on set you may forced to mix several inputs down to the 2 tracks but most production sound mixers now carry multi-track recording on set. I do often mix a two track for the director and/or camera hop for use with dailies. More important, on set I am focused on obtaining optimum levels for the recorder, and listening for extraneous sounds which may be polluting the recording. much of my work involves hearing things that other production members don't hear. While the title may be Production Sound Mixer, I believe I am a production sound recordist, working to get dialog recorded in as prestine a manner as possible, given the working conditions. I focus on mic selection, placement, noise control/mitigation, and recording levels.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
And don't forget that many of us work on live programs where we need to mix (both audio and video) in real time for a local and/or broadcast audience.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Actually the "new" thing is to have DP's doing color grading on set. There is a company in LA that specializes in systems just to get as much of that post workflow started in production as possible.
But as others have said "mixing" is a bit of an out of date term for what production mixers do. Traditionally they were going to mono 1/4" tape so if you had more than one input you had to mix. These days most are recording discrete tracks and then also mixing to a pair of tracks that will get used for dailies. Big film mixers live and die on the quality of that "mix" since it's the first time the producers etc hear their work.
You could in theory toss all the discrete tracks together for the dailies but that wouldn't sound as good and you might be looking for work. On ENG types of stuff the mixed tracks are probably what's going to end up on the air because nobody has time to really mix in post.
But as others have said "mixing" is a bit of an out of date term for what production mixers do. Traditionally they were going to mono 1/4" tape so if you had more than one input you had to mix. These days most are recording discrete tracks and then also mixing to a pair of tracks that will get used for dailies. Big film mixers live and die on the quality of that "mix" since it's the first time the producers etc hear their work.
You could in theory toss all the discrete tracks together for the dailies but that wouldn't sound as good and you might be looking for work. On ENG types of stuff the mixed tracks are probably what's going to end up on the air because nobody has time to really mix in post.
Following your analogy about DPs, sure they don't color grade on set. But DPs do have to frame the shot and set the focus and aperture. Sound recordists have to pick the right microphones and put them in the right place (framing) then make sure they are being recorded at optimum levels (focus and aperture.) Nothing is a set-and-forget operation on set.
And for ENG work the mixer might very well be tethered to the camera, only sending two tracks. He might have a boom and three lavs to mix into only those two tracks, so mixing in that case is vital.
And for ENG work the mixer might very well be tethered to the camera, only sending two tracks. He might have a boom and three lavs to mix into only those two tracks, so mixing in that case is vital.
The world is not perfect. There is not always time and possibility to mix audio in post, if there are, say, 8 tracks, which maybe have to be synched, and listened to one a the time before mixing to get some kind of idea what they area all about (often the post audio person has not been present during the shoot). A professional sound person can do that in real time good enough (often enough at least) and save a LOT of post time/money, which might buy only unnoticeable improvements. In ENG type work this is the only possibility because time IS money.
Not an audio guy so I'll let the pros answer that however, in the field of cinematography we do mix on set. Forget the digital files that are captured for a moment. All decisions made to lighting are part of that mixing such as: how much and where, how its shaped and then the colour temperature of each of the units that are placed. These all form part of that process. We only have one input - the camera.
Now back to your audio discussion - as this was hardly your point anyway
Petros Kolyvas
Well-known member
I think that on set mixing doesn't necessarily have to be a misnomer. Sometimes we get clients where the budget doesn't include time for a really intense sound edit/mix session in post.
In these cases, I'll mix on set to get a set of tracks that are more less balanced enough that they can be massaged, in a limited fashion, within an NLE and still sound good. Sometimes (gasp) we even mix to camera.
I usually record ISOs "in case" but I like the idea that we have a useable stereo mix (or dual mono if it's boom/lavs) on hand at all times. Even though we're not doing big budget work, I second the live and die by dailies sentiment. Sometimes it's the first thing the client sees (and hears) and you want it to represent the very best of the production days.
But then in my case it's much more doc-style work than narrative fiction.
In these cases, I'll mix on set to get a set of tracks that are more less balanced enough that they can be massaged, in a limited fashion, within an NLE and still sound good. Sometimes (gasp) we even mix to camera.
I usually record ISOs "in case" but I like the idea that we have a useable stereo mix (or dual mono if it's boom/lavs) on hand at all times. Even though we're not doing big budget work, I second the live and die by dailies sentiment. Sometimes it's the first thing the client sees (and hears) and you want it to represent the very best of the production days.
But then in my case it's much more doc-style work than narrative fiction.
It could have been said already, but I just like to give a complete answer on this (and my thoughts)
For TV (mostly) it's recorded directly on camera on a stereo channel... Sometimes there's some soundmix after, sometimes not... if ther's not, then it has to be mixed "on the flow". During edit there can be some detail tweaking, but not to much. If there's going to be a mix after, it's good to have it right during recording and it saves time after so the mixer has more time to find a nice gadget funny sound (which can be nice to have...don't ask me how and when and where...just accept it...), rather then having to being busy with "correct" the sound. But if it's not...it's no harm...
Now in film saying "yeeeh there's going to be a mix and I have 6 tracks, I just push rec and there we go", is not really a right attitude. You do have to control a little, between "wispering" and "shouting" for example. But it's good not to "fade" to much during dialogues.
With the material now it's possible to have a "stereo mixed" track, but keep the seperated tracks also. And I think when the mixer likes the mixed track, he/she will use that one.
As a soundrecorder you try to give as less as possible work to the soundeditor and soundmixer. It's also experience of cource and mixers are there to mix (and do the dishes
).
When I do soundrecording on set, I know that certain sounds can be easly EQ-ed out or noisefilter-ed out, but I'll try to shut down as much as possible so the soundeditor can work on more
important things and the mixer doesn't has to search for a good noise-reduction, in stead of searching for a nice reverb or so.
Same with mixing on set...you try to give the least work as possible, so they can concentrate more on "artistic".
For TV (mostly) it's recorded directly on camera on a stereo channel... Sometimes there's some soundmix after, sometimes not... if ther's not, then it has to be mixed "on the flow". During edit there can be some detail tweaking, but not to much. If there's going to be a mix after, it's good to have it right during recording and it saves time after so the mixer has more time to find a nice gadget funny sound (which can be nice to have...don't ask me how and when and where...just accept it...), rather then having to being busy with "correct" the sound. But if it's not...it's no harm...
Now in film saying "yeeeh there's going to be a mix and I have 6 tracks, I just push rec and there we go", is not really a right attitude. You do have to control a little, between "wispering" and "shouting" for example. But it's good not to "fade" to much during dialogues.
With the material now it's possible to have a "stereo mixed" track, but keep the seperated tracks also. And I think when the mixer likes the mixed track, he/she will use that one.
As a soundrecorder you try to give as less as possible work to the soundeditor and soundmixer. It's also experience of cource and mixers are there to mix (and do the dishes
). When I do soundrecording on set, I know that certain sounds can be easly EQ-ed out or noisefilter-ed out, but I'll try to shut down as much as possible so the soundeditor can work on more
important things and the mixer doesn't has to search for a good noise-reduction, in stead of searching for a nice reverb or so.
Same with mixing on set...you try to give the least work as possible, so they can concentrate more on "artistic".
S.Blanchardon
Well-known member
Everything that a stand alone recorder can't do, i.e. having parametric EQ's, compressors and limiters, even though most of the newer recorders tend to have these built-in, or also superior routing, aux outputs or monitoring capabilities.
Mixing on set depends also of the abilities and experience of the sound mixer as opening and closing tracks and mixing at the right level is not something all sound mixers have the talent to do.
And last, as stated before, mixing location sound on set, if done correctly, can save A LOT of time (and so money) in post.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Can't speak for others but I use a MixPre as the front end for a Marantz PMD671. I tested the 671 and it's mic pres are pretty good and would be fine for most things. The reason I use the MixPre is...
1) the mic pres are really good and I like the way they sound.
2) The headphone amp on the MixPre is much better than the Marantz (though I usually listen off the Marantz for safety).
3) The MixPre has a slate mic (don't use it often but very handy when you need it.
4) I have used the MixPre with a series of recorders. I know it and how it works. I can slap it in front of anything.
5) It has great limiters, most recorders don't (the Marantz limiter is useless)
6) it has good filtering, many recorders don't (the Marantz's are too soft and not at great places)
7) It has good bright easy to see meters. (the Marantz has good meters but they are LCD so you need to keep the backlight on if you are not in a brightly lit place and they still are not as easy to read)
8) I can send the second pair of outs to a camera. (with some recorders you can do a pass through but usually the pass through will interrupt if your not in record mode).
9) It has a tone generator. You don't need it to "tone" tape anymore but it is very useful to check that signal is going everywhere it should and at the right level.
The MixPre doesn't give me more inputs so that doesn't figure into it for me. I'm mostly recording FX anyway and that is mono or stereo. If I was going to record with more than two mics I would still want discrete tracks so I wouldn't be "mixing" anyway.
All the above would also apply with a real mixer (the MixPre is really a Mic Pre with extras) and you would have more channels and probably EQ.
1) the mic pres are really good and I like the way they sound.
2) The headphone amp on the MixPre is much better than the Marantz (though I usually listen off the Marantz for safety).
3) The MixPre has a slate mic (don't use it often but very handy when you need it.
4) I have used the MixPre with a series of recorders. I know it and how it works. I can slap it in front of anything.
5) It has great limiters, most recorders don't (the Marantz limiter is useless)
6) it has good filtering, many recorders don't (the Marantz's are too soft and not at great places)
7) It has good bright easy to see meters. (the Marantz has good meters but they are LCD so you need to keep the backlight on if you are not in a brightly lit place and they still are not as easy to read)
8) I can send the second pair of outs to a camera. (with some recorders you can do a pass through but usually the pass through will interrupt if your not in record mode).
9) It has a tone generator. You don't need it to "tone" tape anymore but it is very useful to check that signal is going everywhere it should and at the right level.
The MixPre doesn't give me more inputs so that doesn't figure into it for me. I'm mostly recording FX anyway and that is mono or stereo. If I was going to record with more than two mics I would still want discrete tracks so I wouldn't be "mixing" anyway.
All the above would also apply with a real mixer (the MixPre is really a Mic Pre with extras) and you would have more channels and probably EQ.
Last edited:
Even with multitrack recorders you still need to mix. I've seen guys with a 4 track recorder run 10 wireless systems. The TV show MONK was notorious for this. I always record iso tracks and a mix track, and post would use whatever they want. A good production sound mixer can give you a really solid mono dialogue track that came from multiple mics. That is what a good production sound mixer does.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
If this is in reference to my post I should clarify. If I'm recording more than two mics for FX I want them on separate tracks and don't have a use for a "mixed" version.
Production is a different matter.
I don't think I had anyone's specific post in mind when I wrote that. It seemed in general people think a multi track recorder means you aren't a mixer anymore. That's not the case.
In terms of FX, I do the same thing as you do. Each mic gets its own track.
manglerBMX
Veteran
i don't do much film, more reality teevee and corporate work. but when doing a reality show with a lot of people i'm recording iso's pre fade of each characters lav and then sending a mix post fade to camera via 2 channels of wireless. that mix is usually primary character(s) solo'd on one channel and the other characters mixed in and out as they enter a scene.
Okay thanks. I thought when people say they are mixing on set, that they are adding reverb, and making an actor sounding further away than another actor, if they are 20 feet apart in the scene. I thought that's what mixing meant. But on set mixing just means cleaning up the dialogue with EQ and all that, right?