What is a good multiple track recorder for indi films?

[oleg kaizerman]

Well, what you want is to create a mix for the temp track.

See, if I have an 8 channel recorder, it actually typically records ten tracks. Each of the eight channels individually, and the mix as a stereo pair. That mix is what gets sent out to the camera as a temp track and also what the director hears on set.

All through editorial, the temp track is all you hear, until picture lock.

The temp track is NOT a creative mix typically, but a technical one. Basically you want to get the cleanest (i.e. lowest noise highest volume & distortion free) signal recorded, and I usually use the stereo channels to give a vague sense of position for the subjects.

Later, the post sound editor will massage these tracks carefully and creatively. They'll determine what tracks need to be re-recorded. They really need the discrete takes from each mic for that.

Now what happens if you go over 4 or 8 mics ? Well then you get more recorders and mixers!

Before I ramble on- using more than 8 mics on an independent feature is relatively rare.

On the feature I recorded we used a single wired mic on 95% of shots. That is extreme, but I generally prefer to use as few mics as practical. Wireless does drive my mic count way up though because I don't trust the wireless hops and I don't like the way the small lav mics sound, so I usually put up wired mics even if they are in a bad position.

You may notice that a lot of professional cameras, including Red One, have 4 audio inputs. You can use temp tracks from two recorders this way.

Also, you can get recorders that record up to 12 discrete inputs channels plus a four channel mix. (Zaxcom Deva 16)

You can gang those up quite a lot if desired. You can take the mix output from each recorder into a huge multichannel mixer/recorder and further downmix them.

The biggest live recording (a stage production) I've ever done involved 18 mics. Before I start explaining, I did this large a set up mostly for learning. Normally I would set 4 stage mics and 4 wireless and just do a live mix and live with it.

I used three Sound Devices 788T units as my principal mixer recorder for each bank of 6 mics. I sent the stereo outputs of each of those to a Mackie 1402VLZ mixer (which sits on my desk normally) I mixed those mostly looking to equalize small differences in recording levels, and split the output to a wireless IFB transmitter and a Tascam two channel recorder. The cameras took the IFB signal to their channels three and four (using their onboard stereo mics for channels 1&2).

All of the recorders and cameras were fed timecode from a single source.

So, I ended up with 18 mic tracks, grouped in banks of six. Each of those mic banks had their own stereo pair recorded. Then I had two channels recorded on the Tascam, which was a mix down from the Sound devices outputs. That's 24 channels the sound department recorded. In addition camera department recorded 6 unique channels of audio, and each camera had my IFB broadcast recorded as well in case timecode sync proved to be inaccurate we had a reference scratch track. Some of those ended up being useful.

As is expected, editorial was done entirely from the Tascam audio after synch was complete.

Audio editing was done with the 18 iso tracks, but the 6 stereo pairs from the mic banks was used as a reference for mic position. It turns out the 2 channel live mix was very good, I only made a few changes mostly to mic position. For most of that I only had to dig into the stereo pairs form the 788s. I only had to use the ISO tracks on 3-4 scenes

That was incredibly complicated, and I did it mostly to push myself and learn. Quite frankly the production would have been ecstatic with just the live down mix from four stage mics and four wireless.

I do disagree that the ISO tracks are principally for back up and "ignorants." It does depend on your target release. You can make a truly excellent live mix and still miss the mark of feature quality. Then again, we hear lots of live mixes all the time and never bat a lash. TV often uses the on set mix, almost all news is just the live audio recording, etc. Still, what you can deliver for TV or indie film is just not acceptable for a feature- so the practice of recording ISO tracks is VERY important.

deva 16 could get 16 iso tracks - 12 analog and 4 digital ins or 8 digital and 8 analog .
for 24 tracks - i use joe co black box - cost less then 744 - but you need mixer in front as it line level only .
and sorry - sound mixer who doent provide mix on scripted show is not a sound mixer

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

and sorry - sound mixer who doent provide mix on scripted show is not a sound mixer

A sound person who doesn't provide a mix is called the sound recordist.

A sound person who records and mixes on set is called a sound mixer.

A sound mixer who doesn't provide ISO tracks is called "unemployed."

The principal responsibility of the sound department is the clear high quality recording of ISO tracks for each speaker in a scripted production.

The on set mix is important. Its how everyone hears the picture until picture lock. If you have a bad on set mix, it will be a problem, but if you don't have ISO tracks its a disaster.

As director I am focused on performance and my interaction with the DP while on set. I listen to the stereo downmix on set when I can, but I am certainly NOT directing the sound mix. I simply don't have the time. Since I often photograph my own pictures, I am really as busy as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest- which means I really depend on the sound recordists and mixers to deliver.

When I sit in with the post sound editor and sound mixers is the first time I can really pay strict attention to sound and direct the mix, in order to make sure I hear what I wanted. So those ISO tracks are monumentally important- without them there is no remixing possible. Since its rare that I won't direct a change in the mix ...

Leaving aside a director's concerns, the field is a really miserable environment for post audio finishing. I mean all you typically have is cans. How the hell are you going to do a surround sound mix on that? How are you supposed to deliver both 5.1 and 7.2? Heck how can you insure your mix makes sense for even 2.1 THX playback?

Don't they remix films in post in Israel? Audio post is a huge business here - even small scripted TV shows will get post audio mixes. I just don't see how an experienced sound mixer would stick on this issue. Maybe we are having a deep communication issue, but I'd say its pretty rare for the on set mix to be the delivered final mix, and in fact surprisingly often the on set mix is completely tossed aside.

If you are saying its important to deliver a solid mix on set then I agree, but if you are saying that the on set mix is THE MIX, then I disagree strongly.

 

[Robert Frank]

If you are saying its important to deliver a solid mix on set then I agree, but if you are saying that the on set mix is THE MIX, then I disagree strongly.

I agree Alexander. The audio mixed down on-set is typically used as a reference track.

 

[oleg kaizerman]

I agree Alexander. The audio mixed down on-set is typically used as a reference track.

you both not really get what is the sound mixer job on set
you mistake post production and dialog recording on set .
sometimes on some scenes you need take some unique sfx which could be taken separately without mix them in to the dialog .
the biggest bullshit of the industry is that people who have no relation with sound and know only multitracking ,state that the iso tracks is the only usable stuff . ignorance , ignorance and ignorance .
you can check on real sound boards what is the requirement from real sound mixer on shows and features , you will see that one who is not capable to provide( mono or 2 track ) will not really continue to work in that aria .
i did features on nagra mono tack , dat 2 track with or without da 88 for isos and deva 16 tracks and always provided mix to the post with or without iso tracks .thats the job requirements .
and sorry i dont see why should i place mics which bring shit when it could be to made it with one or 2 booms , multyracking isos ( incl wirelees for nothing) without any need only bring confusion and mistakes , if one of the replicas was missed , wild lines .

of course as everything in the world there are exceptions which make the mix not usable - especially new buy directors who need to reinvent the wheel to ask for impro . bad actors who dont remember lines and cet... , shortage of money which bring to shoot multiply camera for shorter production period without give he sound mixer ability use the booms at all .

99.9 % of the job to bring the post usable dialog mix and not 5-1 or 7.1 .

Mr Ibrahim , sound recordist or sound mixer are only terminology and not the job - i have credits on imbd which placed as one or the other .
best wishes

 

[George Tsai]

you both not really get what is the sound mixer job on set
you mistake post production and dialog recording on set .
sometimes on some scenes you need take some unique sfx which could be taken separately without mix them in to the dialog .
the biggest bullshit of the industry is that people who have no relation with sound and know only multitracking ,state that the iso tracks is the only usable stuff . ignorance , ignorance and ignorance .
you can check on real sound boards what is the requirement from real sound mixer on shows and features , you will see that one who is not capable to provide( mono or 2 track ) will not really continue to work in that aria .
i did features on nagra mono tack , dat 2 track with or without da 88 for isos and deva 16 tracks and always provided mix to the post with or without iso tracks .thats the job requirements .
and sorry i dont see why should i place mics which bring shit when it could be to made it with one or 2 booms , multyracking isos ( incl wirelees for nothing) without any need only bring confusion and mistakes , if one of the replicas was missed , wild lines .

of course as everything in the world there are exceptions which make the mix not usable - especially new buy directors who need to reinvent the wheel to ask for impro . bad actors who dont remember lines and cet... , shortage of money which bring to shoot multiply camera for shorter production period without give he sound mixer ability use the booms at all .

99.9 % of the job to bring the post usable dialog mix and not 5-1 or 7.1 .

Mr Ibrahim , sound recordist or sound mixer are only terminology and not the job - i have credits on imbd which placed as one or the other .
best wishes

Sorry man, but lot of what you wrote is hard to follow. I'm guessing english is not your primary language?
either way, not a very constructive post and rather harsh. Alexander has put up some very good info and i think maybe you are not interpreting them correctly. no need to get all hot headed in this thread

 

[shashbugu]

The funny thing about field audio recording is high quality mics, A/D converters, mic placement, a very clever, attentive, and expericed boom operater or operaters are the most important aspects of the signal chain. Its a highly stressful job, no two locations are ever alike for a sound guy.

 

[oleg kaizerman]

Sorry man, but lot of what you wrote is hard to follow. I'm guessing english is not your primary language?
either way, not a very constructive post and rather harsh. Alexander has put up some very good info and i think maybe you are not interpreting them correctly. no need to get all hot headed in this thread

some people need to direct or shoot ,some make the living by been a sound mixer , I'm not going to teach you how to provide the picture but i could defiantly teach you how do you record dialog - i do it for last 20 years, with grate success
i guess that next time you will follow closely my English , other wise you will have to translate the Hebrew version

 

[Jon Lillie]

The funny thing about field audio recording is high quality mics, A/D converters, mic placement, a very clever, attentive, and expericed boom operater or operaters are the most important aspects of the signal chain. Its a highly stressful job, no two locations are ever alike for a sound guy.

Truer words could not be spoken. On the few films I've worked on as the Sound Mixer I supplied a mono mix to the camera (Red One) for reference, Two-Track mix to be used in post, and ISOs for the dialogue editor (which was usually me). I've always worked this way, what the director, editor want, they get. Now I'll also talk to the post sound department to see what would make their life easier. Which usually includes ISOs.

my 2cents.

On a side note, thanks to those that have added beneficial comments to this discussion. We (the lesser of us) appreciate the stronger (you) giving your time to help us.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

SX-R4 from Sonosax

GREAT SMALL LIGHT EASY HIGH QUALITY

WWW.sonosax.com

http://www.sonosax.ch/recorders/sxr4/sxr4_index.html

 

[oleg kaizerman]

http://www.zaxcom.com/Nomad.html
up to 12 tracks fo r much less
except cookingit is a perfect for indy guys,automix - its for you

 

[Marc Wielage]

Oleg is a first-class sound mixer with many years of experience and a ton of credits. What he says is true: many, many TV shows and feature films use a great deal of the actual mix done by the location sound mixer on the set. It's much, much more than just a reference track. Generally, the isolated tracks are only used occasionally for a line here or there missed by the boom op (or missed by the mixer in the heat of battle). Even then, the issue of sound perspective is an issue, particularly with wireless lavs on iso tracks, which may not be appropriate for certain scenes or angles.

It would be extremely time-consuming for a dialog editor and mixer to use all iso tracks for a complex scene, especially one with (say) more than 5 or 6 actors). My experience here in LA is that most shows rarely have the time or budget to painstakingly do this, line by line. It's an interesting idea in theory, but the reality is much more complex.

 

[Marshall_H]

Thanks to all for sharing your knowledge. Thanks especially to you Alexander for your insightful response. Just got back from NAB where I got to hold all this gear and talk with many talented individuals. Feeling much like a sponge and will be learning for a long time. But these posts have been very helpful.. Thanks again all.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Thanks to all for sharing your knowledge. Thanks especially to you Alexander for your insightful response. Just got back from NAB where I got to hold all this gear and talk with many talented individuals. Feeling much like a sponge and will be learning for a long time. But these posts have been very helpful.. Thanks again all.

You are more than welcome! I am very glad it helped!

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

the biggest bullshit of the industry is that people who have no relation with sound and know only multitracking ,state that the iso tracks is the only usable stuff . ignorance , ignorance and ignorance .

I see the problem- we are arguing at cross purposes.

I certainly don't think the ISO tracks are the ONLY usable result.

I think they are the most important.

Why?

Simple.

If I have no mix, I can create one from ISO tracks. Given tools like ProTools and Logic, I can create a new mix from ISO tracks very quickly at need.

If I have no ISO tracks, I can NOT create them from the mix.

That doesn't, as I've tried to say before, mean that the mix isn't important.

The mix is very important.

Nevertheless its secondary.

This is really all moot.

I think any decent mixer with decent gear will be able to create an acceptable mix. If they are mixing properly, then that means all their inputs are properly gained and trimmed- so if they are recording ISO tracks, they'll have excellent ones.

So, even if Oleg is of the opinion that his mix should be the FINAL mix, I'm sure he'll deliver excellent clean ISO tracks as well. Because he's a pro.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I think any decent mixer with decent gear will be able to create an acceptable mix. If they are mixing properly, then that means all their inputs are properly gained and trimmed- so if they are recording ISO tracks, they'll have excellent ones.

Well, yeah... that's true. But bear in mind that sound motion pictures were made for more than 75 years without iso tracks, and somehow, everything sounded fine. And that even goes with 2-track DAT over the last 20 years.

To many traditional sound mixers, the isos are only used as a last resort. 90% of the time, the mix track should sound great and (with tweaking by the dialog editors and final re-recording engineers) can be used in the final film. Trying to do it with all iso's will be very time-consuming, essentially redoing the entire on-set mix from scratch. It shouldn't be necessary if you had a good location mixer on the crew.

 

[oleg kaizerman]

Well, yeah... that's true. But bear in mind that sound motion pictures were made for more than 75 years without iso tracks, and somehow, everything sounded fine. And that even goes with 2-track DAT over the last 20 years.

To many traditional sound mixers, the isos are only used as a last resort. 90% of the time, the mix track should sound great and (with tweaking by the dialog editors and final re-recording engineers) can be used in the final film. Trying to do it with all iso's will be very time-consuming, essentially redoing the entire on-set mix from scratch. It shouldn't be necessary if you had a good location mixer on the crew.

well said

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Well, yeah... that's true. But bear in mind that sound motion pictures were made for more than 75 years without iso tracks, and somehow, everything sounded fine. And that even goes with 2-track DAT over the last 20 years.

Sure it sounded fine ... but let's not turn an anachronistic technological limitation into a modern fetish either.

Since we are on RedUser ... the ISO tracks are the "RAW" of audio. The Mix is Rec709 Video (my analogy is breaking! Gaaack)

As Alexa ProRes proves a lot of productions are happy with the Rec709. As ArriRaw and R3D prove - sometimes you have to go deeper to get what you want.

To many traditional sound mixers, the isos are only used as a last resort. 90% of the time, the mix track should sound great and (with tweaking by the dialog editors and final re-recording engineers) can be used in the final film. Trying to do it with all iso's will be very time-consuming, essentially redoing the entire on-set mix from scratch. It shouldn't be necessary if you had a good location mixer on the crew.

Before I go on, we are arguing at cross purposes.

I'm NOT saying you should be trying to "do it all" with ISO tracks. I am saying You CAN do it all with ISO tracks. Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should.

So yeah, sure and we should never need RAW if you had a good cinematographer.

Oh, wait ... we do need RAW.

Well we need ISO's the same way.

All I am saying is that if the mix is in any way "wrong" ISO's can be used to recreate or fine tune with great flexibility.

If all you have is the mix, well you can't "unmix" it

That means that if you absolutely MUST choose between a mix and ISO tracks, then you should pick ISO tracks. In normal work, you don't have to choose anymore- so this is a false decision point.

I'm not a traditionalist. I have no time for tradition.

Just like the DP, the sound mixer's job has changed. Both must realize that the final image and sound will be molded later on, and they must provide the best material for that later manipulation.

Again, just like a DP is trying to shoot for final image, the sound mixer should be providing a mix that could be used for final whenever possible.

My formulation means that when you hit a scene with too much going on that you know you can't mix in real time the way you want ... then you should optimize your ISO tracks. I bet you do that already. Then you make your best mix knowing your limits ... but at least you are confident in the ISO tracks which can back you up.

 

[Marc Wielage]

As Alexa ProRes proves a lot of productions are happy with the Rec709. As ArriRaw and R3D prove - sometimes you have to go deeper to get what you want.

I know. I've color-timed over 300 films, at least 50 from camera negative (and hundreds of TV shows and commercials done from camera negative or a dozen different digital cameras). I know RAW very well.

All I am saying is that if the mix is in any way "wrong" ISO's can be used to recreate or fine tune with great flexibility.

I agree in that the iso tracks can be a life-saver here and there. But using isos for an entire mix would be really tough, since these are raw tracks that might have to be tweaked and adjusted literally on every sentence. The time would kill you on this, unless you did all the work yourself and had an infinite schedule with which to work. John Purcell's excellent book, Dialogue Editing for Motion Pictures: A Guide to the Invisible Art, goes into this in extraordinarily detail and explains why all-isos is not a great way to go except under certain circumstances.

I've run into people recently who have said to me, "hey, I heard about this HDR thing. Won't this mean that I can shoot without lights and just do all the exposure control and image-reframing in post?" Obviously, no. You still need to do a lot of work on-set. It's not just "go into record and capture." Audio is no different.

All that having the iso tracks means is that you have more options in post. The last feature I worked on about six months ago, I asked the dialog editor, "hey, how often did you use the isos?" He told me maybe a few dozen times, in a 100-minute film -- mostly to grab off-stage dialog, a fudged line, a word here and there, an alternate take. But more than 90% of the time, the final was the mono mix we did on the set, but with a lot of level and EQ adjustments to make it work within the mix.

But the editor did tell me that the isos saved them a lot of money, not having to ADR the lines.

 

[Scott H.]

A sound mixer who doesn't provide ISO tracks is called "unemployed."

The majority of sound mixers on feature films, and most TV shows, do not turn in ISO tracks. They mix to one track.

Reality TV is a different story; ISO tracks have become the standard. And some TV shows ask for ISO's, though in my inquiring with top sound recordists, mixing to a single track is still standard for most top shows.

I've never heard of the sound mixer's location audio being referred to as a reference track (unless, of course, it's reference audio).

 

[Michael Panfeld]

That is probably the single most important tidbit on this thread.

Put differently if you have to ask here, you need to hire someone!

Agreed! Sound is at least 60% of the audience's experience. Don't shortchange the sound department.

744T is a fantastic machine. You can also try the Edirol R4-Pro or R44. The latter two can be modded by Oade Brothers to get the stock preamps up to near 744T specs. Zoom H4n in a pinch, will do if you have good mics that are properly placed, and a clean sounding location (no echos, etc...).