sync.sound.cinema: Han Duo (http://www.syncsoundcinema.com/2013/06/han-duo.html)

I'm shocked.

A person who does sound, railing against the factors that typically diminish the budget for sound on projects.

I'm idly curious as to why sound (which I firmly acknowledge is critical to the communication value of any audio/visual production) should be immune from the same factors that have affected the visual part of the process?

We accept the solo operator who maintains focus when we can't budget for a dedicated focus puller, right? We expect the DP to pitch in and hang lights and set stringers when we can't budget for a full lighting crew. And we obviously accept the fact that the "producer" or "filmmaker" might be the person writing the script - why? Could it be because everybody who can competently write, believes that they are also a "screenwriter" and that less and less, we want to pay the full ticket price of hiring an actual professional one of those.

In other words, explain to me why sound is so much different that it needs to be elevated above the many, many other production arts that ALSO benefit from dedicated attention on the set.

I don't think sound is LESS than these other areas. But I wonder if it's actually MORE.

If you think it is, make your case.

But understand that perfectly valid argument could be made that that great sound recording of a mediocre SCRIPT does a lot more damage to a project than a less than ideal signal to noise ratio. So why not divert those same dollars into scriptwriting instead of sound recording?

The truth is, we live in a time where both quality equipment and operational knowledge is easier to obtain than ever. So some of the "specialness" of the old "I need a qualified specialist to do everything" is breaking down.

We all have to deal with that.

I'm not against what you're arguing. Just a realist to thinks that any craft that feels that their contribution is somehow "more special" than the others is adopting a position that's asking for trouble.

Just another way of looking at things.

I definitely think there is a threshold where a single person handling everything is asking for a disaster (more than a few people talking simultaneously that need to have their levels constantly ridden--all of this while you're also trying to shoot is one instance), but obviously you can't just make a blanket statement that a one man band doing audio "doesn't work". . .likely thousands or tens of thousands of people are pulling it off daily.

Timeout - "T" . ..

Where's this going guys?

G

There are a lot of circumstances where I couldn't have a soundman. Just no room for anyone else on a small boat, for example.

Then there are times where I wish I had a budget to hire a soundman.

I've done a job where I ran two GoPro's to get two other angles for an event that had no budget. And then I've had jobs where I had a team of people and still not enough to handle all the duties comfortably.

"Never" and "always" are too absolute in this business. Sometimes we should never say always....

How things are done depends upon the nature of the task and available resources. and it often demands some inventive solutions.

... explain to me why sound is so much different that it needs to be elevated above the many, many other production arts that ALSO benefit from dedicated attention on the set..

For a while, one of my signature lines, based on experiences in the broadcast world, was: "Audio without video is radio. Video without audio is dead air." In other words, there are orders of magnitude more cases where audible (or even written) communication is the more important communication channel vs. cases where visual is mandatory.

Certainly, audio standards are slowly being eroded by unscripted "reality" type productions. But even there, there are probably more and more complex (although not necessarily more expensive) collections of equipment dedicated to capturing the audio than there are for video. Of course "reality" and "shaky-cam" push the envelope away from high production-value visual as well.

But I would propose that poor audio is perhaps the #1 or 2 immediate indicator of compromised production quality. Even more than the visual element.

i very much appreciate Bill's comments as to how market forces have changed the entire landscape of production and that includes the line item, "sound person".

that said, an audience will forgive slightly soft images before they forgive poorly recorded sound.

ymmv.

be well.

rob
smalltalk productions
nyc

Usually when I'm working on a two person crew, the sound recordist is helping with the setting up lights etc. They're not a specialist in that they only do one thing. I would say that generally there's a lot more compromises being made when there's no sound recordist than when there's one on the production. Sometimes it's tough enough getting good audio having the sound recordist and the audio needs you to have the microphone in the right spot.

I wouldn't do any mixing when doing one man band, just lay the audio onto separate tracks.

I would concur with Brian

"I wouldn't do any mixing when doing one man band, just lay the audio onto separate tracks"
- This too can also be a huge challenge for an inexperienced OMB.op.

Certainly, audio standards are slowly being eroded by unscripted "reality" type productions.

Don't see how, considering they are both scripted and have an audio person on "set".

"I'm idly curious as to why sound (which I firmly acknowledge is critical to the communication value of any audio/visual production) should be immune from the same factors that have affected the visual part of the process?...

We accept the solo operator who maintains focus when we can't budget for a dedicated focus puller, right? "

Hi Bill, my intent was never to elevate sound above anyone else. My point is that on shows where there isn't a solo camera operator, there has been the expectation of a solo mixer. I say that there should be proportionality: when it's a solo camera department, then a solo sound department is appropriate (documentary, reality tv, etc ). But when you walk onto a *film set* and there's a DP, 1st AC and a 2nd AC, then production expecting a solo sound person is a mistake. This article is intended more for UPMs and directors (the ones who, in my experience, have been making this request).

Again, this is about filmmaking, where other departments (that need it) have proportionate numbers crew members, and the sound department is being asked to go it alone.

Tv without sound is surveillance.... :-)

One man band...well it depends who that one man is, does it not?? I for one put myself as above average when it comes to sound, and I multitask very well. Some of my associates, not so much. My vote is that as long as the overall project is happy and progressing, don't bother me with the size of the crew... To each their own, because there is no one size fits all in this biz!

See above. Guess we all missed the boat on that one.

Budget considerations aside, there are only so many tasks a person can do at any one time before all of them begin to suffer from lack of attention. Camera operation requires the full and undivided attention of the camera operator if it's to be done correctly. Audio recording and mixing requires the full and undivided attention of a sound operator if it's to be done correctly. That's not to say that on a minimal crew the soundie might not set lights or whatever. But when the shot is rolling, there must be enough hands, eyes, ears, and brains focused on the various jobs to get all the pieces done correctly. All too often when people are required to multitask too much, the result is nothing getting done properly and the world is treated to yet another waste of bandwidth on YouTube..

I think he was saying that even if the sound guy concentrates ONLY on sound, one person can't do the job alone on a film or reality show. That's what I read above.

Just to re-visit to stir the pot...

The problem has always been the thread title. It's an absolute. Absolutes are bad.

The instructive think to my thinking is how easy it is for people to think that the way THEY do things is always the way it needs to be done. And understand that that reality is as true of the SPC practitioner as it is of an orientation where "sound mixing" is a thing done on a large set with a large team of people being paid to be there.

It would be interesting to know the truth of the matter. I'd love to see a pie chart that accurately breaks down how many of the "video productions" being done all over the world in the next seven days fell into nice pie slices ranging from "1 person goes out to do everything" to "Hollywood franchise movie arrives with 15 trucks and 100 people reporting on-location at 5:00am"

But that pie chart doesn't exist. So it's comforting to simply relate to what we're comfortable with. So a "shoot" for the SPC guy is a crew of one. And a "shoot" for a hollywood guy is a sound department of 15 and a location crew of 6 (or whatever)

Between those two extremes is a huge range of differences that the original title of this thread ignores.

One thing is sure. No matter WHICH slice on the pie chart your project falls into - there WILL be someone trying to do it for less money! That's just how business works. Controlling costs is a major component of ALL business. Period.

So the thing we're talking about - particularly here in SPC is how to make that reality WORK the best it can in the situation we find ourselves in most often.

And sorry, but the truth is that for a wide range of useful video production processes, it's perfectly possible for a sole practitioner to get great results. It requires knowing the precise circumstances when a lav, or an overhead on a stand mounted boom - taking into consideration the sound profile of the space - combined with a simple, clean recorder that the camera operator can ride levels on - is ALL that's required to meet the needs of the shot at hand. And there are probably tens of thousands of shots like being recorded every week around the world. Heck, it's the default status of nearly every field interview you see on TV below the "network package" level.

It is also VERY true that there are a wide range of recording situations where a single sound person IS totally inadequate. And if you try to apply that model in the wrong circumstances, you'll screw things up royally. Because it's equally true that in trying to save the cost of a couple of qualified crew people in the field, the production may have to bear the costs of 10 or 20 or even a hundred times the short term cost savings in Foley work or ADR or (shudder) re-shooting. Heck, if you're working with rarified talent, the one day callback fee to fix that bad decision might be 100 times the cost of the extra crew all by itself!

The point in my mind is that the internet is full of people who are willing to tell you how stuff has to be done in order to do it properly. There's nothing wrong with that at all. But more important is the requirement that when you read or hear those voices, you have to be experienced enough to judge whether what that voice is telling you has reasoning that backs up their opinions. And that reasoning is what provides the context for knowing whether to take their arguments at face value - or whether you need to say to yourself "Well, that's one way to do things when I'm in a situation that which is being described - but not always."

Along that path lies wisdom, IMO.

Bill, very well put.
To me it's like saying to a carpenter, build my house but all you get is a 22 oz. framing hammer and a crosscut saw. Sure it can be done but...Sometimes it's the right tool and sometimes you need a whole lot more.
When I do a seminar for example, I work with the sound guy (most of them I've known for a long time so it does go smoothly) but for 99.999% of seminars there is not need for more than 1 sound guy just like there's no need for more than 1 video engineer and no need for more than 1 guy (if that) on the DMX board.
Do a stage show and yeah you're probably gonna need a bigger boat if you catch my drift. Each job has different requirements so never say never, never say always!

Bill and Don - yes.

Maybe the title could read:

"Why "One Man Band" Sound Mixing Doesn't Work, all the time!

...or...

"Why "One Man Band" Sound Mixing Can Work"

My "take" on it.

Anyway, great thread with valuable contributions.

Grazie

He said the article specifically mentions film sets and reality shows as the instances hes making a case for.

Got that.

G

Sorry to keep beating that dead horse, just seemed like some people missed that little nugget.

No worries. "People" dip in and out of these Forums and may not, as you say, could miss the relevant/initial poise and purpose for the thread's reason to be born.

G