Dear Sir,
I am delighted that my opinion on the plight of the production sound mixer generated debate. May I reassure Robin O'Donoghue that I was in no way undermining the good work of the re-recording mixer.
My comments referred to one feature film, 'In the Line Of Fire'. The general consensus of the people I spoke to after viewing the film was the sound track left much to be desired. We were informed that we were hearing the sound track in ideal conditions. So why was the dialogue so sibilant and the level so high it left one's ear drums vibrating. Even the odd intimate dialogue scenes in the movie were, for me, at an unacceptably high level. Is this really the new generation of cinema sound? What happened to the original sound track?
Contrary to Nick Lowe's comments, in my experience original sound is often replaced for no reason. Even the most conscientious sound mixer covering dialogue scenes with wild tracks and FX has found that their efforts have been to no avail. With a conscientious sound editor who is prepared to spend time consulting more with the location mixer could result in a great deal more original sound being used in the final track. All too often the floor mixer only gets criticism from people who have no idea of the problems the mixer faces. Many location mixers share my views that we are becoming more bound to post production technology which is making our task much more difficult .
Time code is one example which effects a production. How often have mixers looked at sound reports expecting a comment on signal-to-noise etc., and the only feedback refers to lack of time code run-up. I would dread to think what film stock wastage there is on a ten week location shoot using time code. As long as the technology gets its ten second run-up, to hell with the frustrations of the crew. Location Stereo Sound has now become the norm and any mixer will know the problems without me going into detail. Yet I dread, that the production mixer now has to start thinking about, wait for it, 'Surround Sound'. Maybe someone out there can explain to me how it will be achieved
The sound crew is now down to a team of three, or often two, on a movie. Yet I find we seem to need more and more equipment to carry while the daily set-ups increase. Not only do we need to be competent, we also have to be athletic to keep up. My philosophy has always been to record the best sound one can without getting bogged down with technology. Keeping it simple has worked for me over the years. I have rarely had to listen to the proverbial words from the 1st Assistant Director 'Waiting for sound'. To accommodate the demands of post production the location mixers' lot is becoming more and more exasperating. Hold your hand up those who agree.
Most freelance mixers own their own sound equipment. I recently came across some of my old invoices from when I kitted myself for my first movie; two Nagra 3 recorders, seven microphones and various accessories - total cost £1,500. I though I would make a comparison with a sound kit that I feel would serve me well for the next five years working on features. While I still feel the ideal location DAT recorder is yet to arrive, I would include the Nagra D, while hanging on to my analogue Nagra 4S TC.
Before you read any further, what do you think my ideal kit would cost? Yes, you're right - it's mega bucks! If you invested in the above equipment you would have little change out of £75,000. OK, you would have the latest technology but I ask, would you ever get the right return for that investment? I rather think not. Even with the above kit, the mixers problems would be the same; wind, aircraft, camera noise, the proverbial whisperers and so on. Whatever equipment is at our disposal at the end of the day, a good mixer will provide a decent track given just half a chance. So let's not over complicate our task by accepting technology which leaves us not knowing our arse from our elbow.
David Wynne Jones
Harpenden, Hertfordshire