4/6 channel recorder hysteria

External Since: Jul 12, 2003 Posts: 50

I confess that I initially jumped onto the 'more is better' bandwagon
where multi-channel recorders are concerned. I scoffed... dare I
say... laughed at what I referred to as a boat anchor when I first
read the posted reviews of the then, new Nagra V. Two-channel? What's
wrong with these guys, I thought. And admittedly, the ORB Drive
probably deserved every negative comment it received. Well, I'm
taking it all back. I read an article recently in Audio Media in
which a symposium of post-production sound editors were asked their
opinions regarding production sound. A very enlightening article, all
of them said essentially the same thing. Just give me good solid
two-track production masters and I'm satisfied. In fact, there was a
noticible sense of irascibility amongst them concerning the issue.

Two points in the discussion struck me as salient. Firstly, if the
production sound mixer knows what he's doing, then typical two-channel
split mixes will be more than satisfactory, as they always have been.
Secondly, it was pointed out that when they are presented with four or
six individual tracks, the post sound engineers have to spend
additional amounts of expensive studio time initiating a two-channel
mix before they can begin their own work. In essence, they have to
perform the work of the production mixer who has now been relegated to
little more than an audio routing technician. This of course
translates into a lot of extra time in post, which of course leads to
bigger bills for sound. Almost to a man, each of these gentlemen said
that good two-track audio by a competent mixer is all that is needed
in almost any situation, be it TV production or feature films. There
was mention of an occasionally desired third track which from time to
time would be nice or helpful. But this was the exception and not the
norm.

I realize there are probably very good reasons for dedicated four and
six channel machines. And I would enjoy hearing from others where
machines such as the PD-6, Cantar, Portadrive, Deva, 744T and others
can best be utilized. But I'd like to pose a question. Is more,
simply because it is easily had, better? Because the more I think on
it, the more I find myself revisiting my initial panning of the Nagra
V. After all, is it really likely that a company with such venerable
and innovative products in the past, could miss the mark by such a
wide margin as to find themselves the sole 2-channel entry in the
non-linear, field recorder market? I don't think so. To paraphrase
one panelist, lets put the 'mix' back in mixer. And as someone who is
in the market for a non-linear recorder in 2004, I am attempting to
make the best decision for my clients and myself as possible. Any and
all input is greatly appreciated.

Tom Beach

External Since: Dec 14, 2003 Posts: 1652

"Thomas Beach" <filmman56.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f3dabce.0401111906.7637d4f1@posting.google.com...
> I confess that I initially jumped onto the 'more is better' bandwagon
> where multi-channel recorders are concerned. I scoffed... dare I
> say... laughed at what I referred to as a boat anchor when I first
> read the posted reviews of the then, new Nagra V. Two-channel? What's
> wrong with these guys, I thought. And admittedly, the ORB Drive
> probably deserved every negative comment it received. Well, I'm
> taking it all back. I read an article recently in Audio Media in
> which a symposium of post-production sound editors were asked their
> opinions regarding production sound. A very enlightening article, all
> of them said essentially the same thing. Just give me good solid
> two-track production masters and I'm satisfied. In fact, there was a
> noticible sense of irascibility amongst them concerning the issue.
>
> Two points in the discussion struck me as salient. Firstly, if the
> production sound mixer knows what he's doing, then typical two-channel
> split mixes will be more than satisfactory, as they always have been.
> Secondly, it was pointed out that when they are presented with four or
> six individual tracks, the post sound engineers have to spend
> additional amounts of expensive studio time initiating a two-channel
> mix before they can begin their own work. In essence, they have to
> perform the work of the production mixer who has now been relegated to
> little more than an audio routing technician. This of course
> translates into a lot of extra time in post, which of course leads to
> bigger bills for sound. Almost to a man, each of these gentlemen said
> that good two-track audio by a competent mixer is all that is needed
> in almost any situation, be it TV production or feature films. There
> was mention of an occasionally desired third track which from time to
> time would be nice or helpful. But this was the exception and not the
> norm.
>
> I realize there are probably very good reasons for dedicated four and
> six channel machines. And I would enjoy hearing from others where
> machines such as the PD-6, Cantar, Portadrive, Deva, 744T and others
> can best be utilized. But I'd like to pose a question. Is more,
> simply because it is easily had, better? Because the more I think on
> it, the more I find myself revisiting my initial panning of the Nagra
> V. After all, is it really likely that a company with such venerable
> and innovative products in the past, could miss the mark by such a
> wide margin as to find themselves the sole 2-channel entry in the
> non-linear, field recorder market? I don't think so. To paraphrase
> one panelist, lets put the 'mix' back in mixer. And as someone who is
> in the market for a non-linear recorder in 2004, I am attempting to
> make the best decision for my clients and myself as possible. Any and
> all input is greatly appreciated.
>
> Tom Beach

"Put the mix back in mixer" is all fine and dandy but the rules and the
tools have all changed in recent years. We are faced with multiple cameras
from multiple angles. Reality shoots with unscripted talent jumping in and
out of cars, beds, planes, and all other manner of contrivance. Ever
increasing noise and rf pollution. Increased needs for additional headsets
and feeds. More demands on the mixer with less help due to squeezed budgets.
If we all had scripts, boom operators, utility people and two extra hands
that would be great but that is usually not the case. I feel my job is to
present the cleanest audio elements I can to post production and not to tie
their hands with "only my best live mix" if I can provide additional
solutions for them. My only muti-track solution at this time is a DA-78
which I rarely use due to it's cumbersome nature. I'm looking forward to the
additional possibilities that this year's likely purchase of a truly
portable location recorder will bring me as I've had my hands tied by two
track recording on far too many shoots lately where compromises had to be
made because of the limitations of the two track format. They aren't
requiring the film or video to be mixed or edited in the field....why is
this somehow a requirement of sound given the increasingly difficult
situations we encounter? These post sound engineers have every tool
imaginable to make their jobs easier and more precise, including automation
and the luxury of a 2nd chance, yet they want us to do the mix for them as
well!