ProTools plugin usage on the dubstage

[philper]

from Charles Maynes over on the "Which DAW" thread:

>>As a slight deviation for the thread- I should say that all the tricky plugins and automation you might do in order to make a scene "pop" are best printed to new audio files so they can exist in their wonderful state outside of your studio. I highly recommend avoiding the temptation to carry plugin effects of anykind into a mix enviornment- too much can go wrong, and at the cost per hour of a dub stage, you do not want to be the problem ever...

charles maynes<<<<<

I thought I'd drop this into a new thread. So even with everyone using PT, you recommend printing plug in processing etc into stems for use on the stage? I ask because this has been my experience as well (and also affords people the choice of what DAW to make those stems with...), but have noticed a trend towards using the plug ins etc live in the mix on stages that have replaced consoles w/ ICON type PT controllers. When you bring in your stems as per your quote above, do you also bring in the original un-processed OMF in the same session in case someone wants to go back a few steps and try again on tricky dialog edits or etc? So far this is what I've done and it has worked out pretty well for the few changes required.

Philip Perkins

[minister]

you should always call the stage to find out what they have, what they want, and how best to proceed, whether or not you plan to use plug-ins on the stage.

i mix as well as design, so, unlike Charles, i am not delivering just FX to a stage, i am usually printmastering a whole mix. when i deliver just music to a stage, i only deliver flattened bwav stems -- which includes effect prints!

i prepare the following :

1. 6 (5.1) printed stems. if all goes well, this is fast.
   
2. printed DX, FX, BKD, MX, and EFFECT RETURNS. first back up.
   
3. sessions saved at the appropriate version for the stage. last resort.

you could bring a drive with installers and your iLok...but i highly doubt a stage would want you bringing your plug-in installers and cause crashes on their system.

sometimes the stage has a box or plug-in that you WANT to use. like a TC 6000...i don't have one of those, and would avail myself of it when i could.

[charles maynes]

My original comment was oriented towards units vs stems-

If you are sending elements to be mixed- I would say render treatments into audiofiles.

If you are sending Premixes, I say to send everthing as you want it to play- The mixer who is receiving it will likely not have the time to unwind anything you do, so it is best to be conservative in issues like volume, EQ and panning- unless you have worked all of that stuff out in advance AND have verified the work. It is very common for dialog mixers to print reverbs to their own stem (which is reverb only), and I do not think it is a bad idea for FX as well- Basically the idea of the PD is that it should be "right" at the null fader setting on the board., Te level should be set so that the internal balances are sensible and the entire stem can be raised or lowered as needed-

Extra note- For those who have not done a lot of this-
Stems (at least here in LA) tend to be 8 channels- they are not necessarily in the "speaker" format- IE L,C,R,Ls,Rs,LFE- they can be nearly any configuration- so be sure to have that documented. Common FX formats might be L,C,R,Ls,Rs,LFE+L,C,R
or L,R,Ls,Rs,L,R,L,R or anything else you can think of.

charles maynes

Originally Posted by philper

from Charles Maynes over on the "Which DAW" thread:

>>As a slight deviation for the thread- I should say that all the tricky plugins and automation you might do in order to make a scene "pop" are best printed to new audio files so they can exist in their wonderful state outside of your studio. I highly recommend avoiding the temptation to carry plugin effects of anykind into a mix enviornment- too much can go wrong, and at the cost per hour of a dub stage, you do not want to be the problem ever...

charles maynes<<<<<

I thought I'd drop this into a new thread. So even with everyone using PT, you recommend printing plug in processing etc into stems for use on the stage? I ask because this has been my experience as well (and also affords people the choice of what DAW to make those stems with...), but have noticed a trend towards using the plug ins etc live in the mix on stages that have replaced consoles w/ ICON type PT controllers. When you bring in your stems as per your quote above, do you also bring in the original un-processed OMF in the same session in case someone wants to go back a few steps and try again on tricky dialog edits or etc? So far this is what I've done and it has worked out pretty well for the few changes required.

Philip Perkins

[philper]

I wasn't suggesting bringing in plugins via iLok etc, although I have heard of it being done and had it suggested to me by stages (if I wanted plug ins available), I meant using plug ins that were native to the room, esp. in a ICON situation. There has been some talk around here about plugs moving w/ shows from cutting rooms to ICON stages, so that the params of the plugins could still be easily tweaked. It's not an approach I advocate, but I am hearing about it these days. Re: the "backup" or "go-back" ability if there is a desire to change an audio edit--I guess that is your PT session w/o plugs (for DX particularly) rather than the OMF? Do you put it all in a new PT session for them? This has been what all the mixers I've worked with in the last year or so have requested--I make a PT session w/ everything in it I want them to have access to (including the OMF).

Philip Perkins CAS

[charles maynes]

I can only speak from my own experience, but Dialog should NEVER have plugins running unless it is specified by your re-recording mixer- Trying to make mixstage decisions in an editing room is pretty damn hard- Since dialog is the thing that EVERYTHING gets mixed against, it needs to be processed on stage. I think most would concur on this point. If you have treated dialog (w NR or other FX) Always have the original audio available on another track. The OMF can be helpful too- though it getting carried with dialog is not always best- We sometimes will create a seperate stem for the stuff we grab from it.

charles maynes

Originally Posted by philper

I wasn't suggesting bringing in plugins via iLok etc, although I have heard of it being done and had it suggested to me by stages (if I wanted plug ins available), I meant using plug ins that were native to the room, esp. in a ICON situation. There has been some talk around here about plugs moving w/ shows from cutting rooms to ICON stages, so that the params of the plugins could still be easily tweaked. It's not an approach I advocate, but I am hearing about it these days. Re: the "backup" or "go-back" ability if there is a desire to change an audio edit--I guess that is your PT session w/o plugs (for DX particularly) rather than the OMF? Do you put it all in a new PT session for them? This has been what all the mixers I've worked with in the last year or so have requested--I make a PT session w/ everything in it I want them to have access to (including the OMF).

Philip Perkins CAS

[ErikG]

Hi all, new around here...

As an editor and mixer I have a few thoughts on this subject.
Sorry for the longwinded post...

It amazes me at times how the US Major studios work if you compare to us here in northern Europe.

stike With regards to having plugins in the session in'ts almost a "no-no" to NOT have them running in the session as PT is useless with backtracking audiosuite plugin treatments.

Having the full automation from editing makes it so much easier when mixing when an editor has supplied you with a suggestion for EQ and reverb for a perticular music section for instance. If you dont like the EQ just change it no need to bring back the non treated sound and doing it all over again, changing the reverb setting is easy just click on the plug and it's there.

In our mix-studio we try to cover pretty much all "standard/in-use" plugin, just to be compatible with our editing rooms and our extrenal clients.
We have a regular dialogue prior to any mix with our clients to see whether they have found something insanely great that we need to add.

Keeping untreated sounds on alternative tracks or on alternative playlists makes it pretty messy IMHO in the mix.

stike The number of tracks used for treated and untreated material would make the sessions grow immensly. And how do you identfy WHICH alternative playlist is the relevant one if you have nomerous treatments done to the sound?


stike When printing stems for delivery the way you do it really changes the requirement for any and all editors to deliver their material as PT files.
Getting stems from one program into another isn't rocket science.

stike In our case up until now we have been PT exclusively but will now add a few Nuendo rigs to our small editing rooms so that editors can choose what system they wan't to work on, and also adding two Nuedos in the mix to accompany our two PT systems that we already have in there for increased plaback and stems recording.

stike Are there drawbacks with our way of working? Of course there is every now and then some editor forgot that he did use som obscure eq in an older version of PT that is no longer supported or so. Then you do have a problem, but those situations can normally be resolved ahead of the mix as long as you are aware of the limitations.

[ErikG]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

I can only speak from my own experience, but Dialog should NEVER have plugins running unless it is specified by your re-recording mixer- Trying to make mixstage decisions in an editing room is pretty damn hard- Since dialog is the thing that EVERYTHING gets mixed against, it needs to be processed on stage. I think most would concur on this point. If you have treated dialog (w NR or other FX) Always have the original audio available on another track. The OMF can be helpful too- though it getting carried with dialog is not always best- We sometimes will create a seperate stem for the stuff we grab from it.

charles maynes

On the subject of processing dialogue wether it be with online plugins or processed.
IF you know your room you can get to around 85% perfection on the dialogue in a properly calibrated editing room in my opinion. You never get it all perfect in the small room, but you get a good starting point to evolve from in the mix.

Now when we have it all there with the plugs running, it's just a matter of changing that LF cutoff slightly or changing some other setting at will.
No need to trash the soundfile and bring back the totally unprocessed sound and do it all again.

Obviously ths WILL depend on what kind of relationship you have with the mixer. Either I mix my own dialogue or my colleague does and we have worked so long together that there are never any major issues.

[charles maynes]

Erik-

Welcome to the forum--


Anyway,

I am glad your method works for you-

As I stated, that in my experience the comments I made are simply what I have experienced- If you do things differently great.

The one thing I would advise against though is the idea that one way of working is inherently superior to another. In Europe you will find that the creative arrangements are different (in regards to what editors and mixers do). Here in Hollywood, As I mentioned, it is generally the preference of most dialogue mixers to have the raw tracks provided to them, which allows them to best determine what EQ and processing might be appropriate. I would argue that providing processed alts for dialog would not greatly increase track counts, because on most projects your dialog sessions are going to be less than 20 tracks. As well, few dialogue editors work in a space even remotely close to a dubbing theatre- and again, in my experience, defects in a production recording usually require less treatment when heard from more distant speakers. (most dialog here is cut with headphones). So what might seem quite objectionable in the edit room might require only a little corrective filtering on stage. The other problem with running EQ and other treatments, is that you might be stuck with a "least common denominator" sort effect for your editors and designers- I know that few places have the number of plugins I use, and conversely- I refuse to use the Waves plugins in my work. If I relied on sending plugins to a stage, I would be running the risk of having to stop my work so the stage could function, or simply having artificial hurdles setup for my work to otherwise "work". Also, as a mixer, I would expect that whatever predub or stem I mixed would be permanantly done. If I have to set the project aside, I want the work to not rely on being able to reopen it when a plugin may no longer be functional.

Also- Conforming automation in any venue is prone to errors-

So these are just some thoughts from someone working to be compatible in an ever expanding post production universe.

charles maynes

Originally Posted by ErikG

On the subject of processing dialogue wether it be with online plugins or processed.
IF you know your room you can get to around 85% perfection on the dialogue in a properly calibrated editing room in my opinion. You never get it all perfect in the small room, but you get a good starting point to evolve from in the mix.

Now when we have it all there with the plugs running, it's just a matter of changing that LF cutoff slightly or changing some other setting at will.
No need to trash the soundfile and bring back the totally unprocessed sound and do it all again.

Obviously ths WILL depend on what kind of relationship you have with the mixer. Either I mix my own dialogue or my colleague does and we have worked so long together that there are never any major issues.

[philper]

Most of what I do that ends up on dubstages are verite-style docs. There is often so much dialog work to do (and no ADR) that I end up rendering a lot of the dx thru NR and etc plugs to get it up to a minimal standard. I agree that the dubstage is a somewhat more forgiving environment (speakers far away etc) but often the dubstage mix ends up on the DVD and the broadcast master of the show, so it does end up being heard in a TV listening situation with the speakers closer (as in an edit room). I know there is an assumption that dubstage mxers will fix a lot of the dialog issues, but I've also had many situations in which, the decision having been taken to back track to the OMF to make a change in the DX, where the mixer is surprised at how much NR, EQ, reNOVAtor etc work they will have to do to get the track to the place I had my stem. Having them do all that work, with whatever tools they prefer, not necessarily the same plugs I used, for every dialog clip wold be prohibitively expensive for these kinds of shows.

Re: the "European" system/methods, that is pretty much what I am hearing happens on shows that start their edit in PT and mix on ICON systems. On a production where the same people (person) may be both cutting the sound and mixing it this seems like a good idea. In the Hollywood time-compressed and thus more compartimentalized method involving numbers of people working simultaneously in different places, I agree that things have to be kept as simple as possible and that assuming that things like plugs and automation will carry across to a new system are very risky.

Philip Perkins CAS

[charles maynes]

Philper-

I think the point I was trying to make was that it is short-sighted to limit the manner in which these things accomplished- Or, to give an illusion that they are only done in a specific way- There are many paths to Mecca in post sound- you just don't want to steer your ass (donkey, my favorite animal in all of God's creation- I think I am part ass myself actually...) off of a steep cliff in getting there.

charles maynes

Originally Posted by philper

Most of what I do that ends up on dubstages are verite-style docs. There is often so much dialog work to do (and no ADR) that I end up rendering a lot of the dx thru NR and etc plugs to get it up to a minimal standard. I agree that the dubstage is a somewhat more forgiving environment (speakers far away etc) but often the dubstage mix ends up on the DVD and the broadcast master of the show, so it does end up being heard in a TV listening situation with the speakers closer (as in an edit room). I know there is an assumption that dubstage mxers will fix a lot of the dialog issues, but I've also had many situations in which, the decision having been taken to back track to the OMF to make a change in the DX, where the mixer is surprised at how much NR, EQ, reNOVAtor etc work they will have to do to get the track to the place I had my stem. Having them do all that work, with whatever tools they prefer, not necessarily the same plugs I used, for every dialog clip wold be prohibitively expensive for these kinds of shows.

Re: the "European" system/methods, that is pretty much what I am hearing happens on shows that start their edit in PT and mix on ICON systems. On a production where the same people (person) may be both cutting the sound and mixing it this seems like a good idea. In the Hollywood time-compressed and thus more compartimentalized method involving numbers of people working simultaneously in different places, I agree that things have to be kept as simple as possible and that assuming that things like plugs and automation will carry across to a new system are very risky.

Philip Perkins CAS

[ErikG]

I'm sorry if it came across that our way is the only good way!

Every way is a good way as long as it accomplishes the task at hand and everyone involved understands and follows the guidelines to get it all working regardless of the setup.

My comment on Northern Europe compared to American did get out of context in my post...
I intended to write something that appareantly got a bit sidetracked so I forgot.

One of the interesting things if we do compare Hollywood/Euro is the size of it all. I visited a bunch of LA rerecording studios in january and sweet lord where there a lot of folks at the mix... At the William Holden Sony stage there where seven guys at the mix of "Ghost Rider"; two mixers (Gary Burgois & Gregg Orloff), dialogue editor, adr editor, fx editor, music editor and a coordinator (oops that was a girl). Seven ppl not including the direcor/prod co. folks.

Gary and Gregg where really open and friendly spending an hour or so chatting with us. The film was LOUD they didn't want it to be that loud but hey there's a boss in charge and it's never the mixer...

The scale of things is massive compared to what it's like here, the timeframes are a bit different too. I'd love to get more than four weeks for a full mix, and four weeks is generous here. Not to mention the obvious difference of budget sizes...

Over here we have one main mixer and one second who runs PT and handles any premix changes. that's it... OTOH our mixes seldom go over 300 tracks so there is a bit of a difference there as well.

I don't really know what I wanted to say with this post from the beginning anymore though ;-)

'night

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by ErikG

I'd love to get more than four weeks for a full mix, and four weeks is generous here.

'night

Try 5-7 days.

Anyway, I agree, no plug-ins on track deliverys.
Our track layouts are going to differ with the track and plug-in layout that the editor I using. As it is, it's a pain dealing with existing volume levels (that we want to keep) and adding level changes on top of that.
We don't have the time to rearrange plug-in and available DSP to make a SFX or Bg edit work.


Sounddesigners should deliver the elements process and leveled the way it should play.
Now, this doesn't mean consolidating the tracks from beginning to end. We still need handles.

As far as Dialogue, the only other person I want Eq'ing or processing dialogue other than me, is the dialogue premixer.

[philper]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Try 5-7 days.

Anyway, I agree, no plug-ins on track deliverys.
Our track layouts are going to differ with the track and plug-in layout that the editor I using. As it is, it's a pain dealing with existing volume levels (that we want to keep) and adding level changes on top of that.
We don't have the time to rearrange plug-in and available DSP to make a SFX or Bg edit work.


Sounddesigners should deliver the elements process and leveled the way it should play.
Now, this doesn't mean consolidating the tracks from beginning to end. We still need handles.

As far as Dialogue, the only other person I want Eq'ing or processing dialogue other than me, is the dialogue premixer.

So you are wanting sound design and FX folks to make, process and level sounds that are longer than what is needed for a cue, and then cut it back to what they think is appropriate, so you have handles on their already processed sounds?

Philip Perkins CAS

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by philper

So you are wanting sound design and FX folks to make, process and level sounds that are longer than what is needed for a cue, and then cut it back to what they think is appropriate, so you have handles on their already processed sounds?

Philip Perkins CAS

It's mainly when it comes to BG's. Hard Effects and real sounddesign are different. We don't really need handles on that.
And if we need it changed, then it' a fix for the sounddesigner. But if a Sound Effect is made up out of 10 tracks of elemnts to make up a single sound, along with eq's reverbs, delays or whatveer other processing, I don't want all of that to show up in the mix session, plug-ins and all.

[charles maynes]

Philper-

I thought Mark was pretty clear, but perhaps in your workflow things are different-

Hopefully I will get your ideas right on this Mark, because I am in agreement-

With design and FX elements, the mixer needs them to be "right" when they hit the stage- Or at least as "right"as they can be- there will always be creative decision making in the dub, mainly due to it being the first time that all the final sound elements are put together- this commonly will change the arrangement/ importance of one element or another- A great case in point is the recent Pirates sequel- in the openning sequence there is very little literal sound present- it is quite stylized in it's omission actually- whether this was planned ahead of time we cannot know- but I would have expected the literal sounds to have been available at the dub itself. We cannot really predict what the final sound choices might be, but we hope to be able to cover any needed sounds immediately.

Now the idea of design or fx elements, in essence being cut by moving faders is oft-putting. It may work, but I would not expect a mixer to understand my intention if I just threw a bunch of choices at him or her. And yes if the treatment are a part of your intended effect- print them.

If I missed your intention Philper, please elaborate so I can better understand your manner of working...


charles maynes

Originally Posted by Henchman

It's mainly when it comes to BG's. Hard Effects and real sounddesign are different. We don't really need handles on that.
And if we need it changed, then it' a fix for the sounddesigner. But if a Sound Effect is made up out of 10 tracks of elemnts to make up a single sound, along with eq's reverbs, delays or whatveer other processing, I don't want all of that to show up in the mix session, plug-ins and all.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

Hopefully I will get your ideas right on this Mark, because I am in agreement-



charles maynes

Yep. You got my ideas on this, right.