Issue link: http://digital.copcomm.com/i/681510
28 S P R I N G 2 0 1 6 C A S Q U A R T E R L Y Were you working with printed pre-dubs or the source material? It seems like many mixes are going wider on the track count since we have the ability now with newer versions of. Was there a pre-dub process or does it seem to be continually mixing and updating as the film evolves? I'm taking it out of Pro Tools and running it through the Neve DFC console and printing it to a Pro Tools recorder, which is strictly pre-dubs, mostly 9.1 or 9.0 since we were in Atmos. I have options to move something over to object tracks, which are always riding along with me. For me, getting it out of the edi- tor's raw cut track, balancing, re-bussing, panning, EQ, adding reverb, etc., frees up the Pro Tools main session. The track count can be so wide in the raw session and I think it is good to start bringing that track count down to be manageable. That way, I'm not searching for anything in the mix. I know where it all is on the pre-dubs; it's balanced, it's mixed, it's EQ'ed, it's reverbed, it's got everything there. If we don't like it, I just dump it and we cut something new. It is very rare that a director wants to retain any part of a sound that makes up the original element he wants to lose. When it comes to picture changes and conforming, it just seems so much easier to deal with when the sound is properly pre-dubbed. It's also much easier just to edit the pre-dubs. I have tried to stay with source material, but on these big shows, it just gets so convoluted to me. It becomes a big mess with constant conforms, changes in sound, automation not working or left over from a previous temp mix or mixes. And damn, the endless scrolling to find a sound that we want to mute or change, it's frustrating and unproductive and slows the whole process of mixing to a stop. For me, sometimes there is no ebb and flow with raw tracks. Do not get me wrong, Pro Tools is an incredibly powerful editing tool. We could not do these films without it, and the sound editors are the ones who master these editing machines. Watching some of these editors work is truly art. After all, Pro Tools is only a program on a computer; it is nothing without its operators. We are a sound team. One of the aspects of the mix that stood out to me most was the sense of space and depth. I felt it was exceptional at making the listener feel fully immersed in the world of Riley's mind. Even the scenes outside in Riley's life had a great sense of realness from the space and depth in the mix. What was your approach to this and how did working in Atmos affect that? We used the full sonic space of the theater. Mixing in Atmos, we're now able to pan things around the room without losing the quality of the sound or getting a level shift. It's always been a problem to get things to read when you pan it off the screen in the older formats. The surrounds in the older formats are set 3 dB lower than the main screen channels, and do not have the full frequency range of the screen channels. The mixer has to bump the sound up about 3 dB when mixing the sound off the main screen channels to the surrounds. The Dolby Atmos sys- tem eliminates that, and gives the surrounds the same level and frequency response as the main screen channels. On Inside Out, while we're in Riley's head, we really made use of everything around you and on top of you, making the audience feel like they are in Riley's head. Ren had all these great liquid type recordings like blood and fluid going through your head, which are part of the background sound in Riley's headquarter scenes. I moved those sounds around constantly, subtly moving all around like it's flowing through, but we kept it very subtle and didn't want to draw attention to it. When we come out to the real world, we made the sound a bit more flat and a little duller, for the most part, only coming out of the main screen channels with no surrounds or top. Tom Johnson spent a great deal of time on reverbs for the voices, which really helped in establish- ing the sonic quality and depth of both worlds The mix felt so clear and precise, even the action scenes were very clear. Was that an idea that was intended from the start of sound design and editing or through the mix? Many times it seems we have every element possible from the editorial, and mixers spend the time to sort what important elements need to be heard. Ren and I worked really hard on that in the pre-dubs. We really stripped it down and added the details as we saw them, focusing on sounds that help support or tell the story. Again, with Inside Out, the story is so good. We wanted the sound to match the level of storytelling, the level of the animation and visuals, and the level of acting. I can only hope we achieved that. I think we did, but only the test of time will tell for sure. In the final mix, this team was always focused on: what is helping and what is hurting the storytelling? Is the music sup- porting everything in the scene? Then let's dump all other sounds or vice versa—or let's try dropping a music cue. Do we really need that off-camera line? Do people have to grunt every time they do something? It was all about clarity and not taking the audience out of it. It seems these days, films are busy visu- ally and you could fill the sonic space up to match, but I think that's confusing and pushes the audiences away from the film because you don't know what to pay attention to. Sound is a very powerful element in films. It is so easy to get lost in the elements and forget what the overall goal is. In the part where Joy and Bing Bong get trapped in the abstract thought chamber and are flattened to 1D, Bing Bong yells, "Depth! I'm lacking depth!" and it was so perfectly reflected in the mix. Did everything get summed to just the center channel for this section? Yeah, the picture lends itself to it. I think I put the whole score on a [panning] joystick. At a certain point, it's moving around the room and, you're right, it goes from full Atmos down to LCR down to mono. We wanted it flat. We wanted the sound to do what the visuals did. It took a lot of work to make it feel right and we had to be careful not to get in the way of the dia- logue, especially when it goes down to just one speaker when suddenly every element is competing for every frequency. When we pop outside of the chamber, you will notice it goes back to full sound. I thought that section was such a great art joke. Oh yeah, it was pretty brilliant, but that's Pete Docter. He's a really fun guy to work for and he's so appreciative of everyone's work. I am very fortunate to be able to work with him and the