Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1491451
Spring 2023 – LOCAL695.ORG 25 My primary recorder for some years has been a Zaxcom Fusion 12, paired with a Zaxcom Mix-12 control surface. For car rigs on Fabelmans, we used a Sound Devices 633 and 688 and I "mixed" on the front panels of these recorders. Finding a nimble and effective way to approach doing car rigs is an evolving and often frustrating art—especially these days with multiple last-minute schedule changes and limited prep time. For boom microphones, we generally used Sennheiser MKH 50's. For radios, we used Lectrosonics DSQD and SRC receivers, with SMWB and SSM transmitters, along with DPA 6060 lavaliers. Over the years, I have gone through the whole gamut of lavaliers. I like the DPA's, now that the build quality has become more robust. They take a lot more abuse than they did in the past. On Fabelmans, our radio challenges were not from crowded spectrum, but from the set itself. We did initially have a lot of issues with walkie-talkie interference with the DSQD receivers, which we more or less solved (by a lot of trial and error) with Wisycom-filtered antennas and an additional pair of RF filters right before the signal enters the receivers. There were multiple phone calls to the folks at Lectrosonics. It's quite a task to try to work through some of these problems while on a production, but there's generally no good way to duplicate the set RF environment for testing unless you are actually on a set. Before shooting, I visited the major locations and did radio scans to avoid bad surprises on shoot days, and this paid off well. The latest versions of the Lectrosonics Wireless Designer software are a lot more sophisticated in terms of frequency coordination. Most times, I start by letting the software choose frequencies, but then I will generally end by "hand picking" channels as well. I do need to mention that I understand that many crews are having good results with the Shure and other wireless systems, but up to now, I have stuck with Lectrosonics, mostly due to reliability, small size, and portability. My biggest concerns regarding sound during this production were the numerous kitchen and dining room scenes with a large cast and wall-to-wall dialog. There was a lot of physical activity in these scenes—pots and pans, movement, food serving—a lot of it right over the dialog. I know that many of us have been in the position of wondering if and when to bring up these issues on a set, and anticipating that a director may understandably dismiss your concerns in the effort to capture a seamless and naturalistic performance from the actors. But the production mixer must always bring these things up. For some actors, the exact same qualities that make them so captivating as performers; their spontaneity and originality make them problematic for us in the Sound Department. Michael, Rebecca, and I were constantly on these sets trying to cushion the dinnerware, working to substitute wooden utensils instead of metal, being a general pain in the ass to the Prop Department. At times like these, it is good but hard for us to remember that the sound that we record is not an entity unto itself. Its only value is to be of service to the storytelling—to the narrative. To the extent that we, or any department, impose a condition on the filmmaking process, it is seen to be antithetical to the overall creative process. Thus, we are most often asked to fold our craft and technique into the larger process in such a way that to the casual observer, we are performing no obvious craft at all. Having said all this, while prepping this article, I reached out to Gary Rydstrom (Sound Designer and Re-recording Mixer) and Brian Chumney (Supervising Sound Editor) to learn that there was very little ADR work done on any of these scenes. I was so relieved to hear this, but certainly can't take all of the credit. We did the best work that we could in recording the original tracks, but I think the lack of ADR is as much due to the skill of the Ron's cart