Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1500716
68 S U M M E R 2 0 2 3 I C A S Q U A R T E R L Y things start to drop off at a lower motion level, a trait I learned from working with Greg King who lives by this approach. On this topic, re-recording mixer/supervising sound editor/sound designer Craig Henigan CAS notes, "It all hovers around getting the Dx in that pocket for me. Once that's done and we find a comfortable mix level (82 or 83 is usually where I end up at in a bigger stage that needs to hit -27), we mix as normal. Obviously, this is project-dependent and [considers] client needs. Having the bigger stage affords me [the ability] to push more air with clients that expect it to "feel" like film. The argument that we should be mixing in a nearfield environment is a good one for a lot of shows, Stranger Things included. But for a lot of my directors, they still want the big theatrical experience, hence figuring out a monitor level that helps us get the spec and still allows clients to feel like it's a movie!" Once again, this approach focuses specifically on the level of the dialogue first and then fitting everything else around that. What's interesting to me about this is that I generally don't have issues with dialogue intelligibility or consistency when watching at home. There are exceptions, of course, but this might be tied to the type of shows we watch in my household which, typically, consist of "premium" cable and streaming shows like Stranger Things, Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul, Peaky Blinders, Poker Face (all fantastically mixed shows), along with home theater versions of feature films. The streaming stuff is generally mixed to the dialogue anchored spec. And being "high end" or flagship content, they are also probably mixed by some of the best in the business. I'd also go so far as to say that the shows I've worked on recently all have very clear and even dialogue. The Orville, which I mixed with Tom Ozanich on dialogue, is a pristine dialogue mix, and the second season of Showtime's Your Honor, on which I mixed dialogue with Dan Gamache CAS on FX, is a very clear and consistent mix (let me know if you watched either of those and had a different experience, please!). I'll add that Showtime originally wanted us to deliver the mixes to a full program measurement, but we discussed the merits of dialogue anchor and, to their credit, they allowed us to deliver it that way. But in addition to the type of content we watch, there's also the factor that we watch on a decent set of home theater speakers, and at a good volume. As an aside to those who feel that home theater mixes can be too dynamic, there are built-in dynamic range controls on every home theater AVR, Apple TV, soundbar, etc., but almost nobody knows what these are or where to find them, which is another area the industry does itself no favors. We can't expect the general public to just somehow know what "DRC" is. These would be great tools for people to tweak their own listening experience to their taste, but it doesn't do much good if it's hidden three pages deep in a menu and not labeled as anything a non-industry professional can decipher. At the time of submitting this article to print, news emerged that Amazon will be releasing an AI-based tool called Dialogue Boost to allow viewers to identify and boost the level of the dialogue on their Prime platform at home. This is, undoubtedly, a Pandora's Box, but my initial reaction is a little bit, "Okay, we'll submit the version of the mix that all the creative team likes to air, and if people want to mess it up at home for whatever personal, environmental reasons they have, then that's their business. At least the 'good' version exists for those who wish to hear it." If you take anything away from reading this, I hope it's this: There is no substitute for a good mix. Now, this is a vast oversimplification of the underlying message, but it's as true as it is simple. Just being in spec doesn't mean you have a good mix with good dialogue intelligibility (especially true if you're mixing to full program, non-anchored specs). Also, you could very well be out of spec and still have a mix that adheres more closely to the intent of A/85 than half the mixes that are passed by QC as "in spec." 1770 wasn't designed to take the place of skilled mixers making informed choices to deliver an enjoyable listening experience, but the further down the rabbit hole of disparate delivery requirements we seem to go, the more it seems like our hands are being tied by a futile quest to "hit the numbers." We can't control the specs we're asked to deliver to other than pushing back and trying to be part of the conversation when appropriate. The things we can control include being cognizant of the format we're delivering for, measuring and maintaining consistent dialogue levels—even when we're delivering to a full program mix loudness and utilizing tools like LRA to keep ourselves informed of our mix dynamics. Stay tuned as the story of loudness continues to evolve.