Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1529890
C I N E M A A U D I O S O C I E T Y. O R G 35 process. His goals are clear, defined, and simple. That kid from the '80s that I introduced at the top of this article just felt like he met the Yoda of re-recording mixers on the planet Dagobah! But it made me wonder about this idea floating around in my head—the superiority of the sound of the boom versus the wires. I clearly understand the need for both, but how did Tom feel about the subject? So, I squarely asked Tom to elaborate on his personal preference of boom versus wires and when he would specifically choose one over the other. "If you can get a boom in close enough to pick up a good signal, it does everything better. But, we need to make sure the lav sounds good because if it's noisy, that's a dialogue killer. Because very often the lavs help fill in a boom track that's a little too far away for the perspective that the audience is seeing. It's also important that the boom is over the widest shot because sometimes that track is very useful [since] the lavs are very dry and flat and they lack dynamics. The boom allows us to get a sense of space." With this response, it was clear to me that Tom didn't have any real strong biases toward one mic source versus another. What combination of tracks he chooses is solely dependent upon his goals to achieve the best possible mix. I really appreciated my conversations with Stephen, Julie, Jason, and Tom. It has truly impacted me as a production mixer. As Tom mentioned earlier, he's looking at the picture and mixing the film as the audience will see it. In a way, he's mixing for that kid who is sitting in a theater somewhere right now in front of a big screen who, maybe one day, will have the opportunity to sit behind the console like Tom on Stage B at Soundtrack Film and Television in New York. is very much a collaborative effort between the dialogue editor and the dialogue mixer. When it comes down to which dialogue tracks are used, it's really a case by case, shot by shot decision- making process during the dialogue predub. In a final mix, you don't want to be dealing with what mic sounds best." Being curious about the predub process, I asked Tom to elaborate a bit on that process and give me some specific examples of how he ends up choosing which tracks to use for the dialogue mix and what are some of the key factors when making those choices. "It depends upon the material. I do try and use the boom as much as possible. Usually when the boom mic is further away or a little off axis, that's where the lav becomes really useful to provide that nice dry signal while still using the boom to create the sense of space. First and foremost, I want to hear what's being said. A good clean full-range signal on the voice is necessary. You have to look at the picture and see how the whole scene is going to play and I'll need to determine how am I going to maximize the quality of the dialogue." I was enthralled listening to Tom talk about his approach to a dialogue mix. It's crystal clear to me that my goal as the production mixer is to get the best possible tracks that I'm able to and adjust my approach to the cinematography styles or anything else that's thrown at us. Because of my conversation with Tom, I realized that any bias I have toward one mic source relative to the other is insignificant. It's about getting the best tracks I can. It really comes down to flexibility, ingenuity, and practicing the basics proficiently. Next, I asked Tom to elaborate if mic choice—or lack thereof—can affect dialogue intelligibility. "The whole idea of the movie depends on hearing the dialogue. The entire scene must flow from beginning to end so the audience is not disturbed because the quality of the voice is changing from one shot to another. The last thing I want is for the audience to notice the mix. They should be following the dialogue and the story and be captivated by what's happening on the screen. When it comes to episodic streaming with near field mixes, there's a problem whereas the mixers aren't getting the proper time. With turnaround times less than two or three days, they may not get the opportunity to properly finesse the dialogue, which could play a role with intelligibility and/or how the mics are chosen or used." It is apparent to me that Tom has a strong understanding of Tom Fleischman CAS