Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/635406
I asked for comments from a few other re-recording mixers, all of whom have had extended mixing exposure with the fitted screens dur- ing this current TV season, to find out if they were able to recognize notable differences. Karol Urban CAS MPSE, re-recording mixer: Grey's Anatomy, Kingdom "I notice a crisper mid-high range. There is an almost com- plete elimination of crackles and ticks found post mix in Layback. I am also better able to judge and correct excess sibilance in a way that translates better to broadcast." Dave DiPietro, FX re-recording mixer: Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder "My first impression was immediate; it sounded brighter. For me, I was amazed with the clarity of sound with movement. There is a very noticeable difference when panning and spreading sound fx. I was also very pleased with the clarity of the low end as well. I can hear a lot more detail in my lower frequency fx. Overall, the clarity difference just makes it easier to hear what is good and bad." Stephen Fitzmaurice CAS, dialogue re-recording mixer: Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder, Jack of All Trades, Graceland "Even with room-tuning, micro-perf screens feel harsh when bright (on the top end). For me, woven screens are far superior in delivering clarity of sound, EQ adjusted or not. The difference in quality of sound is entirely in the HFs. I would suggest that the difference is notable as low as 3 kHz, but becomes more pronounced above 10 kHz. I have not measured this objectively, it's just an educated guess. I'd suggest also that the difference could be to do with interference patterns caused by reflections in the micro perf." Regarding translation of the mixes to a living room environment, Stephen had the following comments. "The (mixes thru woven) screen translates much more closely to the user experience found on high- quality systems in the home. The at-home experience is wildly variable depending on equipment, but in systems that have traditional forward facing, full bandwidth speakers, the translation is much closer." With the Layback process and making deliverable files for domestic and foreign QC being the next steps, I asked Craig Holbrook for his input. Craig has over 16 years of experience in Layback, deliver- ables, and responding to QC notes with a unique advantage of being on mix stages in addition to Layback environments primarily set up to be a representation of a living room. DS: What's been the most significant change you have observed on the stages fitted with woven screens? CH: The most significant change is the (audible) transparency of the woven screen. I have observed that the higher frequency register opened up since the switch. DS: As a Layback operator for many years, are you observing any changes since installation of the new screens? CH: Some of the high-frequency snaps and ticks that were very hard to perceive on our PVC perf screens were much more severe on our monitors in the Layback room. I have noticed that these types of ticks make it through the woven screen, when before they would be almost inaudible through the micro perf. The woven screen helps the dub stage to identify these technical problems and usually has them all repaired before the mix hits the Layback room. This means less trips back to the stage for fixing these types of problems. DS: Subjectively, are there less or more outside QC notes or fixes? CH: The woven screens have greatly helped our mix teams better judge the severity of the high-frequency tick problems, which has helped our QC notes decline in that specific area. DS: Any other general comments? CH: The woven screen is a better option for television re-recording mixing. Listening to a mix through a micro perf screen tuned to the X-Curve does not accurately represent what most people are listening to in their living rooms. The woven screen does a lot to give the mixer a more transparent representation of their mix coming through a large screen. The woven screens with a Mod-X tuning seem to translate very well to the home-viewing environment. As we are observing a lesser degree of previously masked factors, these few improvements alone are significant time-and-labor-saving components toward delivering a better product. Attested by another facility making investment in this type of product, here are the direct comments of Bill Johnston, Vice President of Engineering at Formosa Group. DS: What was the driving force behind your recent purchase of a woven screen vs. perf screen? BJ: We have purchased two screens. In each case, the lower cost was a HUGE factor. However, in our second installation, we had an LCR set of Quested 201C speakers. We had been doing primarily commer- cial work in these rooms. As we moved to configuring the room for TV/feature work, we decided to maintain these speakers rather than moving to a more traditional theatrical post choice, and the addition of the fabric screen was necessary to mitigate the problems with a dome tweeter and a traditional screen. DS: What is the most significant sound quality change and other audible attributes you are observing? BJ: In both of our cases, one with JBL 5732 and the other with Questeds, we have found that, at the high end, the imaging and trans- parency are significantly improved. We were concerned that transla- tion might be an issue, but we have had success with mixes returning to our other stages. DS: Any other general comments? BJ: Although I am a big fan for smaller environments, I am unclear yet as to whether these screens would be greatly beneficial to the large-room theatrical market. In these environments, picture quality can be a bigger issue with the clients. It may be difficult to convince the client that improved audio is worth sacrificing picture quality when they have to make picture related decisions on the dubbing stage due to time, schedule, and other factors. Certainly a world where the destination theaters and all dubbing rooms had woven screens is appealing to audio geeks, but the heavy hand of Mr. Practical takes precedence. Over time, I would predict that these types of screens could become standard, especially with digital projection having the capability of overcoming any artifacts of woven screens. RECAP We, as an audience, have all experienced the "What did he/ she/they say" syndrome. As professionals, we are under- standing of how many unforeseen circumstances can creep into a final product as the cause of this syndrome. I am a firm believer that our accumulative efforts in improving every step and aspect of the process will yield a much better product resulting in improved audience captivity. This, in turn, will result in better "eyeball" retention for the final product. More than a decade-old study from a major network proved the audience is more apt to change the channel (study predates streaming services) and seek other programs if the audio was not discernible, contains artifacts, or noise. Ironically, dark or degraded image, even blackout of the screen, was more tolerated by the test subjects. Remarkable products have long been introduced in every aspect of the industry and it is noteworthy to see new progress in this arena. • About the author: In his over three decades of technical tenure and manage- ment, Danial (Dan) Shimiaei has become versed with building and refining specialty spaces, spanning remote trucks to multi-use facilities, used for audio and video production and post production. He currently works as a VP of Technology and Engineering at Westwind Media. He can be reached at dan.shim@icloud.com