In the beginning of the portable recorder era, there was a mono synchronized
tape recorder and a simple portable mixer, and that was that. ADR
technology was far more limited then, yielding primitive results and causing
even more of an expensive, time-consuming hassle than it does today. The
mono mix created on set was vital as the key element of a film's sound and
the preservation of the actors' performances.

Production mixers of this era were required to blend
numerous different
types of microphones to create a seamless track where the audience would not
be disturbed by changes in tone or background sound. They had to accomplish
this in the midst of the usual chaos of a production set ‘ and do so with
the cooperation of the wireless systems of yesteryear, which were far less
reliable than those currently in use. Those mixers that successfully
tackled the formidable challenge elevated their craft to high art.

When stereo (2-track) location recorders were introduced to the industry,
most notably in the form of the Nagra IV-S, the first wind of tremendous
change began to blow. It was now possible, at least in principle, to record
two separate individual tracks. The mix, or at least two principal elements
of it, could now be performed later in the post production workflow instead
of being performed live on set. Multiple passes, endless adjustments, error
correction, and further benefits were all possible within this
non-destructive workflow. In post production, mixes and elements could be
tried, abandoned, and refined. For production mixers, it offered some
relief from pressure-cooker decisions. Problems such as phase cancellation
and RF interference suddenly had the potential for more elegant solutions.

At the same time, picture editors were beginning to move to computer-based
NLEs from Steenbecks, which allowed them to run two tracks with picture in a
much simpler fashion.

However, this workflow created internal controversy within the production mixing community. Those who had spent their careers performing beautiful
live mixes didn't want to have their responsibilities reduced to simple
audio element acquisition for an as-yet-unhired party to assemble later at
that party's whim. Aside from the insult to the mixer's pride, there were
myriad opportunities for problems along that route. Careless or ignorant
practice by telecine operators and picture editors without a through
understanding of sound could destroy the fruits of much difficult labor, and
leave one’s reputation sullied and ambitions thwarted.

In the post production world, the 2-track format opened another can of
worms. Picture editors didn't want to run multiple tracks of audio in their
NLE timelines, and despite the provision of labeled sound reports, didn’t
want the hassle of determining which tracks were appropriate to use for any
given shot. Straight transferred dailies, with boom microphones on one
channel and lavaliers covering the same actors' material on the other, would
create de facto phase problems during playback on mono monitoring systems
and leave producers and studio executives needlessly fearful for the state
of their production sound. Worse yet, careless transfer operators would
sometimes manage to merge the tracks during transfer and deliver a mono
transferred dailies tape (or worse, a simulDAT to replace the original
recording) featuring tracks combined arbitrarily in a way that destroyed the
benefits and usability of either.

Despite these headaches, mono Nagras began to disappear, and use of 2-track
recorders became standard on film sets. Supervising sound editors began
demanding that material be delivered with as much separation as possible
provided. Editors confirmed that despite the hassles, using split tracks
generally reduced ADR requirements from the
mono-only workflow, and
presenting material in split 2-track had at least
the potential to achieve
the best possible mix, with the opportunity for multiple passes now present.

As a result, it became more common for production mixers to abandon the mono
mix and deliver their material split between the two stereo tracks. For
many, it was a good deed that did not go unpunished. The improved potential
of the format was often never realized. Increasingly shorter post
production schedules, transfer errors between departments and workflow
stages, and general confusion and labeling errors resulted in subpar audio
reaching the final product. As a result, some production mixers, scorned by
this process, returned resolutely to working in mono. For whatever its
shortcomings, the mixer could at least be in control of his or her own
destiny.

Younger mixers of the time, having never known the previous era of the
deliverable mono mix, began working exclusively with the philosophy of
splitting microphones across a stereo pair whenever possible. Using the
boom on the left channel of the stereo image and lavaliers on the right
channel began to surface as the most common technique. The benefit was a de
facto “backup” track for the preferred one. The detriment was that members
of the picture editorial department, sometimes without the benefit of a good
audio monitoring system or a knowledgable background of the parameters of
sound, could not discern the preferred track from the backup, and
subsequently chose the inferior track. Even at this point, it was not
uncommon to avoid the costly and time-consuming traditional post-conform
process, wherein the dialogue editorial staff would return to the original
recordings and re-sync them completely to the edits used in the picture
editors' cut. As an alternative, the direct output of audio from the
picture editor's NLE system – with no reference to the original recordings
in the EDL – was sometimes delivered instead. In this case, mistakes made
either in telecine or picture editorial would become permanent.

These issues resulted in many landmines laying in wait for the production
mixer. Problems with the “backup” track would cause looping, with no one
aware that a superior track existed on the other leg of the stereo pair on
the original DAT or stereo 1⁄4″ tape. Poor discretionary choices in post
production – the same post production department that urged the production
mixer to use split tracks instead of a mono mix – left some films sounding
far worse than they were originally recorded.

What to do? On the one hand, split tracks offered, at least in theory, the
ability to create superior sound, and as a result were being requested
enthusiastically by post production. On the other hand, split tracks were
the cause of poorly chosen, poorly sounding audio in the final product due
to errors and hiccups in practice in the telecine and post production
workflow. Inevitably, there were dangerous compromises posed by both the
mono and 2-track workflows that neither format could overcome.

Using multitrack audio on set was most famously pioneered by production
mixer Jim Webb to suit the unorthodox directing and dialogue recording
techniques of director Robert Altman in the 1970s. Back then, Mr. Webb
reportedly required the use of a bus or van in order to transport the heavy
equipment involved from set to set. While he was able to accommodate the
director in this fashion, this difficult, complex, and labor- and
equipment-intensive practice was not to become an established workflow for
the industry.

As time wore on, other forward-thinking mixers such as Peter Glossop also
began to utilize multitrack recording techniques on set. The advent of
reasonably portable multitrack recorders like Tascam’s DTRS DA-88 digital
8-track recorders meant that the schoolbus required by Mr. Webb to carry
around the sound “cart” could safely be left behind. Glossop’s technique
during the mid-nineties, using an inventive and exhausting series of
multiple mixers, balanced splitters, and recorders, meant that he could
record a traditional mono mix on one recorder (a telecine-friendly Nagra
IV-STC), while simultaneously recording up to eight isolated microphone
tracks, capturing and preserving each element used (or bypassed) in the
“mix” and providing all the benefits of split track recording to post
production. “Here’s my mix,” Mr. Glossop once intoned to this article's
author during a demonstration of his recording setup, pointing to the Nagra
recorder. “If they don’t like it ‘” he then indicated the flurry of LED
lights on the Tascam DA-88, indicating all of the pre-fader mix elements
split, isolated, and preserved ‘ “they can re-do it themselves!”

Here at last was the prototype of today’s workflow ‘ the ability to provide
BOTH a mono mix and multiple split tracks to post production. The mono mix
is the de facto default track, but if it should prove problematic, an editor
can go to the split tracks and re-create the mix from scratch, solving phase
problems and RF overlap issues, reducing background noise by A/Bing
indivdiual tracks, choosing alternate key sources for the mix, and so forth.

But though the design was brilliant, the implementation, like that of most
visionary pioneering practice, was not yet fully established in 1996. DTRS
tape could not be handled by telecine and were slow and non-intuitive to
implement in film post production workflows. The DTRS machines themselves
– while not requiring a schoolbus for transport – were awfully heavy for
quick and simple moves around the film set, and their natural dependence
upon AC power made them a hassle to use in conjunction with time code and in
remote locations. The additional hardware that the workflow required (an
additional mixer, quality splitters for eight channels, and so forth) only
continued to add heft and complexity to the sound cart.

However, the seed had been sown.

Click here to Read Part Two of Benefits and Pitfalls of The Multitrack Era

Click here to Read Part Three of Benefits and Pitfalls of The Multitrack Era