This is Part Two in a three-part series on the evolution of multitrack production sound recording and how the workflow is still being solved. To read Part One, click here.

The two-track era taught us that while the potential of split recording
could offer a superior end result, the mono production mix was still an
essential element for the post production workflow. While post production
supervisors and editors relished the ability to be able to re-create the
occasional problematic mix, they had neither time nor inclination to do this
for every shot of a given film. The initial efforts developed by mixers such
as Jim Webb and Peter Glossop to provide all the benefits of both a mono mix
workflow and a multiple track workflow simultaneously (discussed in detail in the next installment of this series) were positive, innovative, and pioneering
first steps, but the amount of gear involved to implement them at that time
was not compatible with most production scenarios and expected practice.

The first real milestone toward making this multiple-approach workflow light
and portable was the invention of the original Zaxcom Deva, in the
mid-nineties. This was a four-track recorder in a small package that ran on
easily portable NP1 batteries and recorded to an internal hard drive.
Further developments led to the Deva II and, after some juggling, the media
format eventually settled on optical disc formats such as DVD-RAM. The
Zaxcom machine had a small but loyal initial following of established users
who assisted in its development, and it gradually established a foothold in
the field. It could be used to record a mono mix as well as three
additional split tracks of the mix elements – without the weight, heft, and
limitations of DTRS machines.

The Deva provided the first real step toward practically implementing this
ideal workflow into industry practice, but things really took off once other
manufacturers got into the game. While the 1/4" tape and DAT eras basically
left production mixers to decide between two machines that essentially
performed the same task, 2003 brought an unprecedented flooding of new
machines onto the market. Five major manufacturers released different
portable recorders built for multitrack work on production film sets, all
maintaining a small footprint and a weight mass under fifteen pounds. In
addition to these choices, several other manufacturers and software
developers provided further options with software to record directly on
portable laptops, as well as a plethora of “pro-sumer” machines. Needless
to say, there was now a dizzying array of options for processing and
delivery of multitrack recordings, complete with the conveniences that made
them practical to implement on modern film sets.

As with all new technology, there were bumps in the road – software bugs,
drive failures, optical disc inconsistencies, practical use of untested
theoretical features in the field, and so forth. But the overwhelming push
by the manufacturers made the turning tide impossible to ignore by post
production. As mixers began to invest in the new crop of machines, telecine
houses began to acquire non-linear media controllers, and editors began to
implement mulitple tracks into their timelines, the stage was finally set
for the long-foreshadowed revolution.

In a typical example of this new workflow, telecine houses separate the
first track of a polyphonic multitrack file, which contains the mono mix
created by the production mixer. This track gets bussed to dailies and
picture editorial, while the additional isolated element tracks are archived
for the use of the sound editorial team. Picture editors who wish to can
take advantage of the additional tracks – for an off-camera line or
performance, to see whether or not usable tracks exist away from the mix,
and so forth – by loading them in separately from the original optical
disc (or a secondary disc made for them by the production mixer). Once the
sound editorial team takes over, they can put the additional tracks to full
use.

One would assume that given all of the advancement of the technology and its
firm establishment into the industry for several years running, the goal of
implementing the workflow and reaping its benefits would already be well in
place today. The workflow provides the time-saving benefits of the mono
mix, which emphasizes and utilizes the mixing craft of the production sound
team. It simultaneously provides a non-destructive alternate to overcome
the limitations inherent in a live and sometimes unrehearsed mix all while
providing both the simplicity needed the dailies audience and picture editorial timeline and the extraordinary detail for the sound editorial needs.

The tools for the revolution have been in the hands of the architects for
some time now. So why, one wonders, is this workflow still a mystery to
many, subject to rampant misinterpretation and poor implementation into the
existing model?

Click here to read Part Three