Command8 instead of Pec/Dir Switches

[Pirate Post]

Anyone using a Command8 instead of using Pec/Direct and record switches like the new Colin Broad PD-1 to punch and monitor a ProTools stem recorder?

[subwoof]

My question is with the ability to completely automate every aspect of our mix before we record the stems, do we really need PEC/direct type funtionality anymnore at all? Is it just a hold-over from linear style recording? If we trust our automation can't we just keep mixing in the box until everyone is happy, then print our stems a reel at a time in one continuous pass with no punch-ins as a simple transfer?

After all, there should be no difference in the audible quality between the input (direct) or the output (PEC) of the tracks recording to hard drive anyway. We now don't have to worry about mismatched bias, noise reduction, hysteresis curves, wow or flutter, emulsion drop outs, frequency response or any of that other stuff we used to have to listen for when recording to mag or tape. If it sounds good while we are mixing, and everything is automated just the way we and the client like it, then recording stems becomes a simple one pass transfer to a hard drive. Right?

What does anyone else think?

[Pirate Post]

I agree, its somewhat passe. I'm designing a couple of rooms for folks who want to have the flexibility to work old school.

Actually, episodic TV still wants to punch and go. I do find that when playing back complex mixes, sometimes a plug-in might need a kick to playback properly. Handing off a mix for layback to someone who is not familiar with the details of the mix, might miss something important. Also, it is problematic if the mix needs to go to a transfer room for layback and your mix is virtual from a dual operator room. Pros and cons both ways.

[JKD99]

And there's the issue of drive failure/session corruption, etc. Although you can always get it back through a variety of methods (and good backup practices), having the stems printed sure can save time in a catastrophe.

There's also the issue of how the client perceives the way the mix time was spent. Say the straight-time day is from 9am to 7pm. Even though recording as you go is usually a bit slower ("Hang on, let me just print that section", and waiting for lockup and running 2 machines, etc), if you're done at 7 you're done at 7. Contrast that with, "Well, the day ends at 7 but we really have to stop mixing at 6:30 so we can print the stems/mix/etc" and sometimes you run into a snag, or a client's "perceived short-changing" of mix time. Or say the stems need to go back to an (off-site) cutting room to be conformed for the next day because the main-title has changed, who's paying for the editor to hang around (in overtime) while the stage prints the stems? This can happen when the editorial company is separate from the mixing company.

So, I agree with both of you. As a mixer, I hate printing as I go; it slows me down. As a facility owner, I can definitely see the advantages to the way we used to do it. My compromise is to mix on input, print the stems (and sometimes the mix, too, depending on the project) during the playback, then punch in for the fixes. Seems to satisfy both requirements.

To Peter, I think a Command-8 would be a nifty little stem recorder/controller. You could have it on a rollaround stand like a tape machine remote

Joe

[subwoof]

Good advice Joe. After all, a Command 8 is only a thousand bucks or so, and if you don't use it to monitor stems on the stage, you can always find use for it in an edit bay.

I like to print the stems during playback as well. I ask the client to make any notes of things he wants to look at again, then I go back and punch in those few (hopefully!) spots in destruct mode. Works great.

Mike

[Eric L]

My compromise is to mix on input, print the stems (and sometimes the mix, too, depending on the project) during the playback, then punch in for the fixes. Seems to satisfy both requirements.

This is exactly what I do. Actually, because I can be a tad O.C.D., I print stems and mixes the night before playback, make any fixes I find right after, and then punch in client fixes the next day. Then the LT/RT and M&E mixes come days after the clients have gone.

[subwoof]

Eric - do you find yourself ever making dynamic level changes in your Lt-Rt from what you have done in the 5.1? I mean, I assume if you are making the Lt-Rt the next day you are not talking about a theatrical Lt-Rt with Dolby SR that the DMU would make, but one for broadcast and DVD. Do you listen to the Lt-Rt decoded and ever go back and re-balence stuff, or just set it up with a plug-in like SRS or Dolby Tools and hit record?

Thanks

Mike

[Eric L]

Hi Mike,

Yes, it is an LT/RT for tv broadcast, not film. Actually, the 5.1 is what we mix for the client review, but that is only heard on the DVD at the moment. The LT/RT is a down mix from the 5.1 and that is what is broadcast on the US channel. We do the 5.1 first, then the M&E 5.1, then the 5.1 stems (DX,MX,SFX) are downmixed to 3 LT/RT stems and then summed to give us the LT/RT Domestic and M&E.

I monitor the LT/RT decoded as it is being mixed from the stems in input. We use Dolby Surround tools plugins. I make a lot of mix adjustments when going from the 5.1 stems to the LT/RT.

The new dialnorm spec of -23 and the peaks at +12 (-8dBFS) really limits the dynamic range when making the LT/RT. The 5.1 is wide open (+20) and needs a lot of remixing to fit the LT/RT broadcast spec. I use an L1 for safety, but end up remixing the stems to make a very boring, flat, and in my opinion, a very uninteresting mix. But that is what they want.