I completely agree with Randy
But perhaps we have too much experience?
When you mix 400 tracks created by a talented sound designer
You may wonder where to start!

Please correct me, but I think I’m right is saying Stanley Kubrick only liked mono mixes as he wanted the audience to focus in on the picture. Can we argue about this guy’s film making ability? Although reading this… http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

I’ve had the pleasure of using some of Charles’ field recordings. Great stuff, but I certainly didn’t use all the channels: I picked the best one or two for what I needed.

Personally I love working with mono sounds and moving them about. With multichannel recordings I normally split them into mono’s. I often find myself less ‘flexible’ with 5.0 and 5.1 recordings. I like my ambiance track-lays to start wide and close in when the drama needs it. I sometimes see ‘full’ discreet atmosphere track-lays and often wonder ‘why did they do that?’. Whatever the technique, right or wrong, I think as an sound editor we have a responsibility and chance to create our OWN interpretation prior to pre-mix… but in the knowledge that I’ll try (I say TRY) not to be too disappointed when someone doesn’t agree.

I think that the audio of a film can be compared to the score; we have the chance to create mood, feeling and emotion. With more tracks you don’t necessarily get a better result, but you have an extra option, which can sometimes be a good, OR bad thing.

You can’t teach emotion, but an artist can go to classes and develop themselves.

I’m looking forward to trying the new Dolby Atmos mic! :)

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. There are times when totally building the surround environment of a scene in the design room is the way to go, and times when multi channel recording on location is incredibly valuable. On “Collateral” we recorded the taxi cab and the guns on six channels, as well as the subway train for the ending. I’ve recorded sports crowds in the same fashion. But it is our skill as artists and story tellers that helps us decide how to serve the movie best on a case by case basis. And…….unfortunately the budget as well may dictate what we can do in the field. There really is no right or wrong answer. That’s what’s so great about what we do.

Happy to hear that we are on the same line, no matter what you do as long as the result is there.
I use Ambisonic’s surround sound technics with soundfield microphone for nearly 8 years now. (that’s why i’m a little bit touchy on the subject ;-))
And i have to say that it’s a great format for sound on picture.
Each sound (in ambisonic) can be adapted, in post, to your picture in term of localisation, space and volume.
Those sounds can be decoded on a large number of speakers, included height. With dolby atmos system, i believe that it will be a must have for atmosphere sound ambiance. I’m sure it would have been great format for the Quad system of “Apocalypse now” ;-)
I used a lot of these sounds on the feature films i worked on (In France).And for Guns (@charles) you can be very strong without beeing too loud, simply because you have pressure on all speakers at the same time.
I’m very fond of that kind of multichannel recordings. I’m sure you are aware of this but just in case…

Hi, Ben!

I respectfully disagree that what I described is a “Hollywood” approach. First, I rarely work in LA, so I’m not a “Hollywood” guy anyway. Second, I’m surrounded by people working on wonderful sounding documentaries, and I don’t hear about people on docs making 5.1 recordings of effects on location very often.

Best,
Randy

Using multiple mics recorded on multiple channels as a way of capturing different perspectives is very useful, I think. For example, a close stereo pair, a medium distance stereo pair, and a distant stereo pair if the sound is loud enough to justify it. The thing I think is much less useful is capturing a “5.1 picture” of the location.

Randy

The film is about a young couple hiking up the mountains, with the first scene shot in the train on the way there.

It was shot on Arri 2c, so no production sound was used, but for every shot, after the crew moved on, I captured double MS ambience with a Senn 418 and a Senn 416 facing away from each other, using the 418’s side capsule for the surrounds as well, literally capturing 3 channels which I later decoded to 5.0.

My goal was 100% authenticity, so for every shot I changed the perspective, and I rarely EQed the ambiances, and I was very proud of how it sounded, knowing all the effort that I put in,

So after it “premiered” in the cinema, with a full audience (in the film school’s festival), nobody really cared. The sound was especially hissy, due to the noise in the 418’s side capsule, and the lack of EQ thereof.

I was expecting the audience to be awed at how realistic it sounds, how the film would “transport” them in the train, and then on the mountain. All I got was yawns, and then later even laughter:

It was my first experience with ADR as well – and for a wide shot in the forest, when the two characters separate from each other, the boy yells after the girl, and the echoy reverb that I added in post really made people laugh (although it sounded much like production sound recorded from the camera POV).

That was a lesson I learned the hard way….

ps. I could upload the film to youtube, if anyone’s interested