Am I Kidding Myself? - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > All Things Audio

All Things Audio
Everything Audio, from acquisition to postproduction.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 5th, 2009, 07:51 PM   #16
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 159
Oh, what I would call Dolby mistracking - subtle difference in language usage (dang Brits ;-) ). Right, I see what you mean. And if the Dolby was misaligned between the channels, there would be differences in frequency response actively changing between the channels, which could cause wandering of the stereo image.

Add to that crappy mpeg compression (too lossy), and it could cause most or all of the problems I am hearing. I see your point better now. Possibly the mpeg could cause some time delays between the channels as well.

What caused me to ignore this possibility was that the original poster said the dvd sounded the same. But 'the same' may differ depending upon what you are listening for, and level of experience.

I still retain my God-given right to blame the director in future, however. ;-)

This brings up one more thing to add to my list above - Most of the old movies are recorded in mono, and in the later ones mono dialog with stereo music sound track. This means any ambient sounds recorded with the dialog would also be in mono, panned dead center.

Interesting discussion. Now I want to make an old movie. ;-)

Note to Charles: I suggested the space pair specifically to try to emulate the wandering stereo and time delays I was hearing.

I think you would do better to just follow the method Gary outlined, he has pretty much given you the specific details of what was almost certainly used on that production.

There may still be some use for another mic pair, though. He has described what an experienced sound crew would do. They woud be pretty certain to get mic placement right, and subtle balances between dialog and back ground sounds just right.

Your first time out, you might not be so lucky. It could be handy to have some mics on mostly the room, ambience, effects. That way you could be a little more conservative with the main boom (ratio of background sounds to the dialog) and use the other mic(s) to add more ambience in only as needed.

Rather than using a spaced pair for this, a coincident technique would be better - being careful to keep any bleed of the dialog dead center in the stereo image. This way, you would have a choice of both the levels, and by panning in the stereo pair, could make the ambience more or less mono/stereo with no fear of phase problems.

And if you really, really wanted to duplicate a horribly mistracked, wandering phasey sound, you could flip one of the stereo pair out of phase and mix a little of the pair in with the dialog mic, and I am pretty sure that would get you somethng close. ;-)

You should have plenty of things to try now, I'll be interested to know what you discover.

-Mike
Mike Demmers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2009, 08:19 PM   #17
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Glavan View Post
Mike-

Some incredibly informative stuff here. Very glad to have you on the boards. I hail from P-town, nice to see familiar faces =) Also, just so you're aware- when I'm ready to tackle sound engineering (I mean really ready to commit some time to it) I'm coming up there to convince you to mentor me. If that doesn't work I'll stalk you on all your projects and learn your best tricks anyway!
Thanks for the compliment.

It doesn't do much good to follow engineers around; there are so many different ways of doing things you would have to follow around at least four or five, and get ten different answers to every question. In the end, you learn by doing and listening, and wind up with your own preferences and style. I'm always happy to share my own peculiar ideas, of course.

I'm not doing any audio production right now anyway, and probably will not be for at least a year, because I am building (yet another) studio. This time, in my home - if you can't beat em, join em. ;-)

I moved out of Portland to Vernonia, by a lake, surrounded by birds,bears, deer, horses, sheep, and loggers. Maybe I should make nature recordings...maybe I can capture the sound of Bigfoot. ;-)

-Mike
Mike Demmers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 03:40 AM   #18
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
My own pro location days were left in the early 90's but to show how things have not changed much my own kit then and now is as follows.

In the 80's we had a nagra 4 with a 416 and an 816, radio mics were also available and were microns. If a mixer was used it was an sqn. All location audio was recorded in mono.

I moved into post in 1991 when I went to work for AMS Neve developing their digital editing kit and consoles, after that I freelanced as a dubbing mixer and editor.

Now I am semi retired but my kit consists of the following as a lower budget set-up for use with my HDV cameras.

Rode NTG-1 mic and sony S270 camera mic(actually a very good cam mic) two sennheiser G2 radio mics. All my location audio is recorded direct to the camera with these, if I need more inputs I use a sign 44 location mixer. I still record all location sync sound mono. (note I would love a 416 but the rode and the cam mic are fine for my needs)

I also have a sony D50 with a sony ECM957 M/S mic and record stereo buzz tracks (wildtracks) for adding in post on this. I have used the sony ECM957 for 15 years and used to use a mini disk before I got the D50. I can also do sep sound with the D50 hooked up to the sign44 if required.

That pretty much covers it and I believe in keeping it simple, all the post work I have done over the past 18 years has had mono dialogue and spot effects and all stereo backgrounds were added in post.

I now do shooting too with a sony S270 camera (soon to be a panasonic 301 P2) and edit on final cut studio 2, audio post is then done via OMF from FCS2 to a pro tools 002 rig with dv toolkit 2 running version 8 on an i-mac or macbook pro.

My last five years of dubbing was on the ITV UK cop show The Bill you can see a couple of videos here of Mark Apicella the asst dubbing mixer doing some foley work, YES its a 416 mic and YES we did do post sound fx in the dubbing suite:http://www.thebill.com/videos/videod...tem_200027.htm
I used the sony ECM957 with a mini disk to do location spot effects and ambiences as the whole production base is the police station and hospital set, it was a bit scary to be walking though a police station and court room to get to the canteen.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 04:04 AM   #19
New Boot
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Gary, thanks for providing some insight. It does help, a lot. I read somewhere a while ago that the film was done on location somewhere in London. I canít seem to find the source now though. I see what you mean about Julie going off mic, and I see the same thing in other instances.

From some further reading I found the DVD version was produced by KOCH LORBER FILMS and is, frankly, a terrible transfer. It is pan and scan, picture is muddy, and Iím guessing the poor transfer would help produce the audio artifacts? There is a VHS version that is reputed to be better in terms of image and audio, which is a sad thing indeed. That is what I mean when I say the sound is basically the same, the same type of artifacts are there on the DVD.

//That's 'H4' not 'H4n', right?

I have the H4, yes, not the H4n. And I think I will go for the Rodeís. Though, in light of this new information I might buy either a 416 or Sanken cs3e first.

//Ok...I must once again mention something though, because I have this nagging feeling that some of my audio forbears are spinning in their graves, and I just hate that...

Undoubtedly! Iím starting to see objectively my quest for bad audio ;-) Iíve gone back over what it is I really want to achieve, and it comes down to these things (my apologies for having to explain them in laymanís terms):

A thicker sound or presence on the vocals: when I listen to the audio Iíve recorded, it sounds full, and I definitely like the sound of the AKG, itís an improvement over my Rode NTG-1 for interior work. But, it still seems to lack the ďtextureĒ or fat/full/thick sound Iím hearing in the film. I was doing a lot of fiddling with compression/eq/reverb, but (from lack of experience/knowledge) I couldnít arrive at a similar sound. Sometimes itís almost as though the actresses have a paper/cardboard larynx! If this is cause by bad transfer I guess Iím out of luck, but if this is a characteristic of the 416 and post work, maybe I can still get what they originally got, which would suffice, well, actually Iíd be over the moon! Will compression/eq/reverb get me there? And if so, how can I learn how to do these things properly? Trial and error? Iím scouring the web every night for info on post production. Iím listening to all kinds of films to try to learn to identify the different effects employed.

//Here is what I think makes up that sonic signature - in order of importance Ö

Whoa! Thanks for the deconstruction. Itís nice to learn some history at the same time. All this stuff is extremely interesting for me. I gobble up anything to do with filmmaking ;-)

//Ask any two audio engineers a question, you'll get at least three different answers.

Thatís funny.

//Most of the old movies are recorded in mono . . . any ambient sounds recorded with the dialog would also be in mono, panned dead center.

I had planned to record everything in mono. I read Kubrick had Lolita recorded entirely in mono, and I love how that sounds.

//Interesting discussion. Now I want to make an old movie. ;-)

So come out to Australia for a whileÖ if you donít mind heat, no pay, lots of things that will kill you, and the atrocious ďAussieĒ accent! Good food though ;-) But seriously, Iím addicted to older films, and also to the not-so-old older foreign films that Bergman, Tarkovsky, Bresson, etc. made. There is so much in those films that simply cannot be found in the films of today--quite depressing actually.

//I moved out of Portland to Vernonia, by a lake, surrounded by birds,bears, deer, horses, sheep, and loggers. Maybe I should make nature recordings...maybe I can capture the sound of Bigfoot. ;-)

Want to do a house swap sometime? (kidding) I would kill to live somewhere like that!

//You should have plenty of things to try now, I'll be interested to know what you discover.

Iíll be interested too. I did ask before, and I think I might be overstepping the line, but, if I do a recording, and post the original plus my effort, would you be willing give me a critique? I think thatís the only way Iíll get to the bottom of this. Either way, what you and Gary have done is a tremendous help to me, and I appreciate it greatly.
Charles Canary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 04:47 AM   #20
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
Charles I think a lot of what you are trying to do can only be done on very high end kit, there is a certain sound quality to analogue and a well placed 416 on location recorded on tape mixed on and old neve or analogue console will have a totally different sound quality to the latest digital techniques.

At the end of the day it is more about getting good clean location dialogue and then using post techniques to get the best out of it.

I have been lucky to use some of the best kit in the world but these days with care and attention you can get very good results with lower cost kit and I always enjoy the challenge of getting a good end result from my own budget set-up.

Of course I have a huge advantage in the 29 years experience that I have and it has now just become automatic in what I need to do to get to the end result.

People ask me all the time for tips and what settings that I use to get the best from location dialogue but at the end of the day it just becomes instinct and I use my ears and dont even look at what settings I have dialed in on the desk in post.

That also goes for levels I have PPM meters as a guide by once I have set the level on my dynaudio speakers I just balance away. One thing though I always have a brick wall limiter on the main out so even if the rookie director says make it all louder I never go into the red. Have a listen to this clip that I dubbed a few years ago, there is some serious compression going on:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSgs4...ture=relatedBy the way the only sync sound is the mono dialogue. (also shame crappy you tube transfer has put the audio out of sync)

I think that the type of rich sound you are after can be had but you need to learn how to use eq and compressors more to get the best out of your kit, a 416 will help as it is superb for location recording but you will be able to get close with what you already have. You will be amazed how much compression is sometime used in post but the key is using it so that it doesnt draw attention to it and that is where you need to know how to set them up correctly.

I agree that the DVD transfer was probably bad a lot of transfer houses dont understand dolby and a lot of old movies done on mag have been transfered with dreadful dolby mistracking.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 05:10 AM   #21
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
Now here is a small challenge for Charles, listen to this one and see if yu can hear what the main difference is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB47_...eature=related
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 08:27 AM   #22
New Boot
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Thanks Gary, Iíve some comments:

//Charles I think a lot of what you are trying to do can only be done on very high end kit, there is a certain sound quality to analogue and Ö will have a totally different sound quality to the latest digital techniques.

I can understand that. I know there will always be a divide between digital/analog. Itís the same as the difference between 35mm anamorphic or 70mm Vistavision and the Red Epic with 617 pro sensor. While Red may have enormous resolution, dynamic range, etc. it will never have the look or texture that film does.

//At the end of the day it is more about getting good clean location dialogue and then using post techniques to get the best out of it.

Iím very willing to take that approach as I know I can get very clean audio on my locations.

//... you can get very good results with lower cost kit and I always enjoy the challenge of getting a good end result from my own budget set-up.

That is excellent and what I really like to hear. But again, Iím not really after whatís considered to be excellent audio. I actually like all the anomalous extras from bad transfer, etc. and I think it gives the film a real characteristic dated illusion. In fact, Iím not sure Iíd even want to watch it in its original unmarred state. When I watch a Bergman film, the somewhat degrade picture adds to the appeal of the film (for me), because itís the chiaroscuro, the staging, the composition, the way Bergman cuts and delays time, the psychology, that makes it a Bergman film, and the soft picture, the grain, the green tinge, only add to itís foreign charm. And youíll say Ďyes, but the quality was there to begin withí, and Iíll agree and say I need to learn how to get the best quality audio I can get before I can go backwards. So there I go contradicting myself as usual.

//People ask me all the time for tips and what settings Ö but at the end of the day it just becomes instinctÖ

I understand that. I never ever want to know specific settings or whatnot. I want to understand the theory and real-world implications of that theory so I can adapt it to my own environment. I guess what I originally wanted to know was what the basic post tools were, and if there was anything I was missing that might make the difference I was after.

//I think that the type of rich sound you are after can be had but you need to learn how to use eq and compressors more to get the best out of your kit Ö you need to know how to set them up correctly.

OK. Youíve got me motivated now. Iím going to spend all my available hours researching, experimenting, and putting a little mix together. Iíll just do everything by ear. When I think it sounds as good as I can get it Iíll send it to you for a reality check, because I know Iíll have lost all objectivity by then!

//Now here is a small challenge for Charles, listen to this one and see if yu can hear what the main difference is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB47_...eature=related

I think youíve got me there Gary. Apart from the different levels, when I matched up the volume on both, about all I could discern from listen about 100 times, is that the background sounds more compressed on the first video. Sorry, but I donít quite have the organ of audio yet.

Gary, thanks again for your time and wealth of information. Iím so thankful people like you exist.
Charles Canary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2009, 10:14 AM   #23
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
You are welcome Charles I like passing on help to people who wish to expand their knowledge of audio, it tends to get lost in the edit and in the case of those two bill clips there are some dreadful sound edits that were not done by me. The Bill has a really bad habit of not locking the picture off and there is a production commitee that does sound notes and they are then hacked together by either the editor or by someone other than the main dubbing mixer and mistakes get through.

The main differences in the two was that the first one was Mono and the second Stereo.

They both have dreadful you tube encoding compression but the first lacks some frequencies as it has been collapsed to mono at some stage and this has totally changed it.

That may also be the case of the original clip you posted us to listen to and just goes to show that even in the digital age the various compressions used can really affect the sound track. This also goes for TV transmission and it is amazing what differences there are in listening to full 16 bit 48k audio in the dub suite and then hearing all of the detail and stereo backgrounds being obliterated by encoding for transmission.
You can also see this in the pictures too as material is compressed for delivery.

Best wishes and thanks for listening to my rantings.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2009, 02:26 AM   #24
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 159
Ok, here are some more thoughts.

But, it still seems to lack the “texture” or fat/full/thick sound I’m hearing in the film. I was doing a lot of fiddling with compression/eq/reverb, but (from lack of experience/knowledge) I couldn’t arrive at a similar sound. Sometimes it’s almost as though the actresses have a paper/cardboard larynx!

It is not ALL about the recording. The fact is that these are top notch British actors, among the best technically trained in the world, in my experience. They know exactly how to project, and make their voices have certain qualities.

Who are you recording? Top notch pros like this? Believe me, it matters a LOT, probably more than anything technical you could do.

I went through a period of depression after about the first two years in my professional life. Everything I did just didn't sound very good to me. Somehow, it was always missing something. I was, truly, almost ready to give up. Then, one day I got a demo project that the more experienced engineer didn't want to do. Everything changed. I didn't really do anything different, but... The session was easy, everything just fell into place! It sounded awesome (well, maybe not by my present standards, but for then). I played it for all my friends, they were impressed. I had been recording all these teen age garage bands. This was just a demo for another unknown touring band, hoping to get signed. Just some blues band led by a guy nobody had ever heard of, named Robert Cray. ;-)

It makes a difference what is on the other side of the mic.

The room also makes a large difference. If you are in a small room with a bunch of flat surfaces creating flutter echos, this will be near impossible to make sound good later. You need to put up some some sound deadening before recording.

If this is cause by bad transfer I guess I’m out of luck, but if this is a characteristic of the 416 and post work, maybe I can still get what they originally got, which would suffice, well, actually I’d be over the moon! Will compression/eq/reverb get me there? And if so, how can I learn how to do these things properly? Trial and error? I’m scouring the web every night for info on post production. I’m listening to all kinds of films to try to learn to identify the different effects employed.

I don't know exactly what will get you there, and you need to listen to Gary most because of his very direct experience in that specific market and style.

But if you brought me very clean audio tracks, I would probably use something like a dbx compressor on them to lock them into place, to the point where there was only a few db variation in level on my VU meters (we don't use PPMs this side of the pond ;-) ) - you have to judge this by ear - you won't really hear much of the compressor if done right. Dbx compressors have an 'over-easy' curve that lets you just smash things without it being too audible. Maybe 4 or 6 to one ratio. How much? Until it sounds right and locks into place. This brings up the room sound. If the room was good, and the mic placement was good - not too much of the room - this should sound pretty present on the voice, kind of mid-rangy, but in your face a bit, yet with some warmth from the room in there.

If it was recorded really dry, I might pull up a Lexicon reverb (has smoothest room sounds), and select a a small room or plate, but removing from the program any first reflections (you already have those from bounce in your real room). I would then insert a digital delay into the feed to the reverb, set to about a 50-100 MS delay. Or adjust that in the reverb program, if it has that option (usually it is there). This is to emulate the sound of a sound studio.

I would then roll off the top and bottom from the voices (to something like Gary specified earlier.) If the reverb was still too 'present' sounding even after this, I would roll off some of the high end from its returns (you want it clearly behind the voice, it is set right when it no longer masks the clarity and presence of the voice). Don't be afraid to takes lots of top off the reverb, if you need to. I would make sure the reverb was also panned exactly center, no stereo.

Go by the sound, not preconceived ideas about what it 'should' take. It doesn't matter HOW you get there. As Gary mentioned,most people would be horrified by what actually happens in post. Stay away from 'audiophiles' and other such dangerous people. ;-)

You learn by doing. What is on the web is mostly technical, with few real details of what is done, because those details are really very situation specific, and even market specific. For example I would not have recorded that movie exactly like Charles described, even in the nineties. But we would have both been right, for our markets. I don't like PPM meters, they are neither fish nor fowl, showing neither peaks nor average levels accurately. Most British engineers swear by them. Who is right? Both are right.

"There are many differeent stories. All are true."

-Mike
Mike Demmers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2009, 03:06 AM   #25
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
I totally agree with Mike's comments and we do use PPM's a lot here as they are BBC spec and show true levels for engineering purposes, I use this on on the pro tools:Raw Material Software - PPMulator the max level is 6ppm which is +8db. I have also used chromatech meters which are the on screen version. PPM's tend to be used to make sure that all the levels are legal for broadcast in the UK but you can use them with sine wave tone to set-up your compressors.

As a guide I set my main dialogue compressor at 6-1 with a threshold of -8db PPM, bear in mind though that there is always another limiter set at 100-1 coming in at 0db too. A slow attack with quickish release and the DBX set-up Mike explained is roughly the same that I am after.

Eq wise a low cut at around 120hz and some top 3-6db at 6k, no firm rules though and this is on the AMS Neve Logic and DFC consoles it is totally different on the Pro Tools.

Oh and you need to have decent monitors, I have used dynaudio for the past 15 years and they all sound roughly the same regardless of size my home set-up has BM10'shttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...arysStudio.jpg but when at The Bill we had these:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ass/Gary1a.jpg
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2009, 03:18 AM   #26
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 159
That mono-stereo mix comparison was probably more useful to me than to Charles.

I don't listen too U-Tube stuff much, or any compressed material, other than on DVDs.

I knew it was bad, but I didn't realize just HOW bad U-Tube was until now.

I could hear the mono-stereo difference all right, but good grief, just barely. The imaging is just totally destroyed. Utterly, completely, trashed. It is worse than any old, out of phase miscalibrated ancient analog deck I have ever heard, way worse than anything ANY commercial movie may have done at any point in time since sound existed.

Charles, trust me on this, and I could not be more vehement: Gary is right, this is only artifacts - the phasey, wandering image part - and NOT what you want to emulate.

Find a British drama with a GOOD dvd transfer and use that as a reference, not anything like this. Make your work sound like the new reference. If you still want to see how it sounds trashed, just upload to utube, no further work on your part required!

If any of my work ever gets uploaded to utube I don't want to know about it. My heart is not strong enough for that.

How can anyone justify doing that to an innocent audio track? Or even listen to it?

A whole generation is growig up with this. Its worse than AM radio. I'm glad I am getting old.

-Mike
Mike Demmers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2009, 03:50 AM   #27
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 159
...you need to have decent monitors

Yes. And put them into a reasonable space, preferably a little dry. If you put even good monitors in a flat walled room with little absorbtion - like the average 'spare room', you will not be able hear good imaging, even if it is there. A good mono mix should make a very tight, very defined, dead center phantom image between the speakers; if the room is too live you will not be able to hear this, or other details.

It occurrs to me that you might look for something like a BBC radio drama on CD. This would provide the advantage of being able to hear this production style uncompressed, which is not generally possible on DVD.

You need to know what good audio sounds like to emulate it.

-Mike
Mike Demmers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2009, 04:01 AM   #28
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
I must admit Mike it also took me a while to tell that the original clip was mono too, quite shocking that I have also downloaded some i-tunes music and it is also heavily compressed and distorted.

I also find that new and rookie directors are now so used to hearing everything at max compressed / optimod style that they want everything to be that way.

As a reference Charles have a listen to something like apocalypse now or in the case of brit drama atonement to hear good location to dubbed delivered sound.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2009, 04:27 AM   #29
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass View Post

I also find that new and rookie directors are now so used to hearing everything at max compressed / optimod style that they want everything to be that way.
It's been going on even longer on the pop music world I am mostly familiar with. And I am a big sinner - running a studio you do what they ask you to, to survive. I have compressed a heavy metal mix to the point where there was less than 1/2 db variation from beginning to end of the song (on VU meters), with a peak to average ratio of less than three db (digital peak meter). The producers absolutely loved it.

If British drama production ever gets to that point...well...it's the end of the Empire. ;-)

-Mike
Mike Demmers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2009, 11:27 PM   #30
New Boot
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
//...these are top notch British actors Ö They know exactly how to project, and make their voices have certain qualities.

Definitely the kind of info I was looking for.

//I went through a period of depression Ö I was, truly, almost ready to give up.

I'm sorry to hear that. I feel like that from time to time.

//Then, one day Ö Everything changed.

Well Iím sure Iím very glad it did.

//The room also makes a large difference

Iíve done everything in my means to deaden the sets. Carpet, sound blankets, furniture, etc.

//But if you brought me very clean audio tracks, I would probably use something like a dbx compressor on them to lock them into placeÖ

What do you mean by Ďlock them into placeí?

//Go by the sound, not preconceived ideas about what it 'should' take. It doesn't matter HOW you get there.

What Iíd always planned to do from the start. I just got the idea I was missing/misunderstanding many things (which I was).

//As Gary mentioned, most people would be horrified by what actually happens in post. Stay away from 'audiophiles' and other such dangerous people. ;-)

Amusing, Iíll keep that in mind. Iím actually very impressed by what happens in post. Itís amazing what can be done.

//You learn by doing.

And thatís how I like to learn. Iíve had to learn everything I know that way.

//"There are many different stories. All are true."

Yes, and ďA person will stand for a long time with their mouth open before a roast duck flies into it.Ē ;-)

//Oh and you need to have decent monitors, I have used dynaudio for the past 15 years

Nice setup Gary. Iím jealous! I couldnít afford a set of dynaudiosís, but Iíve a set of m-audio bx8aís and they are very nice for the price. My editing room is probably is a little too resonant for accurate sound. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, something Iíve been meaning to address for some time.

//Ö when at The Bill we had these:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ass/Gary1a.jpg

Good to put a face to a name. Those things are impressive!

//Charles, trust me on this, and I could not be more vehement: Gary is right, this is only artifacts - the phasey, wandering image part - and NOT what you want to emulate.

And from this discussion I can now agree with you.

//Find a British drama with a GOOD dvd transfer and use that as a reference Ö Make your work sound like the new reference

Will do.

//A good mono mix should make a very tight, very defined, dead center phantom image between the speakers; if the room is too live you will not be able to hear this, or other details.

I feel rather fatuous now having asked these questions without having first addressed simple acoustics of my roomÖ

//It occurs to me that you might look for something like a BBC radio drama on CD. This would provide the advantage of being able to hear this production style uncompressed, which is not generally possible on DVD.

Thanks, thatís a great idea.

//You need to know what good audio sounds like to emulate it.

Yes, Iím beginning to see that more clearly than ever.

//As a reference Charles have a listen to something like apocalypse now or in the case of brit drama atonement to hear good location to dubbed delivered sound.

Will do. Iíve seen Apocalypse Now about twenty times. Not seen Atonement yet. Thanks for the suggestions.

Thanks again for your patience. I will take everything thatís been said and suggested onboard and make a thorough effort to learn properly, I am expecting it to take a long time though. For the record, for me there is nothing outside filmmaking. When I think Iím not making any progress I feel depressed, empty, and tired of lifeóand Iím only twenty-three! I do not make films for funóand my films are not about fun thingsóbut more as a necessity to keep myself out of the jim-jam clinic, so your breath has not been wasted on me.

Best regards.
Charles Canary is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > All Things Audio

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network