PDA

View Full Version : Looking for Post Audio / Foley Help



Larry Rutledge
03-28-2006, 11:08 AM
I just posted this great thread and when I clicked "Submit New Thread" it went all haywire on me :Drogar-Angry(DBG): ...Oh well, I'll try again.



I asked about this a couple weeks ago in one of the composer threads. But I think it got buried under all the discussion around the many great composers who were making themselves available for (Super)HeroFest.

If you know how to do Post Audio work (audio sweetening, foley/sfx, mixing, etc) and are willing to help out with (Super) Hero Fest we'd love to hear from you.

I know for myself audio will be difficult both because of a lack of experience and because I only have a cheap $20 pair of computer speakers.

So if you have experience in this area and are willing to help out with (Super) Hero Fest, now is your chance to stand up and be counted :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Thanks,
Larry

Aaron Marshall
04-01-2006, 10:16 AM
Larry, I might be able to help out with audio sweetening and mixing. I'll be able to lend you my technical experience, but I'm pretty busy as far as the foley/sfx goes. I could help out a bit with sfx, but as of right now; I'm not well prepared to do any foley work.

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-05-2006, 09:19 PM
larry if you don't have good balanced speakers
-- use headphones
then compare the headphone mix to the speakers

I decent ear muff cheap set of headphones is better than cheap speakers.

Plugs also are better but beware they may have an enhanced bass reponse.

Larry Rutledge
04-06-2006, 08:17 AM
Noct - thanks for the offer to help with sweetening and mixing...that is really my biggest concern. I'm pretty sure I can take care of foley/sfx, but the sweetening/mixing is an issue since I don't have adequate audio monitoring equipment. I'll PM you for more information later.

JDS - thanks for the headphone tip, that is actually a good idea. Even if it's not advisable to use headphones over studio monitors it has to be better than the crappy little PC speakers I currently use.

- Larry

Aaron Marshall
04-06-2006, 12:17 PM
Headphones are good, but maybe a little too detailed in some cases. You can hear the most minute sounds like they're upfront. It's because your ears are so close to the drivers. When it comes to panning headphones get weird. Psychoacoustically your left ear wants to hear a small amount of the sound the right ear hears and vice versa. Headphones cut those sources off so it's strong L and strong R and nothing in between. That's stale.

Sometimes a small set of inexpensive PC speakers will work to your advantage. You should be very comfortable with the particular speakers. If you don't have access to a nice set of monitors use both headphones, PC speakers, and burn it and play it back on your home entertainment system. Use every possible source you can.

Larry, groovy, for sweetening and mixing I'm your guy. I'm running midfield Dynaudios, on Questeds, and Auratones in a pretty decent control room. My pre consultation to the audio, get the timing right but leave things dry. I have compression and reverb that makes the basic computer effects sound nasty and cheap.

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-06-2006, 12:35 PM
Headphones are good, but maybe a little too detailed in some cases. You can hear the most minute sounds like they're upfront. It's because your ears are so close to the drivers. When it comes to panning headphones get weird. Psychoacoustically your left ear wants to hear a small amount of the sound the right ear hears and vice versa. Headphones cut those sources off so it's strong L and strong R and nothing in between. That's stale.

Sometimes a small set of inexpensive PC speakers will work to your advantage. You should be very comfortable with the particular speakers. If you don't have access to a nice set of monitors use both headphones, PC speakers, and burn it and play it back on your home entertainment system. Use every possible source you can...

yeah that's why I said compare back and forth between the two

before I had decent monitor speakers, many's the time I finished a mix, burned a disc, put it in a dvd player connected to a decent sound system and --- holy crap that sounds like s h i t ... the ADR sounds like a drive time DJ, the bass is overpowering...

So that's why I emphasize balanced sound over psychoacoustic properties which can be checked by taking your headphones off, if you have your speakers correctly placed.

Aaron Marshall
04-06-2006, 01:39 PM
I wasn't arguing with you Jack. I was just adding my 2 cents.

Balanced sound is psychoacoustically based. All psychacoustic means is how our brains use our ears to perceive sound. How can that be different from finding balance?

Headphones are a heavily compressed source. Take a set of headphones and listen to a scene that, lets says has birds chirping, then it starts to rain, then a train from the distance starts to approach and gets louder and louder as it passes. Headphones will let you hear the birds chirping quite clearly and upfront. The rain will start and it will also sound very clear and not much different from the chirping. The train will start to appraoch and it gets louder but not in a subtle way that you would hear on monitors or even some decent PC speakers.

The reason is; the drivers are right on your head injecting a sound straight into your ears. You don't have a physical development of bass, and most of the mid range frequencies. I can't remember the exact number, but a 40hz sine wave will take about 27 feet to develop. That's feet we're talking about, not centimeters off of the skull.

I'm not against headphones. They serve their purpose. I'm just trying to communicate my knowledge and perspective into the matter.

Larry Rutledge
04-06-2006, 01:45 PM
Noct - thanks for the heads up on capturing the audio clean. I will make sure there is no processing done to them. I have a couple additional questions about what to provide you, but I'll send them in a PM later.


The headphone/monitor debate and info is great...it's good to hear the pro's and con's and the reality of using headphones, etc. I'm curious, do either of you have recommendations on monitor speakers that would enable me to get good sound, but that wouldn't break the bank?

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-06-2006, 02:07 PM
lol -- not again, Noct, ... you and I saying essentiallyy the same thing for 12 posts each a paragraph long ... :grin:


Alls I'm sayin' homey, is I've gotten screwed more often by office depot computer speakers than by headphones, whether desging professionally for the theatre or doing this new film thing, or teachinhg soud design at Tulane (I am no engineer by any stretch however, and I did use "balanced" incorrectly/informally meaing that I find frequency response more accurate in headohones than cheap computer speakers regardless of their placement realtive to my head vs. my headphones -- and please don't launch into an explanation of the way diferent frequencies and waves of different amplitudes and pitch travel, i get the effect of proximity of sound, BUT the computer speakers will be VERY limited or SKEWED or will have bass that's completley unattural where as a most $30 headphones will have a more accurate dipiction of the bass vs the mids vs the trebles (irregardles of the fact that the traingle ding will sound more present) when compared to most computer speakers in my experience not when compared to perfectly set up studio monitors in a studio.

I also found that running my DVD through a home theatre system many things were stunningly clear and too present and just not represented very well at all on my $50 computer speakers.

I could here all of those things however in headphones, due to the proximity to the ear as you mentioned and the fact that $30 headphones are just plain better than $30 computer speakers.

You wouldn't recommend he just listen to the computer speakers would you?

If you don't have real studio monitors positioned properly the only way you can get something close to an accurate mix IMHO is to use HEadphones, your computer speakers, and then play it on a nice home theatre system, and a crappy one and use your own judgement.

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-06-2006, 02:16 PM
....do either of you have recommendations on monitor speakers that would enable me to get good sound, but that wouldn't break the bank?

now Noct wil really make fun of me ...
but I own M-Audio (he's already laughing) studio pro 4's http://www.guitarvision.com/mf/mf_frameset.htm
they are $150 in this add, you can find them for less, I got mine on sale for $99.

you can also find them on eBay.

The key word here is "won't break the bank"

I got to the point where you are and after a few frustrating mixes using computer speakers and headphones then listening on real system later and being like WTF ... I had to get something.

I've been really happy with these, they've substantially reduced the WTF factor when viewing my finished film and listening on other speakers - high end or low end.

but there might be a better pair for teh price ... Noct?

Also while we have Noct here ... these speakers have a mid boost switch on the back (which I leave off of course) but why would I want to boost the frequencies that I hear better anyway ... Noct?

Larry Rutledge
04-06-2006, 02:35 PM
Jack - thanks for the info, but the link just goes to GuitarVision's main page. Is there a part number I can look up for those M-Audio speakers?

Is it these? M-Audio Studiophile DX4 Powered Monitors Pair
http://cgi.ebay.com/M-Audio-STUDIOPHILE-DX4-Powered-Monitors-pair_W0QQitemZ7404277511QQcategoryZ47093QQssPageNa meZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem



You are correct in pointing out the "not break the bank" statement. That is truly the key. I can't afford to buy the best, and I'm not trying to build an audio studio. If I had the money for that I would just rent someone else's.

I just need something that will sound better than the $20 pc speakers I got just so I could listen to MP3's and CDs while writing screenplays :)

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-06-2006, 02:44 PM
no not the same but comparible ... go to guitar center and use their search function for
M-Audio Studiophile DX4
and
m audio studio pro 4

they are the same price, the pro4 seem to be rated higher than the dx4, pro 4 is "active" dx4 is "powered"
when searching ebay remember to play with maudio m-audio M Audio

but search
"m audio studio pro 4" on ebay

Larry Rutledge
04-06-2006, 02:51 PM
These? http://cgi.ebay.com/M-AUDIO-STUDIO-PRO-4-PRO4-DESKTOP-SPEAKER-NEW_W0QQitemZ7404753438QQcategoryZ47093QQssPageNam eZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


What's the difference between "active" and "powered"?

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-06-2006, 03:19 PM
i'm not sure ... they might be two unrealted features ... but the active have gotten a better user ratings on guitar center

... and yeah that's them

Larry Rutledge
04-06-2006, 03:44 PM
Cool thanks.... oh, and by the way, I dig the new banner :thumbsup:

Aaron Koolen
04-06-2006, 04:34 PM
Remember, this is for the web. We'll be listening to them on cheap $20 speakers ourselves ;)

Curugon
04-06-2006, 04:45 PM
It's usually a good idea to make two mixes, one for the web and one for DVD. Most trailer companies will do that for their work.

A lot of folks here have some pretty decent sound equipment for their computers. I got a $50 2.5 set from Frys a while back (clearance sale) and they produce a surprisingly good sound for a small space.

I'm hoping most filmmakers go to town with their sound design for this contest - it has great possibilities!

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-06-2006, 05:29 PM
Remember, this is for the web. We'll be listening to them on cheap $20 speakers ourselves ;)
that's good to consider but mixing is like color balancing -- you want the most accurate depcition of the information, in that way it will vary the least from speaker crummy speaker to crummy speaker.


people's monitors and such are all different at hone as well, but if your white balance / color correction is off, the innacurate depiction is magnified when played on someone's monitor where the color may be more or less saturated, the tint might be slightly different, or - the hardest to gage on PC vs. Mac monitors - gamma may be off. So if you're gamma is way dark on a PC it will be eveb darker on a MAC and if you're contrast is low on a MAC it will look washed out on a PC.

To me using headphones and good speakers is like making a hi def master and then you down convert for your SD DVD -- you may see information that's not there in the SD version, simillarly you may here things on studio monitors or headphones that may not be respresented well on someone's cheap speakers -- but the opposite would be worse -- to not here things on the low end computer speakers you are mastering wich may be very present on someone else's system.

Kind of like saying you don't need a a good video monitor to do color correction because most people will only watch on un calintrated lower resolution walmart TV's.

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-06-2006, 05:30 PM
It's usually a good idea to make two mixes, one for the web and one for DVD. Most trailer companies will do that for their work...

hey can you tell us the differences or point us where we can find that info?

thanks

Matt Grunau
04-06-2006, 08:08 PM
hey can you tell us the differences or point us where we can find that info?

thanks


Well, I'de start by knocking off a lot of the low end. It's a bit like adding a subwoofer crossover, it'l spruce up and make your midrange a hell of a lot cleaner.

I'de also cut out the highs and use a degree of stereo spreading, since most people's PC speakers are not more than a couple feet apart, and don't represent high end well. That, and being mindful of compression artifacts for the web also.

For the DVD, it'd be 5.1 of course! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

And for the DVD, much more dynamic range.

Curugon
04-06-2006, 08:08 PM
Ugh, don't get me started on monitor calibration. What a can of worms. This page (http://www.thescreamonline.com/technology/monitor/monitorhome.html) discusses the issues in nice detail.

The best way to mix for different sources is to have a lot of options on hand. Have high end speakers alongside the $20 cheapies, and switch between them. What usually gets lost on cheap speakers is the lowend - a nice deep rumble turns into an ugly distorted roar. Separation is other, such as similar sounds (applause and rushing water) - keep sounds that are in the same frequency well separated. Few people think about music mixing, and often end up with (for example) a big explosion alongside a heavy drum score. One will get lost.

My best advice, if you don't have Protools, is to use a filter like FCP's 3-band equalizer. You can use that to shift a sound around the frequency range, helpfully separating it from the rest of the aural canvas.

Steppin' off the soapbox now....

(edit: beat me to the lowend point, Rapier!)

Matt Grunau
04-06-2006, 08:19 PM
(edit: beat me to the lowend point, Rapier!)


BWAHAHAHA!!!


THanks dude. Check out and get a demo of this:

http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/ozone/


This thing is kicks the hell out of anything I have seen or heard, including the BBE Sonic Maximizer and L1 Ultramaximizer plugins. It is THAT good.



Yo Larry, I have it on good authority that these:

http://www.fostex.com/index.php?file=products/speakers/pm05

are a good bang for the buck.

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-06-2006, 10:36 PM
Well, I'de start by knocking off a lot of the low end. It's a bit like adding a subwoofer crossover, it'l spruce up and make your midrange a hell of a lot cleaner. wont that make it sound thin?
don't you typically want to boost bass for small speakers?


I'de also cut out the highs and use a degree of stereo spreading, since most people's PC speakers are not more than a couple feet apart, and don't represent high end well.
the spread makes some since for the web, but if you cut a lot of high and low ... aren't you emphasizing the frequencies that computer speakers already favor?



That, and being mindful of compression artifacts for the web also.
I always use close to full quality audio or full quality -- what type of compression artifacts should I be wary of?


For the DVD, it'd be 5.1 of course!

And for the DVD, much more dynamic range.
really? -- when you say dynamic range you mean the loudest sound verses the softest sound right? why limit that for the web?

thanks

Matt Grunau
04-07-2006, 11:55 AM
wont that make it sound thin?
don't you typically want to boost bass for small speakers?

the spread makes some since for the web, but if you cut a lot of high and low ... aren't you emphasizing the frequencies that computer speakers already favor?


I always use close to full quality audio or full quality -- what type of compression artifacts should I be wary of?


really? -- when you say dynamic range you mean the loudest sound verses the softest sound right? why limit that for the web?

thanks

I wouldn't boost the bass for small speakers BEACUSE they're small. Most small speakers do not represent low end well, so but lessening/cutting everything from 125-down you lessen the effort they are going to have to put out trying to play something they can't really play anyhow. Same thing applies with the high of the high end. It wouldn't sound as thin as you think.

Compression artifacts from simply using a regular mp3 compressor or of the type which usually encode by default with a constant bitrate. From 96 - 160 kbps can have the mp3 "chirps". Just the click of a switch will turn that into a variable pass bitrate, which will increase the quality, and probably even lower the file size.

Dynamic range is going to be a larger file, and again, it is going to be playing things most computers cant represent.


Lastly, as to overal quality, I wouldn't want my trailers to sound nearly as good as the finished work. I'de hate to have someone sitting through something I put together and thinking "boy I wished this sounded as good as the trailer". You'd quickly taint your entire piece within moments of the audio kicking in.

I'de still want the sound to be good, just less.

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-07-2006, 12:09 PM
I wouldn't boost the bass for small speakers BEACUSE they're small. Most small speakers do not represent low end well, so but lessening/cutting everything from 125-down you lessen the effort they are going to have to put out trying to play something they can't really play anyhow. Same thing applies with the high of the high end. It wouldn't sound as thin as you think.

Compression artifacts from simply using a regular mp3 compressor or of the type which usually encode by default with a constant bitrate. From 96 - 160 kbps can have the mp3 "chirps". Just the click of a switch will turn that into a variable pass bitrate, which will increase the quality, and probably even lower the file size.

Dynamic range is going to be a larger file, and again, it is going to be playing things most computers cant represent.


Lastly, as to overal quality, I wouldn't want my trailers to sound nearly as good as the finished work. I'de hate to have someone sitting through something I put together and thinking "boy I wished this sounded as good as the trailer". You'd quickly taint your entire piece within moments of the audio kicking in.

I'de still want the sound to be good, just less.

thanks ... interesting theory on the good but not great trailer sound ... for me I'd want em both to be equally good and I'd just count onthe fact that my 90 minute film would be more nuanced than my trailer -- though i've mevber had either (a trailer or a 90 minute film) :thumbsup:

Matt Grunau
04-07-2006, 02:47 PM
thanks ... interesting theory on the good but not great trailer sound ... for me I'd want em both to be equally good and I'd just count onthe fact that my 90 minute film would be more nuanced than my trailer -- though i've mevber had either (a trailer or a 90 minute film) :thumbsup:


That's just the route I would take to be safe. If I was doing one for an audience I knew had higher end stuff, the mix would be different. You have to love/hate the balancing act, but what can you do?

I''ve never done a trailer either, but when I do DVD's of the events we video, there are always multiple audio tracks with the default one being the one for the "average" listener.

Hell, just giving audio this much consideration is a damn good thing. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Aaron Marshall
04-07-2006, 07:48 PM
I'm not too sure about the 2 different mix theory. I suppose it's one way to do it, but I think one master mix if done properly will translate over to about anything. If the end user doesn't have what it takes to play it back, it's their problem. It's sort of like the over compression trend in modern audio. All these mixes get smashed to smithereens, and for what? To make up for bad playback systems? That's a sad state of affairs. Oh well, I'm not arguing, I just lean more towards the purist way of doing things.

I'm not laughing at those M-Audios. I've never owned a set, but they sounded pretty decent in guitar center for the money. I think there are many good bargains to be had in lower price range monitors. I have to recommend Events for being "best bang for the buck" but monitors, like film taste, and pizza toppings are VERY subjective.

Matt Grunau
04-07-2006, 08:20 PM
All these mixes get smashed to smithereens, and for what? To make up for bad playback systems? That's a sad state of affairs. Oh well, I'm not arguing, I just lean more towards the purist way of doing things.



Too true. I think the purist way would be great, but I don't see it ever becoming mainstream, or even midstream. Hell, even a moderate trickle would be fab. Maybe when we get out of the fast food mentality.

Aaron Marshall
04-07-2006, 09:55 PM
Too true. I think the purist way would be great, but I don't see it ever becoming mainstream, or even midstream. Hell, even a moderate trickle would be fab. Maybe when we get out of the fast food mentality.

Fast food mentality; that's a perfect way to put it.

It's good to be flexible. Compression isn't evil, and certain things may call for it. It just never hurts to have an audiophile approach. I don't think it's too far out of the mainstream. A lot of film audio is wonderfully mixed. We have pretty nice standards as far as that goes.

The mainstream music with all the "pro tools" abuse is what gets me. I'm in total agreement with you there. I think we're lucky to even hear Mi Fi (Mid Fidelity) I think this may have to do with transitional problems from analog systems. Recording theory dies hard. It's just a theory of mine. Recording to tape you could get away with abusing levels. It would saturate and give you an effect. Digital just sounds horrible recorded too loudly. I think as time moves on and analog audio becomes more of a fossil, new more fitting theories will emerge and solidify. It'll get better. Unlike film to digital in video; analog audio has many weaknesses compared to good digital audio. A good clock will let you recording with so much headroom. If we get anywhere near clipping, it's us not the equipment.

There is a universal magic you can find in a mix on any playback system. There's just something about Hotel California by the Eagles that no matter what playback system it's on it sounds so tight. Early Pink Floyd, and The Beatles are like that too. Sure some of the elements have their own weirdness or problems, but the core of the tracks are universally, from a technical standpoint, rock solid.

Matt Grunau
04-07-2006, 10:41 PM
Fast food mentality; that's a perfect way to put it.

It's good to be flexible. Compression isn't evil, and certain things may call for it. It just never hurts to have an audiophile approach. I don't think it's too far out of the mainstream. A lot of film audio is wonderfully mixed. We have pretty nice standards as far as that goes.

The mainstream music with all the "pro tools" abuse is what gets me. I'm in total agreement with you there. I think we're lucky to even hear Mi Fi (Mid Fidelity) I think this may have to do with transitional problems from analog systems. Recording theory dies hard. It's just a theory of mine. Recording to tape you could get away with abusing levels. It would saturate and give you an effect. Digital just sounds horrible recorded too loudly. I think as time moves on and analog audio becomes more of a fossil, new more fitting theories will emerge and solidify. It'll get better. Unlike film to digital in video; analog audio has many weaknesses compared to good digital audio. A good clock will let you recording with so much headroom. If we get anywhere near clipping, it's us not the equipment.

There is a universal magic you can find in a mix on any playback system. There's just something about Hotel California by the Eagles that no matter what playback system it's on it sounds so tight. Early Pink Floyd, and The Beatles are like that too. Sure some of the elements have their own weirdness or problems, but the core of the tracks are universally, from a technical standpoint, rock solid.


Just to be clear, I hope you didn't think I was talking about audio compressors, i was meaning file size compression, mp3's and such. Audio compression itself is fantastic.

If you think about the "universal magic" songs (and you are right on with your examples), do you think that some of that could be because they are not overly dynamic? Hotel California is a lot of guitars and many layers of vocals. All midrange mid-high stuff mostly that a lot of systems handle well. MAybe they are that way because that was the limit of tech at the time. That could be the case with others you mentioned also. Mayhaps they (due to the recording tech at the time) fall into that realtively tame frequency field. That would make sense as to why they sound so good. Unless, they are really filled with frequency, mixed incredibly well, and I am off the mark with my analysis.

It's definately true that well mixed audio can stand up to many platforms and still come across well. I think as recording gets better, technologies for recording get better, it's easier to have a much richer audio field, and though the recording tech has grown in leaps in bounds, the consumer audio really hasn't as much (or at least not at speed). That may be why bands compress the dog poo out of thier stuff, because in order to sound good, they have to. Or, they do it because it is now the mainstream sound. Ye gods I hope it's the former.

Great post dude.

Jack Daniel Stanley
04-07-2006, 10:55 PM
I kind of feel like the best true mix will translate best -- again kind of like doing your CC on a properly calibrated monitor. It won't be played back on simmillar quality or properly calibrated monitors, but the closer you are to accurate white balance and monitoring when you do youre CC then the less the bad monitor and wacky tint settings on your parent's TV mess it up.

But I have nothing to base this on other than it "seems" right to me.

Aaron Marshall
04-08-2006, 12:01 AM
Just to be clear, I hope you didn't think I was talking about audio compressors, i was meaning file size compression, mp3's and such. Audio compression itself is fantastic.

Ahh I see what you mean. I was taking it that you were speaking of mainstream pop and its relation to audio compression. Compression, when used correctly, and with the right tools is awesome. Although, a lot of people starting out need to learn that no compression is better than bad compression.



If you think about the "universal magic" songs (and you are right on with your examples), do you think that some of that could be because they are not overly dynamic? Hotel California is a lot of guitars and many layers of vocals. All midrange mid-high stuff mostly that a lot of systems handle well. MAybe they are that way because that was the limit of tech at the time. That could be the case with others you mentioned also. Mayhaps they (due to the recording tech at the time) fall into that realtively tame frequency field. That would make sense as to why they sound so good. Unless, they are really filled with frequency, mixed incredibly well, and I am off the mark with my analysis.

I think you hit on some great points. I think the reason these universally translate is because they were painstakingly crafted. I think they're very well balanced in their frequency spectrums. Their arrangements make it so. They don't waste watts in their mixes with unnecessary amplitude of low frequencies, yet the lows are still there and still sound wonderful. It still extends like it should. I think what I'm trying to say is; if it's mixed correctly, on another playback system that can't extend to the lower frequencies, it won't really matter because it's not pushing through the mix. If you played back the identical mix on a set of Magnepans you'd start to feel it.

I suppose alternate mixes would be kind of nice. The question would be; does it mess up the end vision of the project by doing so? I like to think of film as a painting. Once the art is completed it's locked. Any alteration would need to be a separate entity and be titled accordingly. Star Wars is a good example of this. The re CGI'ed original trilogy should be named something else, and leave the classical ones the way they were for reference. Call the new ones Star Wars Gold or something. I'm not militant about any of this, I'm just throwing some ideas out there.



Great post dude.

Thanks man, you too, and Jack.


I kind of feel like the best true mix will translate best -- again kind of like doing your CC on a properly calibrated monitor. It won't be played back on simmillar quality or properly calibrated monitors, but the closer you are to accurate white balance and monitoring when you do youre CC then the less the bad monitor and wacky tint settings on your parent's TV mess it up.

But I have nothing to base this on other than it "seems" right to me.

That's an excellent analogy. It's so weird how playback to do with video is much more accurate, but it's hard to capture high resolution video to compare to film. In audio, we have the ability to capture in an inexpensive way, but the accurate playback is the hard and expensive part.