why do low budget commercials look like low budget commercials?

M

mrbrycel

Well-known member
Ever since I was a kid, before I was interested in film/video, I always wondered why low budget commercials and city owned TV stations looked so "homemade". I came to the conclusion that it was the lack of good video equipment, and bad lighting. But it wasn't until the other day when I saw a decently animated commercial for a city college. The animation was actually not bad, visually it looked like a professional commercial. But I realized that the reason it was still so noticeably a low budget commercial was the audio. My audio knowledge a limited, so I can't really pinpoint what about the audio sounded bad. Was it the mic? Was it the model that was the problem or the type? Or does it have something to do with how it's exported?
 
Yeah, just singing into a can doesn´t do the trick anymore :D

Frank
 
Last edited:
mrbrycel said:
Was it the mic? Was it the model that was the problem or the type? Or does it have something to do with how it's exported?
Click to expand...
Those all may well have been contributing factors, but the biggest limitation faced by local advertisers is the skill and experience of the audio technicians involved. That, and local producers are all too often willing to work to a lower standard than national advertisors.

Come to think of it, the lower budgets may also have something to do with it.
 
All the above is true. One of the biggest killers that I've seen is a lack of good post-processing equipment. A good microphone is wonderful to have, but even if you're just using an SM-58 for voiceover, you can still make it sound good if you have good mastering equipment. I would bet that most people don't have mastering processors, exciters/enhancers, and most probably don't even use a good parametric eq. My bet is that most of those are recorded either directly onto the camera's tape or into a computer using a cheap audio interface. At most, they probably have a compressor on them and maybe apply some FX in post. In order to have truly mastered audio that sounds fantastic, you either need some freakin' expensive plugins for something like ProTools, or you need to have some really expensive outboard gear and a good A/D converter for bringing it into the computer.

Unfortunately, as SMuir said, that all costs money and low budget operations can't afford that kind of stuff.
 
I few things I've run across that are behind such bad spots:

-disillusioned filmmakers who have figured out they can make some money for not doing much
-people have low standards (they don't have the education and therefore don't understand how to watch or create ...so they really don't see the difference between a good and bad spot)
-monkeys running equipment at your local station
-Cox Communications....enough said (Comcast may fit in this as well)

Funny story....there was a political candidate in town that needed a few spots done for TV. His political advisor came to me for a bid...letting me know that the guy didn't have much money. I put in a bid that went along with what they could spend, and the advisor loved my ideas. I also had a plan for acquiring media (when and what channels we wanted it to run) that they really liked (and I don't usually do that part). The advisor took my plan to the guy...who in turn decided to spend more money by having the CBS affiliate do his spots and run them exclusively on that station! So Mr. Recently-graduated-from-journalism-school was left to shoot the commercials...which looked more like public access channel skits. Oh well.... :)
 
I would disagree a bit with the emphasis on equipment and software. Look back at some high priced adds in the 80's and 90's. Those folks were using what would often be considered "low end" now. Sure they probably had a nice mixer but it was (grab a seat) ANALOG!!!
The big difference is the people. Low budget films and adds get by with the absolute minimum in post. They don't cover the shot, they don't mix for drama, etc. A typical low budget film might have 4-8 tracks of audio, maybe they will splurge and go 12. I do a lot of work on national ad's and a "high end" ad (that doesn't just smear music all over itself) has somewhere between 40 and 80 tracks not counting VO and music. A typical film with a budget has somewhere between 100 and say 400 tracks of audio going into premixes. The difference in "polish" is huge. Now there is no particular reason today to not up the quality of your low budget film or ad. I've done quite a few and just getting into the 40+ track count makes a huge difference. It's not really the number of tracks but the number of tracks is a good indication of the level of work that went into the sound. If your editor isn't breaking things out and layering up sounds they just won't have the depth and polish to sound "high budget".

Equipment is nice too ;~)
 
davbeisner said:
All the above is true. One of the biggest killers that I've seen is a lack of good post-processing equipment. A good microphone is wonderful to have, but even if you're just using an SM-58 for voiceover, you can still make it sound good if you have good mastering equipment. I would bet that most people don't have mastering processors, exciters/enhancers, and most probably don't even use a good parametric eq. My bet is that most of those are recorded either directly onto the camera's tape or into a computer using a cheap audio interface. At most, they probably have a compressor on them and maybe apply some FX in post. In order to have truly mastered audio that sounds fantastic, you either need some freakin' expensive plugins for something like ProTools, or you need to have some really expensive outboard gear and a good A/D converter for bringing it into the computer.

Unfortunately, as SMuir said, that all costs money and low budget operations can't afford that kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this almost entirely. You could use an SM57 going directly into camera, and post processed with the most basic plugins that everyone has available to them in their NLE and it would sound acceptable if:

A) Had good voice talent
B) Used proper mic placement in a somewhat acceptable environment.

Most of the types of commericals I believe we are talking about usually have neither. All the gear in the world cannot rescue you from fundamental issues with A and B.

Technique and experience almost always trumps gear.
 
There is also a talent issue involved. SAG (of which I am a member) hasn't made it easy for low-budget commercials like they have for low budget movies. There is only one scale for commercials, and it is pretty expensive (minimum session fee is $567.10 for 8 + another 15% or so for P&H). Plus residuals, etc. Now, as an actor, I appreciate the good wages when I can get them, but most low budget commercials can't afford this. So you have less experienced actors (which is not to say "bad" actors) performing (and there is a distinct difference in the way you deliver commercial copy vs. movie/narrative acting, which actors with less experience may not understand).

This is just one more component, in addition to everything mentioned above.

Phil
 
The talent running the gear matters and the lack of it accounts for some of the truely god awful stuff you hear from time to time but generally the "low production" value sound you hear from local spots tends to be more about the talent of the speaker. Actors with proper voice training make a night and day difference in the "polishedness" of the final product.

I can direct that talent but I can no more do it myself then I can co-star with Anthony Hopkins.

"Aluminum, Linoleum, aluminum, linoleum...." :)
 
Noiz2 said:
I would disagree a bit with the emphasis on equipment and software. Look back at some high priced adds in the 80's and 90's. Those folks were using what would often be considered "low end" now. Sure they probably had a nice mixer but it was (grab a seat) ANALOG!!!
Click to expand...

I, and many other folks out here would very strongly disagree with lumping analog equipment into one pile and bashing it. A lot of people in high-end, professional sound studios still use analog gear for the entire signal flow until recording. They'll use analog boards, process with analog processors, master with analog equipment. That's not to say that it's all good--there's a lot of cr*p out there in the analog world. But on the same front, there's a lot of cr*p in the digital world too. But that's not along the lines of the OP's question, so I'll not continue my rant. :)

tigeba said:
Technique and experience almost always trumps gear.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
davbeisner said:
I, and many other folks out here would very strongly disagree with lumping analog equipment into one pile and bashing it. A lot of people in high-end, professional sound studios still use analog gear for the entire signal flow until recording. They'll use analog boards, process with analog processors, master with analog equipment. That's not to say that it's all good--there's a lot of cr*p out there in the analog world. But on the same front, there's a lot of cr*p in the digital world too. But that's not along the lines of the OP's question, so I'll not continue my rant. :)

Agreed.
Click to expand...

Don't get your undies in a twist, I'm not bashing analog. I was, as I think I said, referring to what is often "considered" low end. Perception and reality are often quite different. An analog Nagra will produce some of the best recordings around, in the right hands. But go out and try to get a job after telling the producer that your going to use one on their project. I have a LOT of analog gear and can slice and dice 1/4" and mag with the best of them. Was probably doing that before you first touched a mixer.

The point is if you, read the post, that equipment is much less important than the folks using it. Hand your SSL to an incompetent mixer and it might as well be a Behringer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top