FCP7 to Soundtrack Pro alternative

omnikron

omnikron

Well-known member
I'm curious what today's FCPx and Premier Pro 6 users are doing for sound mixing on their films. I have such a great workflow down for sending the audio portions of my projects to STP 3 for my mastering but I'm realizing I can't edit on FCP7 forever... what do you all do?
 
For me, Adobe Audition has totally replaced STP. Full round tripping with Premiere Pro makes it a no brainer.

Audio on FCPX is still a second class citizen. Sure, they added multichannel editing in 10.0.6, but still no per-chanel meters, no mixer with master tracks etc. We do a lot of multicam work with multiple audio sources and while you 'can' do audio in FCPX, it's not as easy or intuitive as elsewhere.
 
For ENG, event and some doc. filmmakers the all in one is a decent or necessary workflow. For narrative films and I would argue almost all if not all doc.s doing a real sound post is a huge benefit.

So you are asking about a specific workflow and I'm pretty sure David was responding about the other.

I do post sound and I (as about 99% of sound editors in the US) also use Protools. But I'm working on others films not my own.

So yes you would send an OMF, and a video file, and I like to get an XML or EDL also incase you make changes down the line.
We edit and mix and you drop the mastered track back into your NLE and output your film.

The reasons to stay all in one are speed. For news and events that often trumps everything. For doc.s I think many are just so tired of the project by the time they get to the finish that taking the time to do sound post just is beyond them. The ones that do often do so because they have hit the wall with some sound problem. Most after going through a real sound post try to find some budget to do it the next time because it can make a really big difference in the polish "professional feel" of your film.

If your doing narrative films and you are not having a sound person do a real sound post for your film, I think your shooting yourself in the foot. If your just goofing around I guess? But if you expect anybody to take the work seriously on a professional level I think it's the kiss of death to have an typically bad nobudget sound track.
 
omnikron said:
I'm curious what today's FCPx and Premier Pro 6 users are doing for sound mixing on their films. I have such a great workflow down for sending the audio portions of my projects to STP 3 for my mastering but I'm realizing I can't edit on FCP7 forever... what do you all do?
Click to expand...

The Premium Production Bundle of CS6 includes Audition, which is directed to sound. I just signed up for the Adobe Cloud at the 'old customer's discount' of 29.95 per month. Adobe lists the 'regular' price of 49.95 otherwise...

Anyway, I had installed the trial packages and because of work/school was not able to really get into how to use Audition... I'll be correcting that shortly.

Before I switched to CS4-5 Premiere, I would use Final Cut Express and the Soundtrak that came with the original FCE... with less that easy transfers between them. And now the original Soundtrak is non-operable on recent vintage Mac OS's...
 
@Noiz2 Thanks for that info. I haven't done any films where I'd need a professional. I mostly produce short documentaries, spots, and corporate work and make sure my peak and RMS values are to the technical specs they require. I really enjoy the track-based system of STP but I haven't had the time to delve into learning ProTools. I'd love to do that. I wasn't aware that you could actually export an OMF from FCPX.

As an aside, the only time I've ever hired a sound pro, I was disappointed with the results. I think he made it worse... or at least created a new problem by fixing another one. I'll do it again some day but only when I'm not satisfied with the results I can do myself.

What is a doc.s?
 
Sorry, doc.'s + documentaries.

I'm not sure I would recommend ProTools to picture editor. The reason is it works very differently than a NLE. We (a guy that I work with and me) have switched back and forth a bit (PT <> FCP) on various projects and it's always frustrating when you make the move in either direction because the "logic" is different. STP was basically a NLE with only sound tracks. It worked very much like FCP so a lot of picture editors actually liked it, but almost all sound editors hated it.

As to professionals. I don't necessarily mean you have to hire someone, it really depends on the project. If your not paying your DP you probably shouldn't be paying your sound person either. But in both professions a lot of "pro's" will work for free or close in a project if they get asked in the right way or really like the script etc.

And like everybody else in the film biz there are more people doing it than know how to do it. You always have to hire the right person, or can their but and go looking for the right person. And in what you are doing there often isn't a sound post so the bar is a lot lower in those kinds of projects.
 
Thats why I love Vegas, coming from a ProTools background, its the only video NLE that made sense to me because it works like and audio workstation but with video. with it I can do all the work I need in one program. I've always thought its a silly notion that you have to leave your NLE to do something and then have to bring it back.

Just my 2cents
 
I have used Pro Tools for years but lately I've been using Digital Performer & really like it a lot better than PT. I finish all audio in one or the other, just so much more control than doing it in FCP7.
 
@Karl & Noiz2: How would you compare ProTools and Digital Performer to Sound Track Pro? Have you used all 3? I feel quite comfortable with using the limiter, EQ, and channels and busses to get a nice mix using STP. They're pretty basic tools that I'm sure these other programs have and I just wonder how easy it is to import the OMF, do the work and export the AIFF without audio drifting or clips moving... is this pretty much a non-issue?
 
recordingwhiz said:
Thats why I love Vegas, coming from a ProTools background, its the only video NLE that made sense to me because it works like and audio workstation but with video. with it I can do all the work I need in one program. I've always thought its a silly notion that you have to leave your NLE to do something and then have to bring it back.
Just my 2cents
Click to expand...

It's just that they are different instruments. Is it silly that you can't play a piano with a trumpet.

Anyway what ever works for folks does. Generally the reasons one is better off having someone who specializes do some job is because they have the experience and tools to do a better job. Now I do a lot of work on my house and I'm not a professional at that, but I do actually have most of the tools. Where I find my self getting in trouble, when I do, is over experience.

It is certainly possible to have a single person write, direct, shoot, edit and do all the sound work. The problem is most people don't do most of them well. So it's not "silly" for most people to have someone else do it. And anybody who specializes is going to want a tool that fits that specialty.

The other reasons are that most video edit stations are horrible sound environments. Speakers are not where they should be, they aren't calibrated, the room isn't treated and they tend to be really noisy. Most picture editors know very little about sound. And NLE's are usually restricted to editing on the frame.

Depending on what you are doing the above is either not terribly important or very important.

News, journalism, and events all are time sensitive and the audience has a large tolerance for bad sound in most situations.

Narrative films though are held up against standards set by cable TV and Hollywood.

A trip to any lowbudget film festival (and way too many times in major festivals) the sound is not well done to just plain awful.

Those are the people who needed to have someone who knows what they are doing do the sound post.

If you intend to show your film on a big screen you NEED to mix in a room that is larger than your edit room AND you should be seeing it on a biger screen than your edit room (or at least most peoples).

If your working on a big project you are going to be working with other people and they are not going to want to try and work on your NLE. Visual FX, generally not in your NLE, Music composing, generally not in an NLE. LOTS of stuff that your NLE, what ever it is, is not going to be the best tool for.

I just find it strange that there is always such resistance to having a sound person do sound. A project will bring in a CG/ visual FX person to do VFX, and a composer to do score, A DP to shoot the film, a costume designer, set decorator, etc.... And then want to have the picture editor do sound?
If you go through a festival and see a lot of films, the visuals are generally quite good, writing, acting, and directing very uneven. But sound is a surprise if it's not bad, unimaginative, or just plain amateurish. It's the one area where nobudget generally stinks and it's the one area that nobudget filmmakers are most resistant to bringing on someone.

I've never figured it out. But we are going off track from the question.

If Adobe has a real round tripping ability then it would be the clear winer. FCP to STP and back is essentially the same workflow as sending an OMF to ProTools but with out the advantage of a well designed sound tool.
 
@Scott: I hear you. What you're saying about hiring a sound pro and other pros doesn't really apply to the type of productions I'm producing at this time. I am hoping the time comes when I can work on larger projects that do incorporate various professionals. I'd really love that. Truth be told, I do a lot of things, some of them poorly, some of them well, but I learn new things every day and I try to give my clients the highest quality I can for the price. The reason I can make my living doing this is probably because I can provide my clients with a relatively high quality production with a 2 person crew of my wife & I. I'd absolutely love to find more people to work on stuff and I know it would help but my clients wouldn't pay for it. They're happy with what I'm doing. So ya, I'm kinda stuck in a rut but I still feel like we're learning and I haven't plateau'd yet. Hopefully I'll figure out what aspect of production I REALLY enjoy and be able to just focus on that in the future but for now, I love my life.
 
nwstudios said:
I would think Nuendo user percentage would be more than 1%.
Click to expand...
World wide yes, and I should probably limit the scope a bit to sound editors working professionally in sound post. And maybe the number is now closer to 98%... In a one stop shop the presure to be in ProTools is not so great. But on crew based projects the compatibility issue is a big deal. When I started PT was the poor step child of WaveFrame and Sonic Solutions, but both have pretty much if not entirely disappeared. On big budget films Fairlight probably has a bigger presence than Nuendo, but mostly limited to Foley editing.

BTW this isn't saying PT is any better than Nuendo, just what is the current standard in the US film industry. Avid used to 90% (about) of the NLE market with a few others like Media 100 filling the rest. FCP came in and ate up Media 100's share and took a big bite out of Avid, at least in video and low budget films. So PT could go the way of the Dodo but that isn't the case at the moment. Right now if Nuendo could read and wright a PT session file it would instantly gain a bunch of users. But that probably can't really happen just because of the plugin compatibility. As more films with budgets go to a all virtual sound post the pressure for everyone to be on the same system is growing not shrinking. With Avid/Digidesign making mix consoles it has put even more pressure to be on PT.

This folds over to lower budget films because since an editor that works on big budget films needs to be PT fluent to be employed that is what they will generally own themselves and what they will use when doing low budget films on their own. Even if BRAND X was a much better platform you would find most editors sticking with PT because they make far more in a couple of weeks on a big budget film than in months on a low budget film and switching back and forth is just a big pain in the but, mentally, and doesn't help you keep up your chops on the platform you make your living on.

I realize that this does not apply to many on this forum but it does relate the use of "sound people who know what they are doing", since IF they are doing film sound post professionally they are most likely to be on PT. There are a lot of music folks and people who have only nobudget sound experience and a lot (not all) of them are not one of those people "who knows what they are doing", even though they may be sound professionals. Film sound and music production have a little overlap, but a lot of skills that are needed to do a good job are very different. Also standards and workflow are very different. Most music people have little or no experience recording FX in the field, or Foley. They may well do well with ADR, but they may well not have a setup that really works for ADR. They generally do not have a decent sound library (of FX) and they are not all that experienced in breaking down and building specific sounds. They often have a very good sense of musicality the a lot of FX editors could benefit from, and they often have a really good feel for sonic balance. But a lot also have spent too much time in pop music loudness wars and want to compress everything to with in an inch of it's life.

Sorry for the drift... Trying to answer too many questions.

So the reason for the micro rant on post editors is the "I tried a professional but they didn't do a good job". It comes up fairly often and I think the reason is there are a lot of folks who say they are sound editors (or designers) who really have no experience with film sound and they may be great at what they really do they are not good at film sound. They probably could be with some experience but they have little or none and are often worse than if you did it your self. Like all the creative people you bring on you NEED to make sure they can do the job you want them to.

And I am not bad mouthing folks who do it all in one. There are a bunch of areas where that is just how it has to be. There are also places where post is sometimes an option, and if you get the right people it can be a real boost. And for some kinds of films it's really a necessity.

If they are not going to a mix stage (not too likely on a no-budget film) then the need to be on any specific platform is not very great. And while most folks I would consider to "know what they are doing" are using PT at work, they may not be at home AND any idiot can buy PT. So platform is NO indicator of quality. I guess if you hit some really toy DAW it might be but I still wouldn't use it as much of an indicator. And this goes to production also. I see listings and they want to know what equipment you have??? I mean there are lower limits that might be an issue but really that is a pointless question. IF there is some specific thing you think you need you might ask but you can always rent it and the person is SO much more important than the hardware.

If you are doing a film with a good budget (drop me a line ;~) ) then platform "might" be a question. But you should have either a post supervisor or a sound supervisor (or both) and they should find out IF it's a problem for delivery to the stage. In most cases you can probably work around it. Generally it's more important that every one working on sound is on the same platform.
 
Last edited:
omnikron said:
How do you get your audio into Protools from FCPX? Can you export an OMF?
Click to expand...

There's a program called X2Pro that exports embedded and referenced AAFs from FCPX to Pro Tools. I'm working with one of the developers right now on an issue that I've discovered literally 2 days ago when doing an assembly of the audio from FCPX into Pro Tools. FCPX can sync audio to a resolution that is greater than 1/4 frame and claims to sync to the sample level. FCP7 and Avid can't even sync to the sample I believe.
 
Actually even FCP6 "could" move sound at the sample level, but it was a move change mode see if it helps, go back to the special mode sift a bit switch back, repeat till you want to kill someone. PluralEyes used that function and is why it could do very good sync inside FCP.

I though Apple had added OMF export to FCPX. I know it didn't release with it but they fixed a bunch of omissions after release and I thought that was one. It hasn't come up for me because all of my FCP clients either stuck with 7 or moved to Adobe.
 
OK after a search... no OMF export? well that explains why I haven't seen any FCPX projects!

Kind of shocking really.
 
Noiz2 said:
OK after a search... no OMF export? well that explains why I haven't seen any FCPX projects!

Kind of shocking really.
Click to expand...

Exactly ;) Other than a small issue, X2Pro is pretty darn good. I was able to relink to the original production audio and X2Pro preserves the metadata on output. Synonymous to Automatic Duck. I don't even think you can get an EDL out of FCPX, natively !!!!
 
Good thoughts Noiz2. Ryan, Insane, so X2Pro is currently the only way to get sound out of a timeline in FCPx and into a sound editor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top