Looking for Post Audio / Foley Help

Ugh, don't get me started on monitor calibration. What a can of worms. This page 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!)
 
Rapier_100a said:
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.
Click to expand...
wont that make it sound thin?
don't you typically want to boost bass for small speakers?

Rapier_100a said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?


Rapier_100a said:
That, and being mindful of compression artifacts for the web also.
Click to expand...
I always use close to full quality audio or full quality -- what type of compression artifacts should I be wary of?

Rapier_100a said:
For the DVD, it'd be 5.1 of course!

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

thanks
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rapier_100a said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
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:
Click to expand...


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)
 
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.
 
Noct said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Rapier_100a said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Noct said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Rapier_100a said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Rapier_100a said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Rapier_100a said:
Great post dude.
Click to expand...

Thanks man, you too, and Jack.

Jack Daniel Stanley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top