Need efficient way to sync audio files with p2

G

Gesspacho

New member
I am trying to find out if there is a more efficient way to sync audio files to p2 in a final cut session as opposed to having to drag in and line up each audio file.

Right now we are shooting video on an HVX and recording audio separately to a Pro tools session and to an M-audio microtrack. I know that timecode would help to immediately sync the audio to video, however we do not have the option of timecode.

Also I was wondering if anyone may be able to write about the flow of how audio from on set to post was handled. Perhaps interaction between the video editing team and audio crew. Any help or suggestions would be great.

Thanks
 
Do it the old fashion way

Do it the old fashion way

Well you can do it like they do in film with a clapper board and verbal slate for every take. I do it that way and find it without any problems in post. In addition...It helps me out when I edit because i have all the information I need when editing my footage. This include, Roll (tape), Scene, and take.
 
yep, clapper board or sync beeps. Before each take make sure both video and audio are recording. "Slate" each take by stating location, scene, shot, take number, ect.. then Clap your board right in front of the camera. You can of course use your hands. Just make sure its loud enough to be picked up by both the camera mic and your dual audio system.
 
Sorry, yeah we are using a clapperboard to sync the audio in post. I was just more looking for programs that may be able to sync the audio from protools into final cut. and/or a process with which people have used on shoots to help make the process quick and efficient
 
MontrealAudio said:
yep, clapper board or sync beeps. Before each take make sure both video and audio are recording. "Slate" each take by stating location, scene, shot, take number, ect.. then Clap your board right in front of the camera. You can of course use your hands. Just make sure its loud enough to be picked up by both the camera mic and your dual audio system.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't it be easier to record your left and right channel (staggered) right into your HVX and have an aux. out to your M-audio via a mixer. That way you will always be in sinc. In addition..you can always bounce the audio out of FCP using dv toolkit, put in any revisions or filters then bounce it back into FCP using automatic duck. It does cost more but at least you don't have to worry about drift when using different recording devices. Other than that...there is really no shortcut when recording using another machine via a DAC or digital recorder.
 
I use a MOTU 828MkII as the interface, and record its TC out to one of the HVX's tracks while recording up to 8 tracks of audio into Digital Performer, or AudioDesk, which is included with the 828 (both are Mac only).

Later I slave the MOTU system on a Mac laptop to the clip's audio TC track after it's been imported into FCP and then sent to STP. Then I slave a third computer running a Pro Tools system to STP's MTC out. The STP export is necessary since STP supports midi time code and FCP doesn't (note that midi interfaces are required on both the FCP/STP and PT systems). Then, with all three systems running in sync, I record the MOTU output digitally (optical) to the PT system, creating new BWAV files. Since it's slaved by MTC to STP, the new audio now has matching TC to the FCP clips (the TC will match the FCP timeline only - not the HVX's native code, unless you originally placed the clips in FCP accordingly). Then the new BWAVs are imported into the original FCP file and "merged" with the matching video clips, which pops them into sync. I have found there's a slight discrepancy though, so an offset of a few frames is needed in the MOTU system to correct it.

This is, admittedly, a very complex setup, and it does require a lot of hardware for the recipe: 3 computers, 2 midi interfaces, a MOTU system and a PT system in addition to the FCP system. It does take some time to set up initially, but once it's rolling it's pretty efficient. I think it's clear though, given its complexity, that it's only suited for large amounts of material. If you're looking at 50+ clips it should be well worth the effort. If it's much less than that - you might be better off doing the manual sync method.

Like I said, it's a kludge, but it's the only workflow I know of that can achieve TC lock between an HVX and a DAW. If someone has a better plan, particularly a simpler one, I'm all ears...
 
Last edited:
smithy said:
Wouldn't it be easier to record your left and right channel (staggered) right into your HVX and have an aux. out to your M-audio via a mixer. That way you will always be in sinc. In addition..you can always bounce the audio out of FCP using dv toolkit, put in any revisions or filters then bounce it back into FCP using automatic duck. It does cost more but at least you don't have to worry about drift when using different recording devices. Other than that...there is really no shortcut when recording using another machine via a DAC or digital recorder.
Click to expand...


this sounds interesting....anyone else doing it?


what do you mean be staggered?
 
smithy said:
Wouldn't it be easier to record your left and right channel (staggered) right into your HVX and have an aux. out to your M-audio via a mixer. That way you will always be in sinc. In addition..you can always bounce the audio out of FCP using dv toolkit, put in any revisions or filters then bounce it back into FCP using automatic duck. It does cost more but at least you don't have to worry about drift when using different recording devices. Other than that...there is really no shortcut when recording using another machine via a DAC or digital recorder.
Click to expand...

??? DV toolkit is a PT add on not a FCP app. What I'm going to assume you mean is OMF out of FCP and into PT via Digi translator. As a general rule it's better to keep this a one way street. You want to do you audio post in PT not in FCP and you don't want to send a big number of tracks back to FCP. Automatic Duck might be able to handle it but it would be convoluted since FCP doesn't import OMF et all.

Probably too late since your already in production but BoomRecorder (software) is a much more production friendly recording software. It will stamp/ generate/ record TC unlike PT Le and it can use the Digi hardware. It generates sound reports, lets you keep detailed notes, inteligent file names based on scene take TC notes, just about anything you want, and has a pre and post roll buffer. It's also a lot more stable than PT. I use PT all the time (I mostly do post) but would never want to be recording production with it.

RE: OP. Other than feeding the camera or time stamping all the files you are stuck with syncing by hand.
 
i was thinking of this aspect:

"Wouldn't it be easier to record your left and right channel (staggered) right into your HVX and have an aux. out to your M-audio via a mixer. That way you will always be in sinc."

is this a good technique?
 
Format_Foreigner said:
i was thinking of this aspect:

"Wouldn't it be easier to record your left and right channel (staggered) right into your HVX and have an aux. out to your M-audio via a mixer. That way you will always be in sinc."

is this a good technique?
Click to expand...

well I also have no idea what he/she means by staggered and I've been doing sound since the dark days of 1/4" tape. Recording into the HVX should be OK if monitored. I'm not a fan of straight into the camera personally. I would go through a mixer/ recorder and feed that to the camera. Reason being is your sound person gets to control level and you have a no excuses backup BEFORE it hits the camera.

If your recording mono then he might mean (the staggered bit) sending the mono to two channels on the camera with different gain settings. One is your low enough to be clip proof track and the other is where your at your ideal gain for 90% of what your shooting. This helps with the operator not paying attention to details part but doesn't do anything for the "ooops I flipped it to line" part.
 
thanks...not having film experience....do people actually mix various sources/mics into a stereo file?

I'm in situations where I have to capture room sound, system sound, talent sound all independently.
 
Well yes and no. It would be pretty rare to mix anything but music to a stereo file. But it is not at all unusual to have dual mono files so what you might think of as "stereo" is actually two different sources. In your case you need to go to a multi track recorder. The most affordable ones are software with a hardware front end. I use Boom Recorder on a MacBook Pro with an Alesis mixer with FW as the front end. With that I can record 12 sources at once to independent tracks.
 
Format_Foreigner said:
and Boom Recorder VS Pro Tools or other DAW is because of reliability?
Click to expand...

Reliability, Pre and post roll buffers (your recording before you press record) VS PT lag before going into record. PT will name the file with the track name, BR will construct the name from various user specified fields AND they can be changed while you are recording. BR works with just about all the hardware out there so you can use whatever interface fits your needs. BR does sound reports, you can type in notes while your recording and they will be added to the SR and linked to the recordings. BR reads writes and generates TC. BR can record simultaneously to more than one drive for instant mirroring. A visible ring buffer so you know in advance if your having problems with the drives. BR can split recordings seamlessly on the fly and include the pre/ post buffers so you have overlap. BR organizes sound files in folders, poss with PT but a bit convoluted. BR has a very streamlined and efficient recording flow. I have recorded 72 simultaneous files at 48/24 to a bus powered USB2 laptop drive with out hiccups. Not only does that exceed PT track count (Le anyway) you couldn't get enough inputs in PT without spending a small fortune in hardware and going HD which would require a tower or a breakout box for the laptop and the 192 interfaces have fans that would require putting them in a sound proof cabinet. Also there is no way PT of any flavor would let you go into record on 72 tracks at the same time to a USB2 drive. BR has a built in spectrum analyzer. There must be more but... There is no editing in BR it is record only (it can also play back but no audio editing). It does one thing and it does it very well. PT is a great (my opinion) editing application and it's OK in a studio where if you have a glitch you can do a new take but it would scare me to death to have to do production work with it.
 
wow, that is pretty impressive. what i/o did you say you use? how did you do 72 tracks???


BR will construct the name from various user specified fields AND they can be changed while you are recording.
Click to expand...

so if I type take 1 and 10 minutes later decide to type take 2 it will split the sound file?
 
Format_Foreigner said:
wow, that is pretty impressive. what i/o did you say you use? how did you do 72 tracks???
Click to expand...

It was a test so I only had a few inputs but I assigned multiple files to each so it was ~12 inputs writing 72 files on 5400 rpm buss powered drive. You can mix and match interfaces and with many of them you can "aggregate" so they appear as one big interface. If you have installed system drivers for your Digi hardware BR can use that interface as well.

I believe there is a demo a two input limited version is $20 and you get more than that back if you upgrade to the full version.
Boom Reocrder


so if I type take 1 and 10 minutes later decide to type take 2 it will split the sound file?
Click to expand...

No it would just rename the file. But BR tracks Scene and take #'s so you probably wouldn't be typing "take2" you would just select it. If you want to split the take you would hit record again, much like many dedicated HD recorders. I would take it for a spin. About 10 sec in you won't be thinking of using PT for field recordings again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top