Sound makes me want to die OR "Learning the hard way"

Well I didn't mean don't have all the sounds, but sometimes you have to make a few judgement calls on what is important. I've watched enough low budget films where I couldn't understand a word the actors were saying half the time because the foley/sfx/music etc was so loud in the mix that it was almost pointless watching it. At the same time, I could say I've seen pictures where all there was is dialog and the ambience wa so screwed up the whole movie felt disjointed. If I had to mix on improper speakers, I'd be just trying to get the dialog listenable and the background smooth. People will forgive a too low foot step before they will forgive a line of dialog they couldn't hear.

Guidelines aren't there to be followed all the time, but I will say this, there is a reason they are there in the first place. For instance, the 180 rule is actually a very good tool in helping tell a story, but keeping a regular flow to how you present scenes. For instance, think of music, if you go and add in notes not in a scale, sometimes it works, but most times, it sounds wrong and people don't like it. That's why some of these guidelines exist. They are there to help you, and help your audience, get what you are trying to come across. They keep from confusing people and also, keep from you having to make things so painstakingly obvious.

For instance, another general rule is NEVER pan an actors voice to the left or right, ALWAYS have it in the exact center. Sure, you can break these rules, but the gain YOU might feel you get might just make other people feel like, wow, does this person know how to mix? Because this sounds off.

Here is the thing though, most sound in movies are over exaggerated. Capturing it on set doesn't always help because the realistic sound doesn't sound as good as the foley sounds. Like walking in snow, etc. It is MUCH easier to me to capture them in a controlled environment, or have someone do it on a foley stage, because they can also be made to sound better. For instance, opening a door. We want a squeek, and a chunky handle being opened, but if the door we are using doesn't do that, we have to go find one that does and record it. (Or use a sound library which we've done before as well).

Everyone wants to break the rules and be different, and that is fine, but what one has to realize is there is a time and place for that. With what over 100 years of cinema, you can be sure that many people have said the same thing as you :)
 
grimepoch said:
Everyone wants to break the rules and be different, and that is fine, but what one has to realize is there is a time and place for that. With what over 100 years of cinema, you can be sure that many people have said the same thing as you :)
Click to expand...

Exactly. Doing things different just be be different might make your film stand out, but probably not in the way you're hoping for.
 
Well, I don't do things just to be different, I do them in a certain way because that's what interests me and that's how I feel when I do them. I think about things for a long time before I do them. The idea of capturing sounds in a certain way interests me artistically, so I may approach it in a different way then the "Hollywood" standard...not sure why this is such a bad thing to do.

I don't understand the mentality of "It's been done like this for 100 years, let's keep doing it this way". Or saying other people have tried being different and "failed" (if that's what you were implying?).

I think that's very restricting, at least in regards to artistic content (not so much technically). My films aren't made to be sold, and I'm not someone who gets hired to do sound, like you may be for instance, so I don't make my living off of it as you would. So for me, the time and place to break the "rules" is here and now. But I have to clarify I'm against random experimenting just to be different...if I do something that breaks the rules it's because I'm only playing by my rules...and I usually do have a framework and guidelines for each project. They just don't match up with "industry" or "Hollywood" standards.

Just clarifying my position, anyway, back to sound.
 
It's not the mentality of things being just done for 100 years, it's a mentality of not fixing what isn't broken. I totally get where you are coming from, as when I write music, I'll put in a note that is not in a scale every so often when that note absolutely fits to me. Stevie Ray Vaughn was known for doing this. But, there are certain practices that are good, like the example I gave of the 180 rule. It's not there to restrict you, it's there to help you. It makes it easier for the audience to understand what you are trying to portray without confusing them as to what is going on. That's why people follow a lot of these guidelines, because they just make a good film. But, everyone goes outside the lines when it makes sense, and many people can get some amazing results.

Gordon Ramsey said it best on one of his helping shows for failing restaurants. This restaurant was serving a dish with strawberrys and salmon. He told the chef, did you ever ask yourself, with the hundreds of years of cooking, and all the professional chefs in the world, why none of them are making this dish that you are? Because it tastes like ass! :) Haha, paraphrased of course, but the point was well made. There are times that following good helpful practices are good, and then there are times when you want to break a boundary and I don't think that is wrong. But, do too much in a single project and YOU might understand what you are trying to achieve, but for others, you may not get the response you want.

If your films are for you, that is fine, but for others, you do have to take them into consideration. I mean, what if you loved the sound of 60Hz hum in everything you do. You crank it up on the soundtrack. You think it sounds great and adds some ambiance that people never hear, but most people are going to be annoyed as hell.

When I approach creativity in what I do, especially film, I pick and chose what things are most important to me creativity wise and that is what I focus on. I rely on many good practices because those are what people subconsciously expect in your film and that means, when you present with those methods, the actual parts of your film that ARE different stand out, and drive into the audience. Blain Brown, and author of some widely used film books, talks a lot about this and I agree with him. It's a good read.

You can do whatever you want, but if you want your stuff to look like an art film, which is the BEST example of people following no guidelines and doing something different, there is NOTHING at all wrong with that, but you have to recognize that when you go down that path, the appeal tends to be a smaller audience. And of course, there is nothing wrong with that either, as you have to do what you are having a good time with.

I see this same argument in music all the time and I say this to people I work with; artwork is a balance in which you make something you are proud of that you've felt has allowed you to exercise your creative energy with also taking into consideration the audience and the enjoyment they will get out of it as well. Both are important to me as an artist and are always a VERY big struggle at time. But then, that's what makes some art amazingly great. When you achieve both.

My opinion anyways :)

How's the sound coming? I start mixing on Sunday for our next release of our project coming out next week (10 minute episode).
 
Trust me, if I thought sound experts were complete morons I wouldn't be on this forum asking advice from guys like you. If you look at my past posts, I've asked every obvious and silly question about sound I possibly could.

But I've also been directing since I was a kid, and I went through the "have a gun in every movie" phase, the "do it by the book" phase, and so forth...and now I really just want to make things according to my vision, which I spend a lot of time refining in my mind and on paper. I know the films I want to make will appeal to only a relatively small audience...but I hope that isn't always the case. I think mass audiences view movies a certain way because that's all they've ever known...the 3 act structure "works" because that's how it's worked since commercial film began. If I can make films some day that change a few people's minds about what's possible in cinema...well, that's important to me. I wouldn't just put something in a film because it looks "beautiful" or "cool". I'd do it for some sort of atmospheric or emotional consequence. I'm sure lots of people thought John Cage was crazy (and still do), but he was trying to break old habits and explore what was important to him. I'm just trying to explore new ways to present my emotional and temporal reality in cinema.

For instance, in my current film a character switches on a rickety old space heater in her room. As her and friend talk in the room, the humming buzz of the heater starts to creep into the scene. At first, not so noticeable, but it gets louder and louder. I don't show it as the heater making the noise until there is a shot where the character violently shakes the heater and the humming stops...for me, it helps directly reflect the tension of the conversation. If I showed you the script, the conversation would seem mundane. But I'm using the heater sound to build tension and create a bit of confusion for the audience. The sounds is annoying and seems "wrong" at first...I purposely want my audience to be bothered and confused by it, but I have a reason for doing it.

Now, can I mix it with as much finesse and expertise as a pro? No, of course not. Not even close...but it's important for me to try it on my own and understand my limitations, so when I do work with an expert technician some day, he knows what I want and I know if he misunderstands my intentions...because they may not be "by the book" intentions.

In my opinion, too many directors get a crew of really good people together because he simply doesn't know anything about the technical aspects. It's very important to me that I try to do everything myself first, so that I can direct any camera or sound people I work with in the future...I don't believe in simply passing the work off to other people.


And as far as the sound...right now I'm re-editing some ADR and going crazy trying to get the right balance of it still sounding "good" but "bad" enough where it realistically sounds like it belongs in the scene...and not like it was recorded after the fact. It's probably something a sound guy could perfect in 5 minutes, but it will take me about 5 days...
 
I went through the... "do it by the book" phase, and so forth...and now I really just want to make things according to my vision,
Click to expand...

when I do work with an expert technician some day, he knows what I want and I know if he misunderstands my intentions...because they may not be "by the book" intentions.
Click to expand...

I think what we have here is a case of telling you to follow all of the rules, to learn technique and process, so you can learn the language and communicate well with your audience and other professionals.

And I understand where you are coming from. The rule breakers who do it courageously and well become the cutting edge trend-setters. But 99.99% of them have played by the rules and know why they are breaking the rules and how it will affect their audience.

For instance, in my current film a character switches on a rickety old space heater in her room... The sound is annoying and seems "wrong" at first...I purposely want my audience to be bothered and confused by it, but I have a reason for doing it.
Click to expand...

For it to be truly effective you have to plan it that way before you start shooting. If you have, that's great; but there are a lot of techniques that can be used to make it annoying with regard to the story and the characters without annoying your audience to the point that you pull them out of the film. I worked on a short last year where a dog had to bark continuously for almost six minutes, and that was precisely the problem I faced; I had to annoy the protagonist but not pull the audience out of the "illusion" - a razor thin line on which to balance. I had to draw on all of my experience and creativity, and I still asked for advice from a few close audio friends and mentors. It came out very well in the end, and was quite a challenge, but I never would have been able to pull it off without a very solid technical and organizational base from which to build and bend.
 
Learning the basics and why they are followed practices is the foundation, and I totally agree with Bob, it's when you've worked within that paradigm enough that you then realize the best ways to branch out of it and do something different. Believe me, I see enough stuff that is shot by the book and I agree, some of it is so bland, but at the same time, I feel, it's not really the shots as much as the story and/or the actors in the story.

Examples of films TOTALLY going off the book are Blair Witch or Paranormal Activity. They worked off of doing something totally different, and honestly, I enjoyed them for what they were, as did a lot of people. They weren't the most amazing thing ever, but the difference in storytelling was interesting and kept me into the story (or what little there was in either really). Even Cloverfield kind of followed on these lines. Of course, there are a lot of people that hate all three of these movies.

Just like in Bourne Identity with the shaky cam, or Battlestar Galactica with the crazy pan/zoom in and out of their space battles. These are all new methods that same like and some don't, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. What I am saying is, I don't think you are wrong, but I also don't think that using 100 years of experience doesn't present you with some great honed tools to add as well. Of course, you probably already do that :)

Pertaining to your scene, this is my feeling. If the dialog is mundane, rewrite it. There is NOTHING that kills a movie more that isn't visual FX oriented then characters with boring lines. Add more life to them. Instead of having the the boiler just do it once, have it happen a few times, and have the tension build with one of the characters hitting it. Allow the actors to present their emotional state through the sound/action with the dialog.

I watch a lot of independent stuff online. I can honestly say the ONE thing that kills almost every production is boring characters. Yet, I see stuff with small sets, mediocre audio, but with HUGE wonderful characters and it sucks people in. Gives them the identity to latch on to. People start liking the good guy, someone they want to hang out with. They start hating the bad guy, wanting to punch them in the face.

I will say this though, you spending so much time on sound is a GOOD thing. I have done free work for SCAD students for the last four years to help me (learn by experience) and help them (scoring and mixing people can be hard to come by). EVERYONE that starts out pays no mind to audio typically. It's the last thing they think of and they don't realize what a HUGE part of the film it is. So much so that it at times can be MORE important than the visuals especially as I said if you cannot hear the dialog.

I will say this too though, one point you've made that I agree with is I see a lot of HUGE budget movies that feel like they have no cohesiveness. I think they do get too many people together and the director isn't driving enough of the whole project. I too do everything like you, not because I always want to do it, but because I want to be able to (1) tell the people I hire or work with what I want in a language they understand and (2) demonstrate to them if I cannot explain it well enough.

Did you ever figure out how to change your codec? I'd love to see what you've done so far on my studio speakers on the short piece. Use an H.264 encoder.
 
Grimepoch, from what you've said I have a feeling you'd absolutely abhor my film! In fact, I don't think many people on this board would like it for the content.

It's essentially a 19 minute film where the story isn't clear and the characters don't say much that's interesting. But it's all in what ISN'T said. It's important that people who watch my film feel something before "getting it"- whether it's being confused, hypnotized, saddened, angered, etc. It isn't just crazy techniques- I tried to cultivate the emptiness I felt about certain things in my life and put that on the screen- rather than make a really "emotional" film about things I haven't felt yet. The fact that the story isn't clear isn't an accident- it's because I didn't want my audience to focus on the narrative, more on the progression of the sounds and images, the experience of the characters and their movements in relation to each other- rather than the "who, what, where, when, why".


We probably have very different tastes in film. But once the film is finished I'll certainly find a way to post it on here and welcome any harsh criticism. I like to look at this way- would rather see a student film that may be boring but something different, or see a student film about a bank robbery/drug heist/suicide/murder/ghost?
 
Grimepoch,

FYI It's Foley not foley. It's always capitalized because it's someone's name, and well respect.
 
MeAgain said:
...
We probably have very different tastes in film. But once the film is finished I'll certainly find a way to post it on here and welcome any harsh criticism. I like to look at this way- would rather see a student film that may be boring but something different, or see a student film about a bank robbery/drug heist/suicide/murder/ghost?
Click to expand...

There are a ton of films that I don't like that have been pivotal for people that created films I do like. I'm very much not a "if you say it's art it's art" kind of person but I respect anyone who manages to finish a film. And If I hate it but take away one new way of thinking about something (even if it's really an old way I forgot about) well then it was worth watching. If you want to make a living there are other considerations that may come into play. But I have and have no problem helping people make the best film they can, even if I would not like it. I have actually worked on a fair number of films that I didn't particularly like. The ones done by people who were very passionate about the direction were usually fun. Those I liked working on even if watching them isn't my cup of tea. So go for it, and listen to criticism about how to make it better (in the way you want) and thank everyone else for watching and store their problems away until/ if you ever need to make it more assessable.
 
I agree. I don't make my films expecting everyone to like them. I just try to be honest in how I feel. The way I see it, not everyone who meets me is going to like me. And if you hate my film but STILL take away one new idea or I brought to light one thing you hadn't noticed about life- then that's all I really want to accomplish. I've hated films before, then watched them again and realized I was just watching them the wrong way, and suddenly the film opens up for me. And there's nothing I hate more then watching a student film that's EXACTLY like every other student film, that gives me nothing new, but is in "HD" with "real" actors and "cool" CG effects.

But we should also be honest in that "Student" films are there primarily as a learning process. This film I made was personal, but I realized my limitations. I had non-actors- one of them was used as a last minute replacement. I had to readjust the script in accordance and compromise because of my limitations. It would have been stupid for me to expect two non-actors to do things trained actors do. So I had to creatively work within the context of these two people, feel out their capabilities and adjust to that.

It is hard though- because there are people who just turn a camera on, film "whatever" and call it "Art" and say "well, everything is art!". The way I defend my favorite art is through arguments and reasons and close attention to the techniques and details of the film. For me, I really have no right to defend whether or not my films are good. I can only say that I think for a very very long time about them, about the techniques I'm going to use, what emotion or personal experience I want to convey and wonder if it will have the effect I want.

And then, again, I have to realize my limitations- OK, I have no cinematographer to work with? Well, since I don't understand the things a cinematographer does, let me try something unique- only using natural light to film. I, at the very least, use manual exposure, light reflectors and curtains to achieve a certain look within this framework. It was very important to me to stick to this principle of natural light. And of course the film will look rough or less than professional, but if I can turn that into something unique and at least atmospheric- it's at least more interesting than just pointing and shooting. If I had no microphone, my film would have to become a silent film. I think the trouble with students my age is that they don't realize their technical limitations and attempt to make a "polished" Hollywood film instead of simply making their film with the means they have at hand.

And then of course I shape it in editing, and sometimes I'll obsess over a few frames...literally, whether or not I should cut a half second earlier. But all I can do is try, and I honestly put my entire energy into this. And I can look at my film now and think critically...like this is too much like this director's film, or this transition of images works, but this other transition is poorly done, etc.

I went to school with people who didn't even wear headphones when they shot their films. In fact- I went to school- COLLEGE- with a guy who filmed a documentary without headphones- and when he went to edit it, found out he had absolutely NO sound. He then asked me how he could "fix the sound" in Final Cut to that he could hear it. It was actually really really sad.

So I understand the grief sound guys face and why they'd be wary of my outlook on things. It's not that I don't care or realize the importance of these things, just the opposite. It's just that I'd like to use them perhaps unconventionally within the content side of the film.
 
Side note: Noiz2, you said what I recorded wasn't Wild Foley, but what constitutes Wild Foley? For instance, the objects that make sound in the film (such as the rattle heater or door closing) were re-recorded after the filming was done, but not to a screen. In other words, I recorded the same heater making the same sounds, but separate from filming, and not in sync. Same thing with a book's page being turned- same exact book, but recorded separately, in the same room, in the same position, but not in sync.

Then, of course, there were the sound effects used that weren't in the same scene- like I brought some dried leaves inside the house and had someone step on them, then recorded that- is that Wild Foley? It's recorded separately from the location, but not in sync. Or is that also sound fx?
 
You'd actually be quite surprised by my tastes in movies, as I do have many that do not follow any sort of normal flow and in fact have some similarities to what your film follows, from what you've said. For instance, the films of David Lynch like Lost Highway, Muholland Drive, or Eraserhead. Or even THX1138, both the student film and the theatrical release by Lucas. I could probably go on quite a bit, as I like A LOT of film and watch A LOT of films. It's where I derive most of my inspiration from in being better and seeing things where I am like, wow, why didn't I think of that.

In fact, my film that I've written I start filming in February or March. It's a VERY DEEP Sci-Fi film that does have lots of VFX (because I like the challenge) but has VERY deep dialog and doesn't follow the standard story arc. It's a short, 45 minutes, so I wanted to do something different. It's a film that you walk away thinking about, like 'Primer' or 'Pi' where it really plays on your sensibilities of Science Fiction. And, it ties together A HUGE array of Sci-Fi that has influenced me over the years, literally like 20+ films.

I only say all this as I know this particular film isn't going to sell to a distributor, it's personal as well. However, it will become my demo reel basically. It will show the depth of my writing, and the vision of my worlds that I design. Further, it will pull EVERY skill I have out. Even the score is so meticulously integrated that my editor and I will be pushing the score and the editing together at the same time since many of the scenes are cut to a beat as they transition between things. Very fun project.

At the same time, I am doing more mainstream stuff with other friends to continue my efforts down that path as well. I like to be multifaceted. :)

I am not trying to discourage you by any means, art is art, and if it makes *YOU* happy and you get what *YOU* want out of it, then everything is gained. I've always stood by that mantra. I look forward to seeing your movie :) Moreso than anything because of the case you make for it.

I mean, how many people have you met that have their head so far up in the clouds about film making that they listen to no one, get no advice, think they know it all, and generate the most amazing crap known to art, and then are surprised no one likes it AT ALL. There are a lot of people like that. Luckily, here at DVXUser, it's not that crowd. There are tons of people here helping each other all the time (I have learned SO much here).

When I did some video shoot at SCAD where one of the classes did a music video of a song I wrote, I was AMAZED at how lazy most of the students were. I never went to film school, I learned on my own through LOTS of research, working with others, and all that. After experiencing SCAD through working with projects there, I made the right decision. Almost every student I met is very UNLIKE you :) Although that said, there were a handful that were AWESOME who are all out in LA now working on real projects.

Hey, stop spending your time writing us and get that score done! :P Hehe. Which reminds me, I need to do some rendering of walls exploding!!! :)
 
MeAgain said:
Well, I don't do things just to be different, I do them in a certain way because that's what interests me and that's how I feel when I do them. I think about things for a long time before I do them. The idea of capturing sounds in a certain way interests me artistically, so I may approach it in a different way then the "Hollywood" standard...not sure why this is such a bad thing to do.

I don't understand the mentality of "It's been done like this for 100 years, let's keep doing it this way". Or saying other people have tried being different and "failed" (if that's what you were implying?).

I think that's very restricting, at least in regards to artistic content (not so much technically). My films aren't made to be sold, and I'm not someone who gets hired to do sound, like you may be for instance, so I don't make my living off of it as you would. So for me, the time and place to break the "rules" is here and now. But I have to clarify I'm against random experimenting just to be different...if I do something that breaks the rules it's because I'm only playing by my rules...and I usually do have a framework and guidelines for each project. They just don't match up with "industry" or "Hollywood" standards.

Just clarifying my position, anyway, back to sound.
Click to expand...

There's breaking the rules artisitically and then there's breaking the laws of nature. If you want to do "Hamlet" with an all-nude cast, go for it. It's not the way it's usually been done for the past several hundred years but if that's your artistic vision, give it a try and see what happens. But if you want try to capture clear dialog with a shotgun mic from the back of the theatre, Mother Nature wrote that rule that says it won't work very well when she came up with the laws of the physics of acoustics that govern the way that part of the universe functions. It's not a matter of taste, it's a fundamental matter of what works physically and what doesn't. Those rules also encompass what works in regard to the psychology of the audience. People say that dialog needs to be recorded closeup and personal because the past 100 years of movie making have taught that when it's not, audiences get up and walk out of the theatre. It's not an artistic judgement or dictate but rather the experience of hundreds of film-makers who've come before and seen the disaster that occurs when that technical detail is overlooked. If you want to communicate new ideas, the audience must be open to receive them - violating the technical "rules" often closes the pathways that that communication must flow through.
 
The real answer is that wild Foley is a contradiction in terms and there is no such thing. But the term is used so... Wild Foley is used to describe those sounds that would normally be bone on a Foley stage but for some reason on this film were not. Sounds like door closes are pretty much never done on a Foley stage. Anything you have to and record is not Foley, anything that is not "performed" is not Foley. Your heater is an example. IF you were going to Foley that you would have the artists on a Foley stage watch the picture and manipulate some "props" to make the rattle the way you want it. If you go to a place and record the heater doing it's thing then your doing FX recording.
If you really wanted the ambiance of the set and you needed to do some footsteps and you went to the set and "performed" the footsteps (generally watching some sort of reference, maybe vid on a phone), then you are doing what gets called wild Foley.

There is a bunch of gray area but if it's not on a stage 99.9% of the time it's FX.

MeAgain said:
Side note: Noiz2, you said what I recorded wasn't Wild Foley, but what constitutes Wild Foley? For instance, the objects that make sound in the film (such as the rattle heater or door closing) were re-recorded after the filming was done, but not to a screen. In other words, I recorded the same heater making the same sounds, but separate from filming, and not in sync. Same thing with a book's page being turned- same exact book, but recorded separately, in the same room, in the same position, but not in sync.

Then, of course, there were the sound effects used that weren't in the same scene- like I brought some dried leaves inside the house and had someone step on them, then recorded that- is that Wild Foley? It's recorded separately from the location, but not in sync. Or is that also sound fx?
Click to expand...
 
So in case it wasn't clear, I'm going to use this as my catch-all for sound questions I can't find addressed elsewhere.

I'm dialog editing now, and I think I'm doing OK for my experience level and the atrocious condition of some ADR we did. I say atrocious because it was recorded way too low and these guys were not trained actors and had never done anything like this before. So some of the lines only wound up yielding ONE decent take that I have to sort of blend into the rest of the film. An expert can definetely tell, but most people I show can't tell, even after I point it out...so that's a good sign...

Question 1: I need to boost each clip by about 20db (although we recorded right in front of the actor so the background noise isn't so bad), then I started removing bass, especially on this deep male voice (I roll off below 180 because it's THAT booming) and the more I boost overall, the more "muddy" it sounds...and I don't have the frequency finesse to really start digging into the lower mids (which I'm assuming is where I should be)? I know voices vary, but if you have a deep guy's voice, besides bass roll offs, where do you usually look to "sweeten" or subtract? Should I touch the higher frequencies where consonances are?

QUESTION 2: My other worry is, if I'm working in a DAW and aiming for a DVD of this...what should my peak range eventually be for voices when I mix this? I know this also varies, but I also know generally voices should be made to stand out in a somewhat constant range and be understood. I've read some people avoid hitting past -12db for voices in a film (assuming it's a "normal" talking voice) but this seems kind of low to me and again, a big variable.
 
For deep voices you can notch (as in subtract) as high as 320hz or so depending on the voice , sweetening as you call it or adding is dangerous as it can bring out other elements out in the recording that you dont intend but again , it really depends on the recording and whats in the background.
There are a few guidelines but no rules, as everyone's voice and timbre lies in different part of the audio spectrum. what might bring out presence in one voice might bring out too much sibilance in another.
take a parametric EQ plug in on the audio channel and boost the frequency drastically, then sweep the frequency range so you can hear and associate frequency with what you are hearing being boosted. this will help you find the sweet spots in some ones voice, then when you know the frequency go to your EQ and make the appropriate changes.
Audio is its own artform, and it has its own intricacies that require experience and time in the trenches to make you good at it. and as with anything.. practice makes all the difference.

Hope this helps
 
Yeah, if you are boosting 20dB on these sounds, it means the voices are pretty low quality probably given how much you are expanding those samples. When you do that, I find things get muddy as well. Almost ALL of my dialog I cut at 80Hz just because there isn't really anything I need below 80Hz and it gets rid of any rumble that might have snuck into the recording if the boom operator was doing something they shouldn't :)

Another thing to note, if you didn't know, is for normal dialog, keep the mic from being too close to their mouths. When people are REALLY close to the mic, you get something called the proximity effect. It enhances the base frequencies. I use it for when people are whispering to one another, or REALLY intimate discussion, but when they are not, when doing ADR say, I use a pop filter to make sure they cannot get close enough to the mic. (Or, something I have them talk off-axis a bit to the microphone for wide scenes as it really helps to get the right tone of the voice).

Another trick I have used for REALLY poorly recorded dialog that is muddy is I create a separate track for the dialog that is really bad and add an EQ that is just adds some gain to a small area around 10kHz. This allows me to pop up some of the tones that help define the vocals a bit more. You have to be careful, as you don't want to increase the syballance (sp?) but this has been very useful for me.
 
Last edited:
Just a point of clarification: If you applying gain uniformly across the entire dynamic range, ie, boosting the signal by 20db, this is not expanding. Expanding exagerates the difference between the loud and soft, making the softs softer, and the louds louder, driven by ratios. Exactly the opposite of compression which makes the softs louder, and the louds softer, thereby reducing dynamic range.

grimepoch said:
Yeah, if you are boosting 20dB on these sounds, it means the voices are pretty low quality probably given how much you are expanding those samples. When you do that, I find things get muddy as well. Almost ALL of my dialog I cut at 80dB just because there isn't really anything I need below 80dB and it gets rid of any rumble that might have snuck into the recording if the boom operator was doing something they shouldn't :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top