What do I do about this audio mixing problem with the audio engineer?

[Greg Smith]

Ironpony, have you actually, in fact, heard the results from the editor's first pass using your mixed track? From reading your original post, it sounds like you are assuming it will be bad based on his description of the workflow, but you haven't actually listened to what he was able to do. You at least owe him a decent chance to present it to you -- in the best screening environment possible -- before talking about being "ripped off" and so forth.

Do correct me if I'm wrong about that assumption.

- Greg

 

[Noiz2]

No I did not send him the originals, just audio after it has been exported from Premiere so it's all cut to the timeline of the movie. I don't want him to use alternate takes, as I have already chosen the best takes for the acting.

You see there is one problem. You don't understand a post audio workflow. He is not going to be grabbing alts to change performance, he would be maybe pulling a word or syllable to repair some mangled production sound. At least that is what an experienced editor would do.

And if OMF is only limited to 48 khz, I don't know what it would list higher khzs as an option.

Actually I didn't say OMF would not work with higher sample rates, just that it might not. The standard goes back to the 90's.

I am paying $1200 for it.

Good for you, that is a respectable rate for a student short - and my impression is that your film is roughly in that category (it's not an insult).

I don't expect the Hollywood style quality at all, but I expect a pro, who graduated from an audio engineering school, to follow the rules, and trying to pull three voices apart and give them all separate reverbs, is amateur when you have separate tracks of higher export quality to work with, according to what I was told on here, and by others in the business.

Well two things. If this is a short then you should be expecting a pretty good track at that rate. It depends on exactly where in the country you are and who you are dealing with, but $1200 should get you more than cleaned up dialog. A film sound editor would not something going out with their name on it that doesn't sound decent. In the bigger picture $1200 isn't much but it's enough at your stage to show some serious interest in getting a good track.

The second thing is that schools don't generally teach squat about post sound so that certificate could be a net negative, and there are no rules. He didn't break any rules. Well there is one rule, make it sound the best you can in the time and budget allowed. And is he a "pro"? Does he have some films on his resume that you have heard of? When you look him up on IMDB do you see major projects or shorts nobody has ever heard of? Everybody and their grandmother has ProTools and calls themselves a "pro". Of the HUGE number of people who have systems and are willing to do you sound probably 1/4 are complete idiots who couldn't cut their way out of a paper bag with a razor blade. Of the rest probably 80%-90% are folks who's only experience is with music. There is some overlap but music skills are by and large not post film skills (and visa versa).

And a third thing, you didn't get any film sound editors to tell you to export dialog at 196, even if you recorded at 196. The reasons full track exports are not nearly as useful as an OMF are that the OMF can have handles and the clips come in as separate entities. To use full track exports effectively you would need to checkerboard every edit and extend the head and tail of each. Then the editor needs to cut them all back into clips and cut them back to conform to your edit. That is a huge PITA. If you don't do that it's still better than the mixed track but you can't fix edit glitches and you still have to cut them apart if you are going to process them in different ways. A bit less of a huge PITA. And you do have glitches. You have to cut on the frame and that means that you are going to occasionally clip off the beginning or end of a sound, with out handles an editor can't really fix that.

 

[keylight]

Honestly, this thread is sounding more and more like a broken record.... The same advice keeps being offered again and again, and the OP isn't hearing much of it (or if he is, he isn't responding much like he is). For example, Alex H., j1clark, David, ryan, Doc, and Noiz2 have all been saying the OP should have (or still should) provide OMF files to the sound editor.

Kind of amazing the patience all of you have with the OP.

 

[paulears]

I see yet another problem - right at the start you mentioned the music isn't done, so any work he does will probably need tweaking once you blend in the music - because it needs to go under the dialogue.

I'm also considering what the audio editor is actually doing - you provided a mix and separate tracks, so surely it's up to the editor how he does it? He will select the most appropriate technique, and maybe he will simply use the mix as a guide, but then use the separate tracks - but as they came from the same source and quality - some parts may not need tweaking or replacing, just crossovers and clashes. Also - you are NOT his employer, that is very different. You are the client, and subject to contract can dispense with their services. You don't normally have any direct control of how they do things - that is what you are paying them for.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

You don't normally have any direct control of how they do things - that is what you are paying them for.

In the US for tax purposes one of the most important questions is 'was the person doing the work, under the direct control of the person paying for services?' -> most likely 'employee' status (even if working 'remotely'). If the person providing the work, 'was totally under their own control, and given a contract, providing an end result?' -> most likely an independent contractor.

The way to avoid that sort of thing is to have a business setup, and payments made to the business. Then its pretty clear about the relationship between the 'client' and the 'service provider'.

Things can get pretty confused if one is an independent contractor, but then 'work' at a client's facilities...

The reason for the importance of determining the status is that an 'employee' can only take a limited amount of deductions against the 'income' when calculating net income for tax. An 'independent contractor' operating a business however may take a much larger number of deductions, and thereby less their tax burden... but none too much...

In terms of personal interactions, the question is important relative to expected ability to control the process beyond general contractual obligations.

 

[keylight]

In the US for tax purposes one of the most important questions is 'was the person doing the work, under the direct control of the person paying for services?' -> most likely 'employee' status (even if working 'remotely'). If the person providing the work, 'was totally under their own control, and given a contract, providing an end result?' -> most likely an independent contractor.

The way to avoid that sort of thing is to have a business setup, and payments made to the business. Then its pretty clear about the relationship between the 'client' and the 'service provider'.

Things can get pretty confused if one is an independent contractor, but then 'work' at a client's facilities...

The reason for the importance of determining the status is that an 'employee' can only take a limited amount of deductions against the 'income' when calculating net income for tax. An 'independent contractor' operating a business however may take a much larger number of deductions, and thereby less their tax burden... but none too much...

In terms of personal interactions, the question is important relative to expected ability to control the process beyond general contractual obligations.

This is a non-issue here. Even if the audio guy were using the OP's equipment, doing the work in the OP's office, under direction of the OP.... For this one short job the audio guy would be a contractor. Now, if the OP gave the guy repeated work, one project after another, or even better overlapping projects, and directed how the audio guy was to spend his time.... That would be an employee.

As a contractor, the audio guy still has to take direction from the OP. It's the OPs project. If the audio guy said he would use the separate tracks for editing before getting the job, then used the mixed track as a shortcut and delivered a bad result, then the OP certainly could direct the audio guy to do it a different way, do it the promised way.

 

[unclebob6958]

Honestly, this thread is sounding more and more like a broken record.... The same advice keeps being offered again and again, and the OP isn't hearing much of it (or if he is, he isn't responding much like he is).

This is IronPony to the "T." He is very frequent poster on another forum - over 3,300 posts in under two years - and still has not completed his short. There is always something wrong, the equipment didn't work right, the software is FUBAR, someone else screwed it up, the other person doesn't know what they're doing... It is NEVER his fault. You can reiterate the same answer 50 times in 50 different ways; if it doesn't match with his preconceptions he ignores it because it must be wrong.

 

[ironpony]

Ironpony, have you actually, in fact, heard the results from the editor's first pass using your mixed track? From reading your original post, it sounds like you are assuming it will be bad based on his description of the workflow, but you haven't actually listened to what he was able to do. You at least owe him a decent chance to present it to you -- in the best screening environment possible -- before talking about being "ripped off" and so forth.

Do correct me if I'm wrong about that assumption.

- Greg

Well I assumed it would be bad since I was told on here before, that you cannot pull more than one voice apart, and each voice must be on separate tracks in the editing. I was also told that on several online tutorials, but by a couple of people who went to audio engineering school that I worked with before. I was told CAN'T. can't as in can't. But if it turns out that they actually can, and it will sound good, then I guess we're okay then.

 

[ironpony]

Ironpony, have you actually, in fact, heard the results from the editor's first pass using your mixed track? From reading your original post, it sounds like you are assuming it will be bad based on his description of the workflow, but you haven't actually listened to what he was able to do. You at least owe him a decent chance to present it to you -- in the best screening environment possible -- before talking about being "ripped off" and so forth.

Do correct me if I'm wrong about that assumption.

- Greg

Well I assumed it would be bad since I was told on here before, that you cannot pull more than one voice apart, and each voice must be on separate tracks in the editing. I was also told that on several online tutorials, but by a couple of people who went to audio engineering school that I worked with before. I was told 'cannot'. Cannot as in cannot. But if it turns out that they actually can, and it will sound good, then I guess we're okay then. And I realize I am suppose to give the music at the same time, the original composer never got back to me, before I was to hand everything over to the engineer, so I had to find someone else which caused the delay.

 

[keylight]

It sounds more and more like you're shopping for an answer. In the legal world it's called "forum shopping" - the practice of trying to get a legal case heard in front of a particular court or jurisdiction that might be more favorable to them.

And given what unclebob6958 has said, sounds like you could be literally forum shopping for answers. Even if you aren't, do know that it is at least starting to sound that way.

 

[paulears]

If you know all the answers and how you want it done, why are you asking somebody else to do it? I'm not interested in the history, but frankly the last kind of client I want is the one who wants to tell me HOW to do it - especially when they really have no experience, just advice from others.

In most cases, we want to work with clean tracks, not somebody else's cobbled together ones - in this case the mono mix is NOT (if I read correctly) a mix at all, it's simply a number of tracks left at their original levels and processing, lumped together. It could sound great it could sound pants, we don't know because we have never heard it, and it sounds as if ironpony hasn't heard it either, as he can't say with any certainty what it sounded like. Any audio professional, or even hobbyist is going to LISTEN first then use whatever material he has plus his tools and skill to make it sound the best it can. If they make a good job of it, then why should they explain how they did it to anyone? If they make a poor job of it, the client won't pay - I get paid by results, and if they are not what the client wants, I need to fix it at my expense. It means that before I start work, I assess the client and decide if I wish to take on the work. One at the moment is attempting to micromanage a project I'm working on, and I ignore many of his 'suggestions', and certainly do not involve him in what I'm doing, just the results. It's not a good way to work, but I know that if I involve him in making production decisions, I'll end up with a grey, averaged and dull product - like you get when you mix too many colours, it always ends up grey!

The worst projects to work on are those where the client sits next to you - they take twice as long and are always compromises.

The real issue here is simply the blind leading the blind. The client doesn't know enough to guide the audio guy who probably also is very confused (or simply fed up and wishing he hadn't taken the project on in the first place!)

 

[recordingwhiz]

Paulears, that is the best assessment of this thread I have seen.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

As a contractor, the audio guy still has to take direction from the OP. It's the OPs project.

I was sort of 'explaining' the need to be clear about the work status... not that it matters in many cases and situations... unless one gets audited...

But in the case of 'client direction', as a service provider, I usually distinguish between contractual line items and detailed how to get that line item satisfied.

A contract really is a high level document relative to such questions as when what happens in detail. Sure there may be a delivery schedule, but there will not be a 'put -3 dB attenuation at 500 Hz at location 00:50:23' type details... well most of the time... nor whether the work is done between the hours of 8 AM and 5 PM. (Well... maybe... but I'd never sign a such a contract...).

I also believe some things can't be quantifiable in a contract, such as 'make audio better'... except in a general way... such as reduce 'hum'... remove background noise... reduce 'echo' (with that infinite improbability impulse deconvolver...), or the like.

Personally I think Ironpony should do the audio work themself, and then they will gain far more understanding of the process and the requirements involved.

If Ironpony has Premiere CS6, then they should have Audition, which may not be the favored DAW of choice by pros, has some elements which can be used to gain that sort of understanding.

 

[bimdas]

So basically the OP supplied individual dialog tracks with the timecode or length matching up to the picture. It sounds like he just wanted the dialogue to be mixed evenly. But the sound editor for whTever reason chose to work on the reference audio that was premixed which wont allow for individual editing in cases of overlapped dialogue.
Even without an OMF, any editor would be able to import them into any editor and start work right away. They dont have to do any syncing or editing. They can find the audio by looking at the waveforms or by stripping the silence. Sounds like the audio guy is being lazy from my understanding of this thread so far.

 

[OzGizmo]

Before people call the audio guy a lazy sod, are they being paid a reasonable fee for service? I was once offered a carton of beer for a week of location shooting, often producers have little knowledge of the time involved in many areas of the industry and just shake it off by saying "Do what you have to".

 

[keylight]

Before people call the audio guy a lazy sod, are they being paid a reasonable fee for service? I was once offered a carton of beer for a week of location shooting, often producers have little knowledge of the time involved in many areas of the industry and just shake it off by saying "Do what you have to".

I agree people shouldn't call the audio guy lazy (or anything) at this point. But your reasoning is flawed. It doesn't matter what the fee was. The audio guy agreed to take the job.

Just like you probably refused that carton of beer, it was up to the audio guy to scope out the work and to make sure he'd be getting the right files and formats to work with. And the right fee for the job. Just because he took the job doesn't mean it was a good deal, but he made his his choice. Having said that, the OP can't just change the scope of work unless that was part of their agreement. But the OP should be able to give reasonable direction of the kind a director normally would give to an audio post guy.

Anyway, this thread is long past ridiculous. Nobody has even heard the freakin audio!

 

[OzGizmo]

Another question I have been pondering is what were the condition of the original track/s how much work was needed to post produce them, ie: were they originally recorded with a good mic with an experienced boom op using shots that allowed for good boom work OR it a situation of a basic mic mounted on top of a camera or using the built in mics of a H4n?
Maybe there is very little need to have extensive post work done....... Your right the tracks need to be heard before actual decisions can be made.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Just like you probably refused that carton of beer, it was up to the audio guy to scope out the work and to make sure he'd be getting the right files and formats to work with. And the right fee for the job. Just because he took the job doesn't mean it was a good deal, but he made his his choice. Having said that, the OP can't just change the scope of work unless that was part of their agreement. But the OP should be able to give reasonable direction of the kind a director normally would give to an audio post guy.

Anyway, this thread is long past ridiculous. Nobody has even heard the freakin audio!

To me it is not really relevant what the 'audio sounded like'. It is more of a situation were I believe Ironpony may not have 'understood' what to give to someone for audio work, for the amount of money, $1200 was mentioned, that was offered.

There is also a question of whether the 'audio engineer' was in fact trained in 'film sound' or 'dialog editing', or 'film sound mixing'... just having a designation of 'audio engineer' does not mean they are working in the field of film sound. There have been a number of posters over the years that I've read who start out with 'I have done music audio work...' which may have generally applicable/transferable skills but they do not necessarily have the knowledge for film sound, especially from the workflow POV.

Why the amount of money is important, along with the film sound workflow understanding, is that perhaps for $10K, the 'audio engineer' would have spent a week taking a collection of separate audio clips that Ironpony produced, and aligning them up with the reference track, then begin work on the second week, (i think $5K a week may be 'reasonable'... but perhaps even that may be low...), on 'dialog editing'. If additional items like sound FX and music were part of the contract, perhaps another week... perhaps $15K...

But at $1200 that's about 2 days worth of work at about $75/hour, and the 'expectation' may have been that the audio was setup so that just sweetening was done...

I don't have any money so that's why I'm learning 1) how to do it myself... and should I have money... 2) understand exactly what I need to give a 'pro', 3) what to expect for a given amount of money.

 

[keylight]

To me it is not really relevant what the 'audio sounded like'. It is more of a situation were I believe Ironpony may not have 'understood' what to give to someone for audio work, for the amount of money, $1200 was mentioned, that was offered.

There is also a question of whether the 'audio engineer' was in fact trained in 'film sound' or 'dialog editing', or 'film sound mixing'... just having a designation of 'audio engineer' does not mean they are working in the field of film sound.

I think you're almost certainly right about the OP, and quite probably the audio guy too.

The reason I don't think the $1200 matters though, is because:

1. Both parties agreed to the amount;
2. The audio may end up meeting the OP's needs (or it could end up sounding good to others but the OP still isn't satisfied); and
3. We don't know any of the terms, the delivery. Or even what each person "thought" the terms were.

On this third point, when I take jobs I price things at a project level, but then break down what that includes. So an 8 minute video interviewing 3 subjects in two locations, with editing, music, titles... goes for X dollars. But I detail out to the client that they are getting: a 3 person crew for 1 day, 4 hours of editing, 2 hours audio, music, titles...... If the client later asks to add another interviewee in one of the same locations? As long as we stay within the 1 shooting day, they get it included. If it's a new location and I have to send out a crew for another 1/2 day, they get told what the extra will cost.

In this case, if I was drafting the contract I would have at least specified:

• length of film
• type of work (editing dialog, music, effects, ADR, sweetening...)
• content & format to be delivered by (music, dialog, with or without handles of a certain length, as omf, aaf, wav)
• type of deliverable back to the OP
• milestones (like review date(s), final delivery date)
• price (and partial payments on milestones, if any)

The more one can practically detail on paper, using industry standard terms, the less conflict there will be. The goal should be to make sure everyone shares the same understanding about the job.

All we know about this deal is "I gave him these files and agreed to pay him this amount, and I've got nothing back from him yet, so I'm worried." Who knows what either of them was thinking the $1200 would cover. So I don't think the amount of money matters unless we know everything else.

 

[ullanta]

Ugh! What a discussion.

1. Ironpony, until you have listened to the result, don't make any assumptions about how good or bad it is.

2. I am not convinced that you understand what the audio guy's workflow was, so again, don't make any assumptions. I also don't know that the stems you sent him had any value - you still haven't said what the format was, and "128 bit" you keep tagging on the end makes me think this is some heavily compressed format.

3. I don't understand the reasoning about why the audio guy is doing anything now. If the music isn't ready, why not just wait until it is? You are creating extra work for the audio guy, causing him to make an intermediate product which will sound worse than it should, and which will have to be redone once the music is there. You won't get a result any faster since the audio mix still has to be redone. What's your thinking?

4. I hate using the term "audio guy" but i can't choose a better one. Who is this guy? How did you find him? What is his experience? Just going to "audio engineering school" doesn't help - he could have trained in speaker installation, submarine sonar, or noise-cancellation algorithms with that vague information. And, even if he specialized in film dialog editing, having been to school doesn't mean he has any idea of what he is doing, much less talent for doing it. Have you heard examples of his work that you have loved?

5. Again, cause i just can't stand it, stop all this prejudgement and listen to what he's done before taking any further steps. Tell us what you do or don't like about the result. But assuming you're being ripped off just because of your interpretation of what people on a forum tell you regarding your interpretation of the audio guy's workflow is silly.