I was watching the original Last House on the Left from 1972, and I noticed how sound was better back then. Like in the scenes that take place in the house for example, the room tone just sounds better. Same with a lot of other older films. Like in Thunderball, the scene where M16 has a meeting with government members in that large room. The acoustics are better, compared to most modern films. Why are so many films nowadays, not in favor of big room acoustics, compared to older?
Anyone notice how sound that room tone sound in movies isn't as good nowadays?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
As with everything, styles change as does technology. "Back in the day" film crews were incredibly disciplined, but, then again, they had to be; anyone who made noise on the set was dismissed. Room-tone as we understand it in the digital age did not exist 25 years ago, because dialog "editing" was immensely different - you either replaced it (looping) or you didn't, and the room tone was the blank space between lines, augmented by tape hiss.
These days directors seem to favor the up-close-in-your-face closely miced dialog sound. Why? Because it's much easier to keep present in a dense mix and it has greater intelligibility. Up until the early 50's you had, at most, four audio tracks to play with - dialog, Foley/sound FX and music. Now you can have well over 1,000 audio tracks.
Also keep in mind that today many filmmakers prefer to film on location; back then most work was done on sound stages, so audio control issues are very different.
So you are comparing apples and cell phones. If you like the old sound, record that way with a Neumann and a Nagra - on a sound stage with a union sound crew.
These days directors seem to favor the up-close-in-your-face closely miced dialog sound. Why? Because it's much easier to keep present in a dense mix and it has greater intelligibility. Up until the early 50's you had, at most, four audio tracks to play with - dialog, Foley/sound FX and music. Now you can have well over 1,000 audio tracks.
Also keep in mind that today many filmmakers prefer to film on location; back then most work was done on sound stages, so audio control issues are very different.
So you are comparing apples and cell phones. If you like the old sound, record that way with a Neumann and a Nagra - on a sound stage with a union sound crew.
Last edited:
OP: and "back then" you've had no chance to edit your SHOR FILM on your HOME COMPUTER on the SANM night, that was shot HD on a DIGITAL LIGHTWEIGHT CAMERA for $700, with a crew less than 10 PEOPLE and do COLOR CORRECTION with a simple MOUSE CLICK.
"Back then" you'd be mopping floors on the sound strage for free, begging anybody to show you how to write a screenplay.
"Back then" you wouldn't be sitting on indietalk.com forums, pouring your soul out on how things were much better BACK THEN..
"Back then" you'd be mopping floors on the sound strage for free, begging anybody to show you how to write a screenplay.
"Back then" you wouldn't be sitting on indietalk.com forums, pouring your soul out on how things were much better BACK THEN..
Last edited:
Yes I do miss that old sound...
On a less smart aleky tone.... I'm pretty sure I saw our good friend Knightly/Cole address your room tone issue with an EQ filter in one of these tutorials he generously posted here a short while back.
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=35911
Good luck & God blessssssssssssssss!
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=35911
Good luck & God blessssssssssssssss!
Yep, I have been expirementing with EQ on Adobe Audition and it seems to be doing a good job. I am thinking in the future, when I want to make a feature, maybe I should splurge the extra cash on analog tape to get that good old sound. I have to research how much it would cost and what are the pros and cons in post.
Last edited:
Don't. If you want that sound, hire someone with the equipment. Or hire a good audio post guy and give him examples of what you want to go for. It's not just the equipment, but the know how that goes along with it that you want.
I don't want to hear the phrase "calibrating tape heads" around here unless it's preceeded with "boy, I sure am glad I don't have to spend time..."
Sure whatever is best. So it can be done with digital if the soundguy knows how to do it? Most sound guys seem to do digital only, nowadays from what I've read on here, and who I've met. I will need my own back up equipment though just in case, the sound guy leaves or looses interest, or something.
Don't.
It's not even worth the brain power thinking about it, let alone actually doing it.
Nobody (in their right mind) give s sh!t.
AT BEST it's a gimmick.
More likely a detractor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_diminishing_returns
It's not even worth the brain power thinking about it, let alone actually doing it.
Nobody (in their right mind) give s sh!t.
AT BEST it's a gimmick.
More likely a detractor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_diminishing_returns
Oh okay. Some filmmakers still use the analog tape I read to give that old vintage sound. They said, like film, they prefer it instead of digital. But yes, if I ask my friends they cannot tell a different between digital and analog or film, unless I point it out to them, so nobody does really notice if I were to do it I guess.
Shooting analog tape is EXPENSIVE because you'll need a lot of tapes for the Nagra. Tape transfers are done in real (reel?) time. You won't be able to use analog tape when it's a) very wet, b) very hot, c) very cold.
Harmonica - why don't you try to master basic filmmaking 101 before going off on low-tech excursions. You haven't even finished your first short. Focus on what you can do, not what you want.
Harmonica - why don't you try to master basic filmmaking 101 before going off on low-tech excursions. You haven't even finished your first short. Focus on what you can do, not what you want.
Sure, I just wanna learn for the future.