It is the 3th time you're telling me that the sound standars in Bulgaria are non existent... I have won several awards and they all have been in what seems to be in the best country that has ever been created where you have an amazing audio standarts and it seems that I met your unbeliveably high audio expectations.
No you did not, in fact, the exact opposite!! With the exception of the higher tier film festivals (which all require a decent quality 5.1 mix) the indie film festivals in Britain and the US do not represent "unbelievably high audio standards" but the opposite; unbelievably LOW audio standards. In fact, with the exception of some home made youtube content, the audio standards of most indie film festivals usually could not be further away from general consumer expectations (in the US, UK and various other regions)! This is one of the reasons why extremely few general consumers ever go to the lower tier film festivals. So, congratulations on meeting virtually the lowest of audio expectations!
It's troubling that you don't seem to know the difference between "unbeliveably high audio expectations" and the exact opposite end of the spectrum. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that the commercial standards to which you are accustomed in Bulgaria are generally not much different (and sometimes even lower!!) from many low tier indie film festivals, and you therefore simply don't realise the huge gulf which exists between consumer expectation in your country and consumer expectation in some other countries. This is why I've needed to state 3 times about the non-existent audio standards in Bulgaria and why I might have to state it again. Not for your benefit, because your opinion is obviously influenced and fixed to the standards you are used to, but for the benefit of others who would not realise this context when reading your advice.
... and you're asking me to tell you a comercially successful film that was done without any sound? And I didn't said without ANY SOUND , maybe you should read what I have written again.
You are the one who brought up silent films, which were of course made without any sound! (although they were not generally screened without accompanying live sound).
I've seen enough of people who try to ACT like professionals here. Who have no idea what they are talking about and just repeat the same things over and over again ... just to act like "grown ups" .
From my perspective, this quote pretty accurately describes YOUR contributions to this thread!! No one else though has deliberately and repeatedly misrepresented what the real professionals have said and advised!
The author is clearly telling you his budget , why do you keep on talking about mics that are out of his price range? Why ? What do you think that he is going for theatrical release? [The OP is creating a web series for youtube]
What is the standard of Youtube content? ... Youtube hosts content made to the very highest commercial standards, content made to the very lowest "home video" standards and pretty much everything in-between. I am presuming that the OP is looking for something substantially better than average "home video" standards, something which will make his series appear to be closer to the lower end professional standards (of his country), because he mentioned "good" audio a couple of times.
Again, you seem to be confusing Bulgarian standards with the with western theatrical releases. Maybe theatrical releases in Bulgaria can be made with $1.4k of audio recording equipment but the equipment Alcove suggested is not even in the same league as the equipment needed to achieve "theatrical release" standards in the USA! The high end professional grade production sound recording equipment used for commercial theatrical releases costs roughly $20k - $50k. Instead of this professional level equipment, what Alcove suggested is higher end consumer (prosumer) level equipment, at a cost of only $1.4k, roughly 15-40 times cheaper than the cost of a professional set-up!
There's no direct correlation between audio and video equipment, so maybe this argument isn't entirely valid, but what would you suggest to someone asking about "good" camera equipment (including all the required accessories) who had a budget of $150-$200? You can't even buy a good mobile phone for $200!
Contrary to what you are asserting Alcove and I are saying, we are not, and have never, suggested sound is the only important thing or even that it's the most important thing in filmmaking. We are not suggesting that the OP or anyone else should spend all their budget on audio equipment, but the OP has presumably spent a fair amount on his "alright camera
S" and he needs to also spend a fair amount on an "alright" set of audio equipment to match.
1. do you think he cares about audio standarts when he can only afford a 100 dollar mic to make a Youtube video?
2. Do you think if he is going to make Web Series that have the budget of purchasing what you are offering him he'll be posting here ,on this forum?
3. Please,stay realistic and stop throwing useless information just to show the people here who have no idea what they are talking about that you know way more than them.
1. Of course he cares about audio standards, why else would he start a thread asking for advice on "good audio recording equipment"? If he didn't care about audio standards, he would've instead asked for advice on "the cheapest, crappiest audio recording equipment"!
2. But he did in fact post again on this forum in reply to Alcove's advice!
3. Did you even read the OP? "My budget is about $150-$200 for the equipment and
if that is too little then let me know!". That is exactly what Alcove did!! So the information Alcove provided was far from "useless", which is way more than can be said of the dis-information you've provided and the malicious way in which you provided it!
Off the top of my head, [The Artist] - no dialogue, sound effects and foley in two places (tap dancing). $133m USD at the box office, made for $15m USD. A great, great movie yet only a soundtrack and from recollection, played at Cannes and won a few major awards.
An interesting example because not only does The Artist have sound, it had extremely high quality (and very expensive) sound! The theatrical style/standard of the music recording and the final 7.1 theatrical mix were superb and in recognition of it's great audio post, along with all it's other awards, it was also nominated for a BAFTA in the category of "Best Sound"! All in all, a rather poor example IMO to support an argument that sound is not important! Also, it's extremely unlikely that The Artist would have been so commercially successful had it not won a whole bunch of Oscars, and the Academy won't even accept nominations in the best film category unless it has a surround mix. (BTW, I realise you're just trying to give an example rather than actually supporting the sound is not important argument.)
The moral of The Artist is that it is possible to make a successful film without dialogue but it needs to compensate in all the other filmmaking areas, have musical score of Oscar winning standards and a superb theatrical audio mix to support it! And let's not forget, The Artist really is the exception to the rule, the only film without dialogue in over 80 years to win an Oscar!
Another example off the top of my head would be Koyaanisqatsi although I don't know how commercially successful it was, but again, the same rule seems to apply: Without dialogue you need a world class musical score and world class sound in terms of the recording and final theatrical mix. So again, not good evidence to support an argument for sound being unimportant!
G
