Dialogue Editing (Sound)

[Scorer]

So I have been reading more to find out how to get my dialogue to sound more "movie-like".

Obviously the most common answer is that you have to start with great sound from the recording stage. But that aside, what kind of processing can you do to make it sound more cinema like.

I have read a few things of interest, a lot of them have to do with hardware, for instance using a cinema filter, such as that from Lafont. However, I don't really have the money to invest in hardware (I would have to get more hardware to be able to use this hardware I am assuming). I would prefer software (a decent amount of which I already have). I have read that Faders are pretty good to use rather than compression. Of course messing around with the EQ. One guy even suggested duplicating the tracks and panning each track around 30% in opposite directions, and then very slightly bumping them out of sync to get a wider, bigger sound.

What are your suggestions? I have been messing with my GH2 a bit, and with hacks, and I'm getting much more satisfied with my video, but the audio, while seemingly clear enough, doesn't have that movie feel.



One more question: I usually edit my audio in Cubase; I used to edit the film using the camera recorded audio, then I would upload that file to Cubase and use the video window to watch the scene and over dub the on-set recorded audio, as well as Foley etc. I would mix the audio after it was in sync, and then carry it back over to the video editting program to do the final sync and render.

Cubase will no longer allow me to do it this way since I have received my GH2 (for whatever reason), so now I need to edit the audio some other way. What is your routine, and how do you do it? Do you need the video to try to get cinematic dialogue and what not, or do you do the audio and then sync it after you have EQed and everything?

 

[MetalRenard]

Any chance of hearing a sample so we can know what we're up against, please?

 

[Alcove Audio]

Your question is all about mixing, not dialog editing, which is another topic entirely.

I have read that Faders are pretty good to use rather than compression.

Compression (or extreme limiting) almost always increases the noise floor. Writing volume automation to control volume spikes and increase volume levels in quiet passages gives you much, much more control and sounds far better. It is sometimes necessary to mix dialog word by word, even syllable by syllable. You can then very lightly compress to give a little more "pop" and use a limiter to control extreme transients (which shouldn't really happen, but you always play it safe).

Of course messing around with the EQ.

Wow, tough topic to discuss. You really need to hear what is being done as it is done to get a real grasp on the issue. Basically, you just want it to sound natural and remove harshness. Of course, there is noise reduction; again, another topic.

One guy even suggested duplicating the tracks and panning each track around 30% in opposite directions, and then very slightly bumping them out of sync to get a wider, bigger sound.

This can be used as an effect in music; a VERY, VERY bad idea when doing film dialog. With a few exceptions, dialog is always in the center of the stereo mix or the center speaker in a surround mix.

One more question: I usually edit my audio in Cubase; I used to edit the film using the camera recorded audio, then I would upload that file to Cubase and use the video window to watch the scene and over dub the on-set recorded audio, as well as Foley etc. I would mix the audio after it was in sync, and then carry it back over to the video editing program to do the final sync and render.

Do you need the video to try to get cinematic dialogue and what not, or do you do the audio and then sync it after you have EQed and everything?

You always do everything audio to picture - that's what you are supporting! Standard practice is to export an OMF or AAF from the visual editing platform to the audio editing platform, Pro Tools in most cases. After the dialog edit, ADR, Foley, sound effects edit, score recording/spotting, source music spotting/editing and the mix you output the master mix (stereo, 3.1, 5.1, 7.1, etc.) and lay back to picture.

 

[Scorer]

Thanks Alcove, and by the time you put the audio back to picture, is the video already completely edited, or is it edited afterwards now that you have the sound to go along?


And what do you recommend for noise reduction. I have looked at a number of things, but I would prefer a vst. However, what is the point in noise reduction if you have to use room sound to cover up certain things; won't the noise reduction get rid of the original room sound on the dialogue tracks?

 

[Alcove Audio]

Thanks Alcove, and by the time you put the audio back to picture, is the video already completely edited, or is it edited afterwards now that you have the sound to go along?

That depends on how much you enjoy re-syncing. I HATE with extreme passion doing re-syncs, so I charge double my hourly rate. Perhaps I wouldn't mind if I ever got a proper EDL.

In the indie world 99% of the time the picture is locked before audio post begins. I'll just copy and paster from another thread:

"The biggest issue with low/no/mini/micro budget projects is, as always, funds. A fractionally smaller issue is inexperience, especially when it comes to audio. A very huge problem is completely inadequate records keeping, by which I mean EDLs, sound reports and the like.

So whether doing it by yourself or when retaining someone like me who specializes in l/n/m/m budget projects the idea is to avoid problems that need more money, more experience, or waste time.

So yes, do the audio post last. This is not how it is done at the budgeted level where there is usually a very rough basic first cut within a couple of weeks (or less) after shooting wraps. This is what the audio post team works with. Yes, there will be many, many changes, but the budget has accounted for that.

The dialog editing team digs into the production sound - ALL of it, every belch, fart, laugh and flubbed line. They work on putting together the "perfect" dialog performance(s).

The ADR team is busy recording the lead and supporting actors. They usually handle the "loop group" as well. These are the folks who provide small crowd sounds (a café or cocktail party, for example) and supply details to larger crowd sound effects (the extra who heckles a player in a sports film, for example), one-off dialog ("Yes, sir!"), etc., etc., etc.

The Foley team does the Foley work. The sound effects team does the sound effects work, usually broken down by units - vehicles, weapons, environment (ambient backgrounds), etc.

All of this is overseen by the supervising sound editor, who may or may not be the sound designer.

As all of this is occurring the film is, of course, being re-edited and re-edited again. Scenes are modified, added, deleted and rearranged. An EDL must be generated for each occurrence. And, of course, all of the audio files must be conformed to each new edit.

Down here in the weeds at the l/n/m/m budget level, dealing with inexperienced editors and directors, I prefer the final locked edit. I charge, well, a very large hourly rate for conforming to re-edits. Why? I never get an EDL, which makes the process an intense PITA.

I always do the dialog first. It tells me a lot about the film. I get to know the characters, which is important with putting together my Foley cue sheet and I also as I put together the sound effects cue sheet. It lets me know how much noise reduction I need to do, and if I can bury some bad production sound under ambient backgrounds. I usually do the Foley next; I do each character through the film, rather than doing the Foley scene by scene. This is followed by the sound effects; hey, I save the really fun stuff for last. I then drop in the score and the music. And, finally, comes this mix."

And what do you recommend for noise reduction. I have looked at a number of things, but I would prefer a vst. However, what is the point in noise reduction if you have to use room sound to cover up certain things; won't the noise reduction get rid of the original room sound on the dialogue tracks?

I use iZotope RX2 ($1,100) and SoundSoap Pro (no longer made; Bias is no more - I'll lose it my next major OS update) along with Digidesign/Avid BNR (Broadband Noise Reduction). iZotope has a "light" version of RX2 for about $300 and recently released a $40 Music & Speech Cleaner - I have no idea how good (or bad) it is. Waves and Sonnox also make very good NR plug-ins that are also on the pricey side; and of course there are the Cedar systems, which start at about $4k for a turnkey system. I've heard okay things about McDSP NF575, but it's another one I personally have not used.

 

[Scorer]

Thanks for the post Alcove. Out of curiosity, would you mind Messaging me your rates, and do you have any samples of your work?

Also, I found a very cheap Urei 565 on Ebay. The guy set no reserve so it is floating at about $60. What would I need to get to use it? I.E. What does it plug in to?

 

[Alcove Audio]

I had to look it up, but the Urie is really old school (1970 - approx '75). It's a very colored notch filter system. For under $100 it might be fun for a music studio, but probably too noisy for most other applications. It is used as an insert on a mixing console. You need a routing system; perhaps a patch bay of some sort.

Send me PM about my rates.

 

[Scorer]

Sent

 

[AudioPostExpert]

So I have been reading more to find out how to get my dialogue to sound more "movie-like". Obviously the most common answer is that you have to start with great sound from the recording stage. But that aside, what kind of processing can you do to make it sound more cinema like.

Your post raises quite a few questions:

1. Do you really want your sound to be cinema like? Cinema sound would not be appropriate for DVD/BluRay or internet distribution or for TV broadcast.

2. Assuming you do really want cinema sound, there is no way of achieving that without the use of experienced professionals using extremely expensive equipment/facilities. As Alcove has said, much of what you are referring to is mixing rather than dialogue editing and for cinema mixing you are looking at rates of $2k+ a day. The further away from that sort of budget you've got, the further away from theatrical sound quality you are going to achieve. Obviously hiring someone who charges considerably less than those kind of figures is still hopefully going to seriously improve what you can achieve but be aware that you're not going to get theatrical quality.

I have read a few things of interest, a lot of them have to do with hardware, for instance using a cinema filter, such as that from Lafont. However, I don't really have the money to invest in hardware (I would have to get more hardware to be able to use this hardware I am assuming). I would prefer software (a decent amount of which I already have). I have read that Faders are pretty good to use rather than compression. Of course messing around with the EQ. One guy even suggested duplicating the tracks and panning each track around 30% in opposite directions, and then very slightly bumping them out of sync to get a wider, bigger sound.

Hardware isn't used so much in dialogue processing these days, unless it's the software controlled Cedar units. Most Hollywood films use Cedar noise reduction (either the older hardware units or the newer software plugins), in additional to maybe some iZotope RX or other processing, plus of course EQ and maybe a little compression. The Cedar alone costs about $3k but the problem isn't so much the cost of buying the necessary processing equipment but in having the appropriate monitoring environment to know how to apply it (what settings to use) and for theatrical sound this is where it gets really expensive!

BTW, the "one guy" you mentioned has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, do not ever take that advice! You might get a "wider, bigger sound" on headphones or even possibly on some studio monitors or home music systems but you're just as likely to cause serious phase issues, particularly in a cinema. Sounds like this guy is just a music producer and doesn't have even a novice's knowledge about audio post.

G

 

[Scorer]

It was a fairly popular forum, I don't know if I am allowed to mention it here? In any case, it does sound like a music production trick to me as well. In any case, I thank everyone for their advice. I was thinking more along the lines of DVD, however, I am now curious as to what most independent films at Festivals sound like. I should like to go to one sometime soon.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I was thinking more along the lines of DVD, however, I am now curious as to what most independent films at Festivals sound like. I should like to go to one sometime soon.

It is worth going but they do vary enormously. Go to Cannes or the other major festivals and the filmmakers have spent serious budgets on getting the sound right. At the smaller film festivals the filmmakers have usually have spent between nothing and a few thousand on the sound and the quality usually varies between absolutely appalling and poor. The smaller film festivals usually have stereo (2.0) sound so the quality of the sound varies considerably on where you sit, occasionally someone tries to do a 5.1 mix at a smaller festivals but without the knowledge or equipment to do it properly those don't work either.

If you're a visually oriented filmmaker you will notice the sound at the smaller film festivals is not as good as commercial films but you won't find it too off-putting , it's only the general public and therefore also the distributors/broadcasters of commercial products who demand much higher audio standards.

DVD sound is significantly different to cinema sound. You do realise that the sound of a feature on a DVD or BluRay is not the cinema sound but is a re-mix made specifically for the DVD/BluRay release. The sound on a DVD/BluRay is more closely related to TV audio broadcast standards than to cinema sound standards. This makes mixing for a commercial DVD/Bluray release considerably cheaper than mixing for a theatrical release.

G

 

[Scorer]

It is worth going but they do vary enormously. Go to Cannes or the other major festivals and the filmmakers have spent serious budgets on getting the sound right. At the smaller film festivals the filmmakers have usually have spent between nothing and a few thousand on the sound and the quality usually varies between absolutely appalling and poor. The smaller film festivals usually have stereo (2.0) sound so the quality of the sound varies considerably on where you sit, occasionally someone tries to do a 5.1 mix at a smaller festivals but without the knowledge or equipment to do it properly those don't work either.

If you're a visually oriented filmmaker you will notice the sound at the smaller film festivals is not as good as commercial films but you won't find it too off-putting , it's only the general public and therefore also the distributors/broadcasters of commercial products who demand much higher audio standards.

DVD sound is significantly different to cinema sound. You do realise that the sound of a feature on a DVD or BluRay is not the cinema sound but is a re-mix made specifically for the DVD/BluRay release. The sound on a DVD/BluRay is more closely related to TV audio broadcast standards than to cinema sound standards. This makes mixing for a commercial DVD/Bluray release considerably cheaper than mixing for a theatrical release.

G

Right, I do understand. When I said "movie-like" I was just referring to the way their dialogue sounds. I don't know how else to explain it, other than it sounds like a movie haha. But yes, I was (and should have specified) that I wanted it for DVD rather than an actual theater.