• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Figuring out the gain db for tv

I seem to never quite get the volume correct. I was wondering if there was a rule of thumb for vol on tv. when you edit.

Either the music/vo is blasting or too low. I cant seem to find that happy place. For example: On Vegas editing.
Vol is set at -4.3 db for background music. The gain is -26.1
V.O. is set at -10.6 . The gain is -3.4


Does anyone know if there is a rule of thumb to get it right?

Realizing I can adjust the volume of the tv on my remote - that wouldn't be the answer I am looking for - just in case someone suggests it.

Thanks.

K
 
Last edited:
If you are just mixing for yourself, i.e., this is not for broadcast purposes, forget about the numbers and mix by ear. In fact, most of the best rerecording mixers will tell you that that is what they do.

Mixing for broadcast TV is a different story; you must adhere to very specific guidelines regarding volume levels. All facilities that mix for Broadcast TV have one of these in each calibrated mix room:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/hardware/broadcast/test-and-measurement/lm100.html

You may also find this interesting:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/post...theater-dvd-broadcast-tv-commercials-etc.html

As I have mentioned often your listening environment and your playback system have a great deal of influence upon the "translate-ability" of your mixes, or how your mix sounds when bounced around from one medium to another. A great mix will sound good anywhere - in a commercial movie theatre, on a home sound system and even on a laptop. This is also another one of the skills/techniques issues, it comes with lots of experience.

Part of what you have to do is do a lot of actual LISTENING. Take several pieces of audio with which you are intimately familiar (they should be known for their excellent sound and mix qualities) and listen to them on your home sound system, your laptop, your editing rig, your friends home sound system, mom & dads crappy TV. The really hard part is remembering the differences in the way the audio sounded in all of those different environments.

My personal reference recordings are "Aja" by Steely Dan, "The English Patient" and "Forrest Gump". The mixes sounds great anywhere.
 
OMG that meter looks so complicated! I would love to learn to use something like that because its actually hard for me to gage. I edited two shows for local tv here..one had a vo and it turned out it was WAY too loud for their system...They were able to tone it down to the correct level somehow. Now that I look back and play the dvd, I realize it was actually loud.

Also I want to make a local tv commercial here for a family business. I was given specs from Comcast...per the audio part this is what they wrote:
Audio: Mpeg layer 2
Audio Sampler: 48khz
Audio bit: 192k

Again, it wasn't something I thought of...when editing...as for the v.o. , I did it myself and I stood up and spoke and held the mic about a fist from my mouth. In post I had to keep toning it down and down and down. I didn't realize that I was blasting!

I am starting to notice the loudness of it all.
 
OMG that meter looks so complicated!

It's not complicated at all, it's something about which you know nothing, as of yet. BTW, it's fairly pricey ($3,200).

I stood up and spoke and held the mic about a fist from my mouth. In post I had to keep toning it down and down and down. I didn't realize that I was blasting!

Don't take this the wrong way, but you have a lot to learn. LOUDER IS NOT BETTER.

Audio bit: 192k

That bit rate is impossible, it can only be 16bit or 24bit.


Audio is at once very simple and very complex. It's very simple, but there's one hell of a lot of simple. It's the way that all of the various simple things interact that makes it complex. And as with so many other things it's a lot easier if you do a lot of planning. You have to do a lot of research and apply that research in the real world, and then remember and apply all those lessons.

In the field job number one is capturing audio correctly.

In audio post it's having an appropriate listening environment.

In all aspects it's learning the proper techniques.


There are many who fight it and say "I don't want to do it that way," but eventually they come around to understand that I and the other audio geeks around here are imparting the hard won knowledge that's been passed on to us and verified by experience.
 
Yes, that's the compressed "transfer" rate so to say. It should properly be expressed as 192kbit/s.

As I mentioned, there's a lot to learn; the terminology and its specificity can be overwhelming.

The biggest problem is that there are no standard delivery specs; they will vary from one broadcaster to another, so the audio (and video?) has to be adjusted for each one if you are doing commercials, for example.
 
You just hookup one of those Dolbys to your computor?

I am finding that all along while the camera gear is important, I can make do with what I have however the audio is the part that will cause me the most difficulty. Partly because I never thought of it beyond using a nice mic...

I think what I will do in the meantime is whatever I do, create a dvd and watch it and just use my own ears. I tend to like things loud but now I have to listen to it differently.
 
The LM-100 is integrated into the playback system.

Doing a great mix is a tough gig. They get better as you gain experience, but there is nothing like flying second chair with an accomplished professional rerecording mixer; I learned more in that three days than three years on my own, and I have decades of audio experience behind me.

In some ways it was harder for me than it might be for someone starting out because I had to "unlearn" years of mixing music. The mindset of mixing sound-for-picture and mixing music are radically different.
 
It is easier to learn from scratch than to unlearn anything and start over...if I become interested in something than I become sort of obsessed wtih it. My obsession is actually editing but this plays a big part in it. I work alone. I don't make money off what I do and the only reason I do anything at all for local tv is to gain experience.
Its learning all mistakes now before I someday play with the big boys and girls.
 
I just saw something that was Dolby loudness meter 2 software. It runs under 800...it read as though it were the same thing...in software.

The Dolby Media Meter 1 didn't work out very well, which is why there is a DMM-2. The big houses are going to stick with the LM-100 (they all own one or more anyway) and let the new medium-sized houses take the chance.

Still pretty pricey at $800 for small facilities like me, especially since I don't do any broadcast mixing; I do about 75% film work and 25% music (singer/songwriter demos, etc.). All the broadcast things I've worked on were as a freelance editor at other facilities where someone else mixed.


As you get into all this you'll come up against "apparent" loudness versus actual loudness. You can use compressors, limiters, companders and expanders to make things seem louder without going over spec. This is also a part of the loudness wars controversy that's been fought in the music biz for almost 10 years now. The same techniques were applied to commercials and brought on the CALM (Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation) Act that was recently passed by Congress.
 
I just thought of something. There are two local tv stations here. One is very small with one computor and one staff member...while the other, a little further is a more state of the art one. Perhaps I can ask if I can check out the audio part. Check out the Dobly lm100 to see how they use it ect.

Commercials are a lot louder than that what I am watching. I always have to tone it down a few notches. But what I don't want is go through the trouble of making a commercial and everything is fine but for the audio part.
 
Back
Top