archived-videos Interrogation Scene
- Thread starter mus
- Start date
For the reasons stated in my last post, you need to be very wary about using processes like this. If Soundbooth does more processing than just output fader automation, say if it applies compression for example, I would avoid it. For the newbie/novice filmmaker this type of process might well be very useful, but your audio is beyond newbie level! Tools which automatically write output fader automation (only!) are sometimes used in professional audio post workflows but only under certain conditions and when they are used, are employed more to create a quick starting point than a finished mix.
G
Last edited:
Thank the powers that be that youtube does not!
Definitely. Can't take our DTY pigs to the prom.
Definitely. Can't take our DTY pigs to the prom.
Last edited:
Hmmm, very difficult to say. While more people are probably listening with the type of setup you described, there are quite a number of smaller niche groups, which when added together would represent a very significant percentage which could easily notice some or all of the points I made. For example, people watching on smartphones (using IEMs or headphones), serious computer gamers, those who view youtube content through their home cinema setups, audiophiles, etc. There are also many who don't fit into one of these niches but have one of those cheap 2.1 or 5.1 computer sound systems, the LF problem I mentioned would/could come into play for all these people.
Depends on the festival. Sometimes though one film might be too quiet to be heard and the next might be deafeningly loud, so there's no choice but to turn the system up or down drastically. Actually that's not true, it's not the only choice because I've seen; a film's screening stopped and the film pulled after less than a minute and I've also seen the audience all shouting in unison to turn the volume up (or down) or just walking out! The higher tier film festivals will often test a portion of each film in a screening room before the festival and ask the filmmakers to fix the problem or simply reject it for screening.
That's two different questions! All you need for basic calibration is an SPL meter ($20 or so on eBay), a calibrated test signal (free) and audio or NLE software. Play the test signal out of each speaker individually, measure it's SPL and adjust the speaker output level (or amp feeding the speaker). I think I described the process previously on IT, if not, I'll explain the details again if you wish? Without an acoustically treated room, you're not going to achieve any sort of even vaguely accurate calibration but it's got to be significantly better than not calibrating and having absolutely no idea at all!
Acoustically treating a room is another matter entirely and will likely take a great deal more time and knowledge and even the most basic level of treatment is going to cost way more than $20! It's impossible to say how much time and money it will cost because the "treatment" depends on the "symptoms" and while we can make some generalisations, every room has it's own (individual) symptoms.
You shouldn't, is the short answer! Many sounds have what's called a transient peak (usually at the beginning of the sound) which only last for a few milliseconds, your software will read this peak value even though the sound (excluding this transient peak) is relatively low level. RMS (Root Mean Square) is a mathematical technique which allows an average level to be measured rather than just a peak level but even this averaged reading is still next to useless because we do not perceive loudness linearly and RMS level only forms part of the loudness calculation our brain does anyway! Many of software meters built into audio software and NLEs allow you to switch (in preferences) between peak and RMS levels but beware, there are many different types of RMS readings (designed for various purposes) and you really need a reasonably good level of audio knowledge to understand what they are telling you and how to use them. There are specific loudness meters (those based on one of the ITU-R BS. 1770 scales) on the market which do, relatively closely, measure perceived loudness. The one I use probably isn't cheap by no budget standards (~$500) but is an unavoidable essential for TV work. There maybe free loudness meter plugins available somewhere which would be good enough for non-commercial purposes but again you would need to understand how to use it and what it's telling you, and this understanding isn't entirely trivial. I would be prepared to try and create a *relatively* simple explanation here on IT, but it will take a bit of time and I'd only do it if there were actually some demand for this knowledge?
G
Great job! Looking forward to your next.
Are you asking about audio file format? If so, the answer is; bwav (or just wav) or aif audio format, 48kHz and 24bit.
G
That depends on what it's for and the amount of compression, there are many different level of compression you can apply to an MP3, it's not a fixed level, just like say jpeg for images. Generally, I would advise completely avoiding any lossy compression, even for say youtube or similar sites. Youtube and other sites use lossy compression on their streams, although I can't remember exactly which ones. If your lossy audio is transcoded to another lossy audio codec, the chances of audible artefacts are greatly multiplied. For any of professional applications I can think of MP3 format is not acceptable, so if possible, stay safe and use wav or aif (which are uncompressed).
G
Last edited:
While more people are probably listening with the type of setup you described, there are quite a number of smaller niche groups, which when added together would represent a very significant percentage which could easily notice some or all of the points I made.
Agreed.
But for no-budget direct-to-youtube productions the law of diminishing returns suggests as long as a single deviation from the mean is satisfied "good enuf = good enuf."
(Queue APE's dismay/groan!)
[I've seen] a film's screening stopped and the film pulled after less than a minute and I've also seen the audience all shouting in unison to turn the volume up (or down) or just walking out! The higher tier film festivals will often test a portion of each film in a screening room before the festival and ask the filmmakers to fix the problem or simply reject it for screening.
Crazy how some people run their festivals.
you'd think these things would have been figured out before taking people's money at the door.
That's two different questions!
Yeah, I'm bad that way.
All you need for basic calibration is an SPL meter... Without an acoustically treated room, you're not going to achieve any sort of even vaguely accurate calibration but it's got to be significantly better than not calibrating and having absolutely no idea at all!
Makes sense.
TY.
Acoustically treating a room is another matter entirely...
Understood.
Completely.
You shouldn't, is the short answer!
I would be prepared to try and create a *relatively* simple explanation here on IT, but it will take a bit of time and I'd only do it if there were actually some demand for this knowledge?
I genuinely appreciate the offer.
Let's see how many others are willing to express some interest here.
Let's see how many others are willing to express some interest here.
I'd like to hear an explanation as well... something I'd be interested in hearing
OK, Musso an Chimp have expressed interest too, so I'll post something up within the next few days, in the meantime ...
A bit of a groan, yes! For two reasons:
1. We don't really know where the mean point is. Cheap computer speaker systems are very commonly in a 2.1 configuration; two very small satellite speakers and a slightly bigger sub woofer designed to go on the floor say under a desk. While these systems are hideously inaccurate, they are able to output a much lower frequency range than (equally cheap or more expensive) 2.0 computer speaker systems. Adding the number of people with 2.1 computer sound systems to the other niche groups I mentioned, it's entirely possible that the mean (average) is in fact people who could be affected by point four in my original response and if this number of people isn't the average, then it could easily be close enough to the mean point to fit into your single deviation from the average. If true, your "good enuf" would only be good enough for very roughly 50% of potential viewers and possibly less.
2. For the newbie/novice filmmaker, creating content which is very significantly better than the masses of home video content and of the much higher "average" standard is quite an accomplishment. But this average standard, for most "western" countries, still represents pretty much the very lowest average standards in existence. Although, an "average" Youtube standard is pretty hard to nail down because of the huge variety of Youtube content. I assume that the more experienced and serious filmmakers here aspire to exceeding average Youtube standards, would like gradually to work their way up to low professional standards and to eventually achieve average commercial standards. As I stated in my original response, I believe Mussoman has already surpassed average Youtube standards and my observations/advice was designed to help his progression towards professional standards. Isn't improving as a filmmaker and trying to achieve better than "good enuf" for the lowest "average" the reason why many people join IndieTalk?
G
After reading all the comments about audio, I have to ask:
Mussonman, did you do any post production equalization of your audio track? If so, how do you normally attack it? I too use a Rode VideoMic (mine is the pro and I record onto a Zoom H1), but even after EQ work, I think even your productions have a more crisp sound than mine. If this was done with a hot-shoe mounted position, I'm even more impressed as I always get better sound out of a boomed position than in the hotshoe...
Mussonman, did you do any post production equalization of your audio track? If so, how do you normally attack it? I too use a Rode VideoMic (mine is the pro and I record onto a Zoom H1), but even after EQ work, I think even your productions have a more crisp sound than mine. If this was done with a hot-shoe mounted position, I'm even more impressed as I always get better sound out of a boomed position than in the hotshoe...
Odd, mine never sounds like yours after I record, even I'm sure the positioning is ideal...I always need to do equalizer adjustments. Perhaps it is just the acoustics of my rooms.
I wouldn't think so. It is better designed for recording than the internal Canon recording system. I watched a TON of YouTube videos demoing the VideoMic + H1 vs the VideoMic into the Camera (even with Magic Lantern hacks) and the VMP+H1 combo always sounded better.