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

Sound Mixing / Music Question

How exactly do professional sound mixers in big budget movies balance levels with dialogue versus music (not to mention sound design and foley)?

Is it common practice to get all the dialogue levels the way you want them, then lay the music underneath at a constant volume, or do music tracks go through many audio level changes depending on whether or not dialogue is being spoken at any given time.

It would seem to me that an audience might notice if a song was playing loudly, then it dipped down suddenly right as a character was speaking their lines, then raised again when they finished.

Also, would you typically make an actual cut in the music track to raise or lower the level? Or would you set an audio level automation on that track? Or would you make all audio adjustments with plug-ins on each clip, like a gain plug-in for instance?

For my specific case, I'm referring to a low key indie feature film with no music scores, just band music that mostly plays from a source within the scene, like radios and record players. Sometimes a music cue will start as a character listening to music on headphones, but will continue on into other scenes.
 
How exactly do professional sound mixers in big budget movies balance levels with dialogue versus music (not to mention sound design and foley)?

I'll answer your question with another question; how did van Gogh paint Starry Night?

Mixing sound for picture is an art form just like any other. You start with the proper tools, then add talent and experience.

Is it common practice to get all the dialogue levels the way you want them, then lay the music underneath at a constant volume, or do music tracks go through many audio level changes depending on whether or not dialogue is being spoken at any given time.

Every rerecording mixer is going to have his/her own process, but most start with the dialog and build around it. But the dialog tracks are constantly readjusted as the rest of the sounds are brought in around them, and when dialog is not present the rest of the sound design, music and score is adjusted on a second-by-second basis to complement the visuals. And there is much more than volume used to mix; there's EQ, dynamic processing (limiters, compressors, etc.) and effects (usually reverb). Of course, every scene and film has its own unique requirements, so you may start with the music or Foley/sound FX and work from there. That is a part of the challenge of designing and mixing sound-for-picture; you are working to support of the visuals, the story/plot and the characters - that takes precedence over everything else.

It would seem to me that an audience might notice if a song was playing loudly, then it dipped down suddenly right as a character was speaking their lines, then raised again when they finished.

Now you're getting into decisions that apply to a specific scene in a specific movie. There are a variety of techniques that are used in combination to sustain the proper illusion. Dynamic processing of the music can give the illusion of loudness without making the music really loud. (We won't go into the loudness war currently under way in the music industry.) You use dynamic processing on dialog to make it "pop" out of the mix a little more. You use EQ to carve out "holes" in the frequency spectrum, and/or add frequencies to help the dialog cut through the density of the music.

Now comes the question of the specific scene. Does the dialog begin almost immediately, or is there 30 or more seconds of establishing shot(s)? What is happening in these shots? What kind of music is being played? How far away from the source of the music are the characters? What kind of conversation is to occur, and what are implications of the dialog to the story/plot/characters?

*** BTW - It also helps if the editor cuts with the audio needs in mind.

*** BTW #2 - this is not as much of a problem if it is thought out carefully during preproduction and executed properly during production. Here's an example; let's say that the scene is set in a club. Well, what's going on in a club? The music is pounding, lots of people speaking loudly to be heard over the music. However, I'll get that scene and the actors are speaking as if they are sitting on a couch having an intimate conversation. When the scene was shot the actors should have been speaking very loudly. Besides being much more realistic it also raises the "pitch" of the voices and naturally adds harmonic frequencies that have more "cut" that will make it more audible in a loud situation. Check out the club scene in "The Social Network;" the dialog is entirely realistic, showing it was performed properly on the set thus facilitating the audio post and rerecording process. The audio post community (only half jokingly) thought the movie should win the Oscar for best sound for this reason alone.

Also, would you typically make an actual cut in the music track to raise or lower the level? Or would you set an audio level automation on that track? Or would you make all audio adjustments with plug-ins on each clip, like a gain plug-in for instance?

You automate everything - volume, EQ, processing and effects.

For my specific case, I'm referring to a low key indie feature film with no music scores, just band music that mostly plays from a source within the scene, like radios and record players. Sometimes a music cue will start as a character listening to music on headphones, but will continue on into other scenes.

Now you've change the entire conversation. Most low/no/mini/micro budget indie filmmakers will not have access to the tools that a professional rerecording mixer uses as a matter of course, nor will they have the knowledge or experience. The biggest issue that most will face is processing power. In essence you are "rendering" every audio change in real time. It is not at all unusual to run five plug-ins on each of dozens, even hundreds, of audio tracks, multiple sub-mixes that may also have several plug-ins on them and to have multiple effects return channels (usually reverbs).

Probably the easiest thing for a DIY "low key indie" type to do is to use the original music track and create a preprocessed "futz" (radio or TV or headphone or whatever) version of the music on another track and cross-fade between them as needed.

I'm sure that A.P.E will chime in since mixing sound-for-picture is what he does for a living.
 
Thanks, Alcove, I was hoping you'd chime in here!

All of this info is extremely valuable. I had a feeling there wouldn't actually be a "best" way to do this, as is the case with any art form, but I still want to get a general idea to make sure I don't make any really obvious rookie mistakes.

The good thing about my situation is that I currently live in a house that is attached to a full-on legit recording studio which gives me unlimited time to work on post audio. It has all the processing power, equipment, software, and plug-ins I could ever ask for. My friend who owns it records bands here and is very good at what he does.

My original plan was to hire a professional, I even asked this guy for a rate quote: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0026541/

But from what he told me, it seems that anybody who actually has real experience with sound is going to be completely out of my budget since audio post engineers generally charge the same amount no matter what your film budget is. It's looking more and more like it'll just be my friend and I doing it ourselves. I realize that our background in the music recording industry only helps to a certain extent, as sound in film is a completely different animal, but like I said this is a pretty low-key film and I'm up for a challenge and learning experience.

BTW - I've been on hundreds of hollywood film/TV sets and I'm constantly seeing directors trying to get their actors to yell louder in bar/club/party scenes. I guess it's hard for actors to speak up and pretend the speakers are blasting when in reality it's absolutely silent. I actually remember being blown away by the intensity of that scene in The Social Network, left me with chills :)
 
There are a few guys like me who work almost exclusively with low/no/mini/micro budget filmmakers; that's my niche. I'm an editor who gets stuck mixing because, as you said, the budget for a proper mix on a dubbing stage is out of reach for most indie types.

I am always working on very tight budgets and schedules. Knowing this I am mixing as I go; not the actual final mix, but getting things into basic perspective. It is very rare that I can do everything that I want to do, so I have to juggle compromises - what are the most important sonic elements to a scene? What can I pare down to essentials or skip altogether? So I rough mix as I go so I can make those decisions. So you see that I have that low/no/mini/micro budget mentality myself. Not an ideal way to work, but my clients leave happy. It's frustrating for me personally because on the occasional gem that comes through my place I know that there is so much more that could be done, and that a mix by an experienced and equipped rerecording mixer would put that high gloss on the final product.
 
But from what he told me, it seems that anybody who actually has real experience with sound is going to be completely out of my budget since audio post engineers generally charge the same amount no matter what your film budget is. It's looking more and more like it'll just be my friend and I doing it ourselves. I realize that our background in the music recording industry only helps to a certain extent, as sound in film is a completely different animal, but like I said this is a pretty low-key film and I'm up for a challenge and learning experience.

What you have been told is broadly true. In the US there is a minimum union rate for a re-recording mixer but of course some of them can charge more. There are deals to be had and other business models which can make a significant difference to cost though! ;)

What Alcove has told you is all accurate and good information, many of the questions you have asked cannot be answered because the answer depends on artistic choice, experience, etc. I also agree with Alcove that you have asked two different questions. Big budget films have quite different delivery requirements to most low/no budget films and therefore the workflow and equipment requirements quite different. On a big budget feature it's quite common to have two or three re-recording mixers working together, mixing over a 1,000 channels of audio in a $20m+ facility, costing $10k+ a day!

If you tell us a little more about your film, namely, the genre and where you are going to distribute it (DVD, internet, film festivals?), Alcove and I can probably help you out with more specific info, problems you will likely face, things to watch out for, etc.

G
 
There are a few guys like me who work almost exclusively with low/no/mini/micro budget filmmakers; that's my niche. I'm an editor who gets stuck mixing because, as you said, the budget for a proper mix on a dubbing stage is out of reach for most indie types...

It's frustrating for me personally because on the occasional gem that comes through my place I know that there is so much more that could be done, and that a mix by an experienced and equipped rerecording mixer would put that high gloss on the final product.

Alcove, maybe it would be worth us having a chat at some stage on Skype? PM me if you're interested.

G
 
I also agree with Alcove that you have asked two different questions. Big budget films have quite different delivery requirements to most low/no budget films and therefore the workflow and equipment requirements quite different. On a big budget feature it's quite common to have two or three re-recording mixers working together, mixing over a 1,000 channels of audio in a $20m+ facility, costing $10k+ a day!

If you tell us a little more about your film, namely, the genre and where you are going to distribute it (DVD, internet, film festivals?), Alcove and I can probably help you out with more specific info, problems you will likely face, things to watch out for, etc.

G

The reason I started my question talking about big budget films is because I don't want people to say "I can tell this film is really low budget because of the sound." -- I want my film to stand up to the best of 'em.

That being said, just about every film is considered big budget compared to mine, but when I say that my film is a low-key indie film, I'm referring to the tone and mood of the film. There are no action sequences, or any terribly complicated shots or scenes. I'm going for a very realistic feel -- think Blue Valentine, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Like Crazy, etc.

I will be submitting to all the major festivals, and at the very least, I'll be renting out a theatre for a cast/crew/friends/family screening, so I know the mix will have to be 5.1 surround sound eventually.

I actually have a couple of meetings with distribution companies coming up who may be willing to invest in post audio when the time comes, but I'm trying to prepare for the worst and assume I'll have to do it all myself.
 
If you're under seven figures you're a low/no/mini/micro budget project.

I know that I'm probably pointing out the obvious, but you should have someone who knows what they're doing handle the sound. You may have access to a recording studio and even the engineer, but the studio is a music studio, not an audio post facility, and the engineer may be great, but s/he is probably not experienced with sound-for-picture. Audio post is a whole different world. I know, as I spent 25+ years as a working musician and almost ten as a music engineer. I had to radically readjust my thinking when I got into audio post. I've been doing audio post for 11 years now, but it's only the last four or five that I really felt I knew exactly what I was doing at all times. The hardest to learn was Foley, the easiest was sound effects, dialog editing just took a lot of doing it.

Believe it or not, the quiet subtle films (or films with subtle scenes) are the ones that require the most finesse with the sound design and the mix. The dialog edit, Foley and sound FX are the pieces of the sonic puzzle that the rerecording mixer must assemble into a cohesive whole and then polish until it gleams. On the "low-key" films the puzzle pieces are also very subtle (which takes talent to create), and it takes a really talented rerecording mixer to bring that across properly.
 
The reason I started my question talking about big budget films is because I don't want people to say "I can tell this film is really low budget because of the sound." -- I want my film to stand up to the best of 'em.

That's a tall order! "The best of 'em" have huge audio post budgets, not uncommonly the audio post budget for a blockbuster will be around $10m (not including the music). Even very low budget films spend roughly $100k or so on audio post and obviously struggle "to stand up to the best of 'em".

The problem is twofold:

Firstly the facilities: Commercial cinemas are all built to Dolby (or the even more stringent THX) specifications, which include both the sound systems themselves and the room acoustics. Audio post dubbing theatres are built to these same specifications, music studio are not. This may seem like a relatively insignificant fact which is can easily be overcome or worked around but in practice is not, it's a HUGE problem. Massive (and often multiple) subs up to 9ft long or so, plus huge full range speakers using horns rather than cones for higher frequency reproduction, plus the surround diffusion systems. Add this to the fact that cinemas are huge (and dead) spaces in comparison to music studio control rooms and the result is sound reproduction completely different to any music studio. There's an additional consideration which makes matters even worse: Music is abstract, for example there's no fixed concept of what an electric guitar should sound like. There's no right or wrong guitar sound, just a guitar sound which the producer prefers for aesthetic reasons. This is not the case with film because we're dealing with many sounds which are not abstract as people experience the reality of them every day of their lives. The result is that you can take a music mix done in one (good quality) studio to another good studio and yes, it might sound a bit different but if it's well mixed, it will still sound good. If you take a film mix done in a good music studio to another good music studio, it's likely to sound substantially different, even to the point of sounding wrong. Take that same mix to a cinema and the difference will be far more dramatic, to the point that you may hardly recognize your own mix! The only way of getting a mix from the mix room to translate well to the cinema is to build a mix room with acoustics and sound systems which match as closely as possible (preferably identically) commercial cinemas and this is hugely expensive! To do it to the highest standards is going to cost tens of millions and that's why audio post for film is so expensive.

Secondly the knowledge: Once you've got the environment (room acoustics and sound system) problem above sorted out you then need personnel who know the tricks, pitfalls and requirements of mixing 5.1 sound in such an environment. There aren't so many of these feature film mixing environments and therefore not so many who have the knowledge to use them and believe me, it's not something you can pick up in a few days, not even in a few weeks.

I will be submitting to all the major festivals, and at the very least, I'll be renting out a theatre for a cast/crew/friends/family screening, so I know the mix will have to be 5.1 surround sound eventually.

Submission to the major festivals won't be a problem, usually DVD with a stereo mix, which with your experience and a good music studio at your disposal, you should be able to handle quite easily. But, if you get accepted for screening you will be asked for a new version of you film for projection and this you won't be able to do on your own. Every major festival I know accepts 35mm film for projection, so this is by far the most logical format choice. The downside is the cost, you will need a Dolby printmaster, which can only be created by an approved Dolby mix stage, which is going to cost you at least $3k per day and they usually get through a reel (20mins) per day. Plus the lab and film costs, a likely total of $30k - $50k. DCP is accepted by many but not all major film festivals. DCP is far cheaper than 35mm film and doesn't require a Dolby printmaster but creating a DCP is complicated, so you'd need to have it done professionally, expect to pay around $50 per minute for a reputable company. Some film festivals allow projection copies to be submitted on digital tape, like HDCAM, which will probably cost you less than $1k to have made but you will need at least a Dolby LCRS (LtRt) mix or sometimes the option of a Dolby E mix. Fewer still of the major film festivals allow BluRay or even DVD for projection, which you can make yourself, with the caveat that you're not going to be able to create a decent 5.1 in a music studio.

So, you've got to consider which film festivals you want to get into, what budget you've got and what format/s you can afford to have made if you get accepted. Only at that point will you know what audio format/s you should start work in. BTW, you need to add to this equation the delivery specs required by the distributors you're approaching.

G
 
Thanks for the help. I will still be submitting to the major (5.1 required) festivals, because my thinking is if I get accepted, I shouldn't have trouble finding a production company willing to invest after the fact in audio post, especially if it's a high profile festival like Sundance. I might even be able to make a gap funding deal with a company now, before even submitting to festivals. We'll see how my meetings go.

I guess my last question would be: If I'm going to mix this myself in stereo, is there anything special I should do to make it easy for 5.1 conversion later on? Is it good enough to just keep dialogue, effects, design, music, etc. or different audio tracks? In the photoshop world we use the term "non-destructive editing" where you don't do anything that can't be simply undone. I'm guessing that applies to sound as well.
 
Non-destructive editing is the default setting for pretty much every audio software, so you don't need to concern yourself on that front. There are several organisational things you can do to make the transition to 5.1 easier, depending on the audio software you will be using and there are certainly areas of audio work where you could concentrate your efforts. When you create a 5.1 mix some of the SFX, particularly the ambiances are likely to have to be redone from scratch, as will much/all of the sound design. So, time and effort invested in these areas is likely to be wasted when the 5.1 mix is created. The Foley will have to be remixed for 5.1 but as Foley is pretty much always recorded in mono, regardless of the delivery format, there's no reason why all of it couldn't be re-used in the 5.1 mix. For this reason it's really worth spending the time and effort recording the best Foley you can. BTW, record more than you need, do Foley for as much as you can, even if you're reasonably sure you won't use it. It takes a second to mute a clip you don't need but time consuming (and therefore expensive) if you've got to record something which you don't have.

The same is true for the dialogue, it will have to be remixed and some/much of it may need to be re-processed but all the basic dialogue editing could be carried across to a 5.1 mix, provided it's been done to a high standard in the first place. So extra time/effort put into the dialogue editing would be a good investment. I presume the studio you'll be working in is running ProTools software? If so, there are a few tricks you can use to make "rolling back" far quicker and easier, if/when re-processing is required during the remix.

G
 
Our studio has both ProTools which I've never used, and Cubase which I'm very familiar with.

Btw - what happens when you play a 5.1 surround mixed movie on stereo speakers? Does it evenly distribute down to 2 speakers with no problems?
 
ProTools (PT) has a pretty steep learning curve but virtually every commercial audio post facility uses it. At some stage you'll be able to hand your PT session/s over to a commercial post facility and they'll be able to open it on their system, this is not the case with Cubase. It would definitely be worth your while doing your work in PT. If you decide to go down the PT route let us know, Alcove and I can give you some advice on organisation of the session which will help greatly further down the road.

Licenced Dolby decoding chips can be found in almost all home consumer equipment (TV, DVD, BluRay, A/V Receivers). These decoder chips can take a 5.1 Dolby Digital mix and convert it down to 2 channel stereo upon playback (if you don't have a 5.1 system) and does a quite presentable job at it. However, this technology is not built into studio equipment because Dolby makes their own professional studio equipment. So playing back a Dolby 5.1 mix in stereo is a little more tricky in a studio, unless you have some fairly expensive Dolby equipment.

G
 
Back
Top