The nuance of Sound Design

[jax_rox]

This is a pretty great article that backs up everything APE says about Sound Design, and might get you thinking creatively about it:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ions-roaring-art-of-sound-in-movies?CMP=fb_gu

Some highlights:

His expertise, fittingly, is what can’t be seen – sound, yes, but also everything else that sound is to the human mind: the way we orient ourselves in relation to spaces, to time, to each other; the way we communicate when language fails; the way our ears know, precognitively, when the dark room has someone lurking in it or when a stranger will be kind. He orchestrates the levels of human perception that most people either fail to examine or lack the ability to notice at all. His job is to make you feel things without ever knowing he was there.

Consider the scene at the end of No Country For Old Men when Javier Bardem’s character has a car accident. After the crunch of impact, there are a few moments of what might be mistaken for stillness. The two cars rest smoking and crumpled in the middle of a suburban intersection. Nothing moves – but the soundscape is deceptively layered. There is the sound of engines hissing and crackling, which have been mixed to seem as near to the ear as the camera was to the cars; there is a mostly unnoticeable rustle of leaves in the trees; periodically, so faintly that almost no one would register it consciously, there is the sound of a car rolling through an intersection a block or two over, off camera; a dog barks somewhere far away. The faint sound of a breeze was taken from ambient sounds on a street like the one depicted in the scene. When Javier Bardem shoves open the car door, you hear the door handle stick for a moment before it releases. There are three distinct sounds of broken glass tinkling to the pavement from the shattered window, a small handful of thunks as he falls sideways to the ground, his laboured breathing, the chug of his boot heel finally connecting with the asphalt – even the pads of his fingers as they scrabble along the top of the window. None of these sounds are there because some microphone picked them up. They’re there because Lievsay chose them and put them there, as he did for every other sound in the film. The moment lasts about 20 seconds. No Country For Old Men is 123 minutes long.

You need the ability not only to hear with an almost superhuman acuity but also the technical proficiency and Job-like patience to spend hours getting the sound of a kettle’s hiss exactly the right length as well as the right pitch – and not only the right pitch but the right pitch considering that the camera pans during the shot, which means that the viewer’s ear will subconsciously anticipate hearing a maddeningly subtle (but critical) Doppler effect, which means that the tone the kettle makes as it boils needs to shift downward at precisely the interval that a real kettle’s hiss would if you happened to walk by at that speed.

The Coen brothers are treasured by Lievsay’s tribe, in part because they begin sound design unusually early in the process – often while still writing and shooting. “The way they work is the dream,” C5’s dialogue editor, Eliza Paley, told me. “They understand that sound is also storytelling.”

It becomes clear, in moments like these, exactly how unconscious the experience of sound is, how neatly it skirts our higher reasoning to make us feel. It does not matter if you know the violence is just pretend – make the gunshot noise loud and accurate enough and your body will believe it is real. For this reason, sound is one of the most visceral, subtle tools available to filmmakers. No need to wait to see the limp of the boy who has fallen off his bicycle to know that his ankle is broken – a small crunching noise added to his landing will make a viewer cringe in empathy.

 

[sfoster]

"Consider the scene at the end of No Country For Old Men when Javier Bardem’s character has a car accident. After the crunch of impact, there are a few moments of what might be mistaken for stillness. The two cars rest smoking and crumpled in the middle of a suburban intersection. Nothing moves – but the soundscape is deceptively layered. There is the sound of engines hissing and crackling, which have been mixed to seem as near to the ear as the camera was to the cars; there is a mostly unnoticeable rustle of leaves in the trees; periodically, so faintly that almost no one would register it consciously, there is the sound of a car rolling through an intersection a block or two over, off camera; a dog barks somewhere far away. The faint sound of a breeze was taken from ambient sounds on a street like the one depicted in the scene. When Javier Bardem shoves open the car door, you hear the door handle stick for a moment before it releases. There are three distinct sounds of broken glass tinkling to the pavement from the shattered window, a small handful of thunks as he falls sideways to the ground, his laboured breathing, the chug of his boot heel finally connecting with the asphalt – even the pads of his fingers as they scrabble along the top of the window. None of these sounds are there because some microphone picked them up. They’re there because Lievsay chose them and put them there, as he did for every other sound in the film."


is this really sound design? a door handle, broken glass and a dog barking?

this all seems incredibly on the nose for a car crash and doesn't fall under what I would think of as sound design

 

[Alcove Audio]

is this really sound design? a door handle, broken glass and a dog barking?

Then what do you consider sound design?

 

[sfoster]

Then what do you consider sound design?

Only basing off what I've read on here, and maybe I misunderstood some things.. but I've been told that a lot of indie films have extremely little sound design or none at all.

And I can't imagine an indie film not having Foley for the door handle and the footsteps on the broken glass. it seems very basic and straight forward.

Sound design for a car crash.. ugh okay this requires creativity but lets see.. hmm..

::scratches head::

uhh

cicadas.

okay IDK I never said I was good at sound design

 

[Alcove Audio]

It's a question of degree. Sure, I can do a nice audio post for an indie film, but it's not going to be as subtle and nuanced as something with 1,000 times the budget.

Yes, the small budget indie film will have those sounds, but the odds are that they are pulled from a library and not custom recorded for the film. On indie projects the Foley team will start with the "important" stuff and keep layering until they run out of money; on big budget projects they keep doing it until the director and/or the supervising sound editor is happy. As with everything else in well budgeted projects it is just more detailed and more deeply layered. And, of course, the talent and facilities are the best in the world.

How about an example for the visually oriented...

A character drinks coffee from a mug in her kitchen. On an indie film it's probably the kitchen of a friend and the mug is right out of the cabinet. On a large budget production the kitchen is probably a set with moveable walls, carefully decorated with every last detail to provide information to the audience. Hell, there was probably a meeting just to decide on the mug.


How often do you get to experience a film uninterrupted in a room (theater?) with a really good sound system?

 

[Guanto]

Once you start to really consciously go down the path of sound design an entire universe (not always a friendly or easy universe) starts to unfold.

Exactly how when you start to go down the path of screenwriting or photography layer upon layer upon layer starts to reveal itself of possibilities and pitfalls.

Sound Design is not simply the selection but also the treatment of that selection. Volume, EQ, Compression and verb can all affect a sound, even a lazily chosen vanilla one, to place it more into your movie... to really burn it right into that proverbial celluloid. Nothing can rip a viewer out of the moment, even a moment filled with technically subpar video, than left field out of whack Foley, ADR or Music.

Its a very comparable aspect/art to actually capturing the video. You can slap in the sound of a coffee mug or a gunshot just as easily as you can set your camera to auto-focus and not worry about your subjects face being in shadow. This is to say adding door knob foley seems as much a no brainer as taking the lens cap off and making the door knob scene a close up. But the different levels you can take that shot of the hand turning the doorknob is just as expansive, both technical and artistic, as what can be done to make that knob foley pleasant, correct and better. You can easily spend as much time tweaking a simple piece of foley as you can color grading a clip... and of course you should, depending on the production level you want to convey in your final product.

I once read that the foley for Freddy Kruger scraping his old man logan along the alley wall in the first installment of the franchise was like a whole separate odyssey of the production. Laboring over this thing until they finally dialed it in and it made that scene. Phoning that in, and probably every other aspect of the sound design from what we know of Craven, was not only not an option, it was not a thought. You can really get a euphoric when these things come together to make something that is either mind-blowing or just feels right.

The drag and drop and walk away of a freebie stock sound effect under a clip is just as much a cancer as the drag and drop and walk away of a crappy stock muzzle flash. One in the same bane. It's the first thing that marks an offering as kindergarten to me, and I've seen it turn other people off first hand and they really can't even articulate why they didn't like something or found it backyard basement level. Sound.

I've said this before, but if one finds sound no where near as sexy as the almighty visuals (a common and totally viable even understandable condition) still try to not sell other elements of any given project short. Make sure the audio is getting some sort of attention. Strive to give it (via friends, third parties, a year with the internet and a commitment to approaching sound design) the same amount of love that is showered on "seemingly" (often dangerously seemingly) more accessible things like writing great dialog, lighting and shooting great images or editing clips for endless sleepless nights.

A couple more random thoughts. I've found that silence is just as important and for me often edges out sound. Really keep silence in mind when spotting. And if you are even mildly interested in sound design start watching movies on mute. Far more than showing you how powerful good sound is it actually starts to reveal how brilliantly, or hideously, the film has been edited. Oddly, I've probably learned more "filmmaking" (the art as a whole with all it's moving pieces) from watching flicks in silence than anything else.

BTW I am official going to use Knob Foley as my DJ name.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

First, thanks for posting that Jax, a great article written by someone looking into the world of sound design from the outside.

is this really sound design? a door handle, broken glass and a dog barking?

No, not really! I think you're missing the point and some of the responses you've had also miss the point to a greater or lesser extent. To illustrate what I mean, let me ask your question about a different field:

Is this really art? a woman, a chair and a distant river?

If your answer is "no", then you couldn't be more wrong because I've just described some of the basic elements of probably the most famous piece of art in the history of mankind, the Mona Lisa. If your answer is "No, not really, it depends on the context of those elements and what it makes you feel/think when you look at it", then I suggest this is a good answer. It's an equally as good answer to your question and for exactly the same reasons!

The nuances and exact "flavour" of each individual sound FX is the art/craft of Sound FX Design or of Foley, both of which are fundamental ingredients of sound design but are only ingredient NOT the totality Sound Design actually is. Sound Design is the bigger picture, how those sound FX combine, their context and ultimately, what they make you think/feel! Take the dog barking example: It's a far away dog barking, part of a subtle soundscape but this soundscape only has meaning in context. The context being a very loud, extremely dramatic car crash immediately prior to our subtle soundscape. In this context, our soundscape almost seems like silence, a shocking contrast to the very loud impact. The intention? To create a bare, stunned, numb feeling of shock in the audience. This is Sound Design!!! The sound design of the sequence in question is no more about a dog barking than the Mona Lisa is about a distant river.

Sound Design is not simply the selection but also the treatment of that selection. Volume, EQ, Compression and verb can all affect a sound, even a lazily chosen vanilla one, to place it more into your movie...

Again, you are describing another of the fundamental ingredients of sound design (the processing/mixing) but not specifically the totality which is Sound Design itself.

I've found that silence is just as important and for me often edges out sound. Really keep silence in mind when spotting.

I'm not sure I've understood correctly, are you suggesting the use of actual silence (no sound) in the sound design of a film? If so, that's not an uncommon mistake, particularly by those who're relatively inexperienced or whose audio experience is in music (where silence can be a valuable artistic tool) rather than film sound.

G

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Here's a quote from the article which I think provides some particularly valuable insights for aspiring filmmakers:

The impact a tiny aural cue can have on the brain’s understanding of narrative is astonishing. On the third day of the mix, Lievsay and Larry were breezing through a scene of Miles dropping in on one of his wife’s dance rehearsals when Cheadle, who had been doing t’ai-chi in one corner to pass the time, paused them. The scene sounded a little too dreamy. Cheadle wanted a more matter-of-fact sound. “The point is that [Miles and his wife Frances] are carving a special moment out of something that’s not special,” he said.

Lievsay nodded and fiddled for a moment. When he replayed the scene, something small but extraordinary happened. I had watched this scene somewhere between one and two dozen times but this time I noticed something I’d never seen before: a young woman passing behind Frances with a stack of papers in her hand. Lievsay had given her footsteps. Without the footsteps, I’d somehow never seen her; now, I saw her, and her presence – along with a few other tweaks by Lievsay – suggested bustling in the room, people at work, things happening outside the eye contact forged between Miles and Frances. I didn’t exactly hear the difference: I just saw the scene differently.

1. It's unclear from the article if Cheadle is particularly knowledgeable about audio, probably not. However, this example proves that he is very aware of and sensitive to the use of sound design. He identified a fault in the sound design and effectively communicated how to rectify it.

2. A script isn't a film, it's not even really a blueprint of a film. It's more like rough sketch or starting foundation of what will become the blueprint. The actual blueprint is what we call the "Director's Vision". The direct quote of Cheadle (“The point is that [Miles and his wife Frances] are carving a special moment out of something that’s not special”), indicates a vision, an understanding of the story beyond what's written in the script. This deeper understanding or vision might be Cheadle's interpretation of some implication in the script, it might be entirely his own invention or it might be some combination of the two. Either way, he is thinking in terms of the story telling rather than just in terms of the story and, he is thinking of sound design as a story telling tool, not just as a technical chore to support the visuals.

3. The last sentence, which I've highlighted, is a biggie! It not only goes to the heart of was sound design is, it also makes a nonsense out of so many of the threads on indietalk. Posts related to "How do I get that cinematic (or some other) look?" and the resultant responses, almost always demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what modern cinema (or narrative filmmaking) is. Although we still tend to say; we are going to "see" or "watch" a film, that's not what audiences actually pay for. What they actually pay for is to experience a film! What one physically "sees" is only part of that experience and therefore what one experiences "seeing" is influenced and/or changed by what one hears! Furthermore, we're not just talking about huge explosions or other obvious sounds, in this case we're talking about sounds so subtle the article's author could barely hear a difference but which were still enough to dramatically change what he "saw". Getting a cinematic (or any other "look") is not just about what camera, camera settings, lighting or grading one employs, it's just as much about the sound design!!

So often amateur filmmakers just throw in sound FX which seem appropriate to the visuals but with little thought to audio perspective (and how those SFX combine with the dialogue to create an effective soundscape), little thought to context and little or no thought to how these sounds and soundscapes can actively be used to manipulate the audience, to enhance their experience of the storytelling. This is what has led me to state in the past, that so many no/nano budget films simply don't have any sound design. The end result is commonly a sort of unintentional sound design which actively contradicts the visuals and/or intended storytelling, which in turn results in an audience disconnect which = loss of interest = boredom = the cardinal sin of filmmaking! Even at the more serious, micro/low budget filmmaking level, there is still often a misunderstanding of what sound design is and how it can/should be employed. At this level, budget has been allocated to employ audio post professionals so that the SFX (inc. Foley) are more nuanced, the audio perspective and soundscapes more effective and the whole mix sounds more "professional". Yet at a fundamental level, the sound design is still commonly flawed, to the point of being crippled! This is because even at this level, the vast majority of directors think of sound design as a post production task, an addendum to the main filmmaking process, rather than as an integral, fundamental filmmaking ingredient. Even employing highly skilled audio post pros is only going to be of limited benefit if they are effectively "fighting with one arm tied behind their backs"! Sound design starts with the script, significantly informs the Director's vision and carries through all the phases of filmmaking, influencing virtually every other film craft; set and costume design, blocking, framing, angles, camera movement, movement within the frame, lighting, and more besides! Not coincidentally, all the successful modern great directors use this approach to filmmaking. Also not coincidentally, the typical micro/low budget indie approach (sound design as a purely post process) tends to be shunned by the general public who generally find low budget indies to be un-involving and uninteresting.

G

 

[trueindie]

I didn’t exactly hear the difference: I just saw the scene differently.

3. The last sentence, which I've highlighted, is a biggie! It not only goes to the heart of was sound design is, it also makes a nonsense out of so many of the threads on indietalk. Posts related to "How do I get that cinematic (or some other) look?" and the resultant responses, almost always demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what modern cinema (or narrative filmmaking) is. Although we still tend to say; we are going to "see" or "watch" a film, that's not what audiences actually pay for. What they actually pay for is to experience a film! What one physically "sees" is only part of that experience and therefore what one experiences "seeing" is influenced and/or changed by what one hears! Furthermore, we're not just talking about huge explosions or other obvious sounds, in this case we're talking about sounds so subtle the article's author could barely hear a difference but which were still enough to dramatically change what he "saw". Getting a cinematic (or any other "look") is not just about what camera, camera settings, lighting or grading one employs, it's just as much about the sound design!!

I don't doubt that the author saw the film differently because of the added sound but I just don't agree that it makes as great a difference as you think it does, and the author claims, at the subconscious level. Maybe it does. But as of now, I can't see it.

I'm not questioning the validity of your claim regarding sound design and how amateur filmmakers ignore it at their own peril. I'm questioning the importance you give to sound design, in the context of everything else that goes into a movie that also require attention.

So often amateur filmmakers just throw in sound FX which seem appropriate to the visuals but with little thought to audio perspective (and how those SFX combine with the dialogue to create an effective soundscape), little thought to context and little or no thought to how these sounds and soundscapes can actively be used to manipulate the audience, to enhance their experience of the storytelling. This is what has led me to state in the past, that so many no/nano budget films simply don't have any sound design. The end result is commonly a sort of unintentional sound design which actively contradicts the visuals and/or intended storytelling, which in turn results in an audience disconnect which = loss of interest = boredom = the cardinal sin of filmmaking!

loss of interest=boredom can occur due to many reasons. Sometimes we want a different kind of story, and it has nothing to do with sound design. I watched The Thin Red Line with my brother. I was riveted to the screen. He fell asleep. We watched the same movie. There are all kinds of reasons for boredom or loss of interest in a movie. Sound design is ONE of them.

I'm not disagreeing with your claim that bad sound design can lead to loss of interest in a film. I'm claiming that as a filmmaker, sound design is but one of the things that is on my mind. And of course you may claim that it is not actually on my mind, and you may very well be right. But it is still only one of the things that I have to worry about.

As filmmakers at the indie level, if you're semi serious about the final product, you have to pay attention to everything. And most of the time you don't have the budget to do anything right. For instance, (and Guanto, I don't mean to throw you under the bus here. Just using you as an example), in Guanto's trailer, I can see the reflector in his actors' faces, in their eyes. If Guanto had the budget, then I'm sure he'd have paid to have a shade pulled over his actor's heads to fight against the bright sun and the reflector wouldn't be shining off the faces and eyes of his actors. But I'm sure he didn't have the budget for it, and chose to shoot it the way he did.

Now while I can see what he's doing behind the scenes, the average film goer won't really notice. They won't even comment on those things. These things won't even register. At the indie level, at a certain point, it becomes counter-productive to do things right, because it costs way too much resource. I have to make sure that the costumes are right, that the acting is right, that the dialog is right, that the sound is right. Mistakes that are too great, in any one of these, can take the audience out of the picture.

In my opinion, even slight mistakes in acting and sound is much graver than mistakes in lighting. I don't know how right I am. That's just how I feel, and that's the perspective I bring to my own filmmaking.

I think you audio guys are absolutely correct that we don't spend the necessary attention on sound. But the way you guys describe it, the way you guys talk about it, the way you guys want us to be able to deliver it, is unachievable at our levels. And when you make something seem unachievable, what's the point of the discussion?

My point is, if I come here and ask for advice, what you audio guys don't seem to recognize is that I'm asking you how I can make something better. You guys come back with how I'm supposed to make it perfect. Nothing else in my movie is perfect. It's unreasonable to expect me to shoot for perfection in audio. I'm just asking how I can make things better, not perfect.

I think, if you audio guys just add that to your perspective when dispensing advice, you'll find filmmakers suddenly a lot more interested. The reason most people don't engage in audio discussions is that you guys keep shutting them out, without even realizing it.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this, but I really do feel that way you guys approach indie filmmakers, in the end, is not as constructive as it can be. I've been helped a great deal, particularly by you. Honestly I have. Just my approach to certain things, I changed because of your advice. But I think you guys can do a better job.

When I ask you guys about sound design, and your response is that you can't help me without reading the script, what you're really telling me is that you can't help me. If you want to read the script, I put it out on the internet for everyone to read, and you can too if you want to. But it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to read a hundred and something pages and get back to me would it not? I can't take that response as anything other than "I can't really help you."

If that's the case, then what are we discussing? That my sound design is bad? I already know that. Now do you want to help me do something about it or do you just want to tell me that my sound design is bad? Also I'm not asking you to help me make it perfect. I'm asking you to help me make it better. And of course I understand that that is not your job or your obligation, but I thought that's what we were doing in our discussions on this forum.

Not coincidentally, all the successful modern great directors use this approach to filmmaking. G

All the successful modern great directors also have decent budgets, and they can hire people like you. They can afford a proper crew and the cost of a proper pre-production. All the successful modern great directors don't hang around film boards looking for advice on filmmaking. I am not a successful modern director. I need free advice. If your response to my inquires is "go get a budget," then the discussion is over.

Cheers,
Aveek

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I'm questioning the importance you give to sound design, in the context of everything else that goes into a movie that also require attention.

Is the way your audience "sees" and "experiences" your scenes not important? If not, then what difference do cameras, lenses or any other film making equipment or crafts make? In my post above, I specifically stated "Getting a cinematic (or any other "look") is not just about what camera, camera settings, lighting or grading one employs, it's just as much about the sound design!!":- I meant this literally. I didn't say sound design was more important than everything else, I said it was just as important. The problem, as I tried to explain, is that for most indie filmmakers there is no balance because there commonly is NO sound design. How many filmmakers would try and make a film with zero thought/no cinematography?

There are all kinds of reasons for boredom or loss of interest in a movie. Sound design is ONE of them.

Absolutely, that's my point! If poor or no sound design is a cause of boredom, why would anyone deliberately choose to not have any sound design? It's basically a guarantee of boredom, regardless of the execution of any of the other film crafts!

I think you audio guys are absolutely correct that we don't spend the necessary attention on sound.

Although this is often the case, many filmmakers do spend the necessary attention on sound or at least as much as is practical. I'm not talking about sound though, I'm talking about sound design, where commonly there is little or no attention spent at all!

When I ask you guys about sound design, and your response is that you can't help me without reading the script, what you're really telling me is that you can't help me.

I don't think I've ever responded to you or anyone else with just the line that I can't help without reading the script. I would have explained the importance of context and why I need to read the script, giving you (hopefully) valuable information about the process of sound design and that it's not just about matching some sound FX with things which happen to be present inside your frame. I don't doubt that you and others are usually wanting a simple answer to a simple question, my problem is that often the questions you ask are not simple (you only think they are because they appear simple) and/or don't have simple answers.

I am not a successful modern director. I need free advice. If your response to my inquires is "go get a budget," then the discussion is over.

The only sensible answer to some questions is "go and get a budget", however, due the the budgetary restraints of most of the filmmakers here, I try to avoid that answer if I can think of any practical alternative. You'll have noticed in my previous post, I didn't just mention no and nano budget filmmakers but also micro and low budget
filmmakers, which covers films with budgets from virtually zero to films with budgets well into the seven figures. My reason for doing this is to illustrate that it's not only just about budget or even primarily about budget. What I'm talking about is an approach to making films, that instead of: 1. Script, 2. Shooting, 3. Editing and then 4. Bolt on some sound FX when everything else is pretty much finished, try: 1. Design your script for the full audio visual medium which is film (not just for visuals + dialogue), 2. Shoot your film for the full audio visual medium which is film (not just for visuals + dialogue). 3. Edit your film for the full audio visual medium which is film (not just for visuals + dialogue) and then 4. Implement the sound design which has already been created (and evolved throughout your entire filmmaking process) or at least allowed for. This approach may cost more time, effort and creative thought but it doesn't have to cost more money!!!!!

G

 

[sfoster]

How often do you get to experience a film uninterrupted in a room (theater?) with a really good sound system?

almost never. i don't go to the theatre and i don't have 5.1 at home.
i'm going to go see mi:5 though for the director.

 

[Alcove Audio]

How often do you get to experience a film uninterrupted in a room (theater?) with a really good sound system?

almost never. i don't go to the theatre and i don't have 5.1 at home.

So you almost never experience films with even a decent sound system, but you are going to pass judgements on the importance of sound design? That's like passing judgement on the importance of cinematography after watching films on a smart phone.

1. Script, 2. Shooting, 3. Editing and then 4. Bolt on some sound FX when everything else is pretty much finished

That's 98% of my clientele.

1. Design your script for the full audio visual medium which is film (not just for visuals + dialogue), 2. Shoot your film for the full audio visual medium which is film (not just for visuals + dialogue). 3. Edit your film for the full audio visual medium which is film (not just for visuals + dialogue) and then 4. Implement the sound design which has already been created (and evolved throughout your entire filmmaking process) or at least allowed for. This approach may cost more time, effort and creative thought but it doesn't have to cost more money!!!!!

Oh, don't I wish.....

 

[sfoster]

So you almost never experience films with even a decent sound system, but you are going to pass judgements on the importance of sound design? That's like passing judgement on the importance of cinematography after watching films on a smart phone.

Sure thing I am! Sound design isn't so much about 5.1 it's more abstract than that.
I also watch a lot of movies on my laptop

Always I can still post on this forum and read posts on this forum and strive to increase my knowledge and understanding.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I never said 5.1, I said "decent sound system." And you have never experienced sound design - or even the original intent of the film - until you go to a well maintained theater and experience a great film in 5.1, 7.1 or Atmos.

 

[sfoster]

And you have never experienced sound design - or even the original intent of the film - until you go to a well maintained theater and experience a great film in 5.1, 7.1 or Atmos.

Well then I guess all this hype and chest beating about sound design is just self aggrandizement by people in the sound industry.

Because I love and experience films without it just fine apparently according to you.
Good now I can focus my time and energy toward things that actually matter to the viewer.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Well then I guess all this hype and chest beating about sound design is just self aggrandizement by people in the sound industry.

And by commercial directors, producers and many others in the film industry and in this thread's case, by an impartial journalist.

Because I love and experience films without it just fine apparently according to you.
Good now I can focus my time and energy toward things that actually matter to the viewer.

A rare few are naturals, they just naturally think in terms of a combined audio visual when they create their films. Others achieve success by years of hard work and learning to create audio visual experiences. Others though are only interested in certain aspects of film and fervently believe that everyone else is just like them. Even though they never achieve success and never understand why, nothing will ever change their mind or their approach, they just keep trying to improve those certain aspects until eventually, through lack of recognition, funds or frustration they just give up filmmaking.

G

 

[Alcove Audio]

Foster - Go see "Gravity" in a really nice theater equipped with a Dolby Atmos sound system and tell us all how much sound design is irrelevant to the movie experience.

 

[sfoster]

According to alcove I've never even experienced sound design -- how important can it be?
And personally I've never seen it advertised, so it doesn't put seats in the theaters.

Seems irrelevant. Totally irrelevant to anything i've experienced.
I think about sound and I'll keep doing that, but whatever mysticism is involved in sound design why bother studying something I've never experienced and apparently do just fine without.

When it starts helping me get investment or putting butts in seats I'll take a second look.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

When it starts helping me get investment or putting butts in seats I'll take a second look.

When good sound design stops getting hundreds of millions of investment and stops putting hundreds of millions of butts on seats then maybe I won't be doing it anymore. In the meantime, it's never going to get investment for you personally or put bums on seats for your films, if you don't even know what it is, let alone employ it skilfully.

And personally I've never seen it advertised, so it doesn't put seats in the theaters.

And I've never seen lighting, make-up, grading, pic editors, props, cameras or lenses advertised either. If I were you, I'd eliminate all those from your filmmaking as well.

Seems irrelevant. Totally irrelevant to anything i've experienced.

Yep, you're right and all the great modern filmmakers (and their audiences) are wrong. It's unfortunately becoming obvious which of the types of filmmakers I described you are. I wish you the best of luck, even though I know that no amount of luck will be enough.

G

 

[sfoster]

And I've never seen lighting, make-up, grading, props, cameras or lenses advertised either. If I were you, I'd eliminate all those from your filmmaking as well.

No way, I actually experience those every time I watch a movie, so they're important. So I appreciate those aspects.

and FYI you're being really silly. You see lighting and makeup advertised every time there is a preview. unless previews consist of just a black screen?? seriously i thought you were smarter than that, to notice that lighting is used in previews.

obviously though sound design is never used in previews on television for the average consumer because I have never experienced sound design.

my audience right now watches stuff at home so I am only interested in what they will experience. when I have 100 million and my film is in theaters across the country then I will start to consider what people experience in movie theaters with their nice speakers.