Why is the sound so bad on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9DTgWo9aCY
I've heard plenty of amateur stuff which is loads better.
I've heard plenty of amateur stuff which is loads better.
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
Why is the sound so bad?
- Thread starter gorillaonabike
- Start date
It's DEFINITELY not the worst amateur audio I've heard. At times the ADR sounds too "close" for the shot. The ADR is dead on sometimes.... but for the most part, the actors weren't coached well and the ADR session wasn't timed/edited very well. A few shots even seem like "Bad Lip Reading" videos.
They should have done a better job with production sound. When amateur's rely too much on ADR, and don't have the budget or skills to do it as well as professionals, it always seems "off"
They should have done a better job with production sound. When amateur's rely too much on ADR, and don't have the budget or skills to do it as well as professionals, it always seems "off"
Last edited:
For the amount of money they spent on this, they could've at least spent some money on sound. They had something in the region of $50,000 USD for the little web series.
In two words; "audio perspective". An issue which plagues many/most amateur films and which I've mentioned numerous times but which is unanimously ignored! 
The reason why this film is so bad is because of the extreme nature of the audio perspective issue. There's a distant background ambience, in yer face/VO type dialogue and nothing else. We see a character a few feet from our point of view but hear him from a few inches away, we see them from a couple of yards away but hear them from a few inches away, we see them moving but always hear them speaking from a few inches away. What we're hearing is contradicting what we're seeing, even more so when we factor in reasonably inaccurate lip sync and flat ADR performances, as soundslikejoe mentioned.
Additionally, we've got virtually no Foley (or anything else) between the distant background ambience and the in yer face dialogue. Our eyes see things move and our brain expects a corresponding sound, even a subliminal one but in this film there's nothing. So again, the sound is not working with the visuals but fighting them and on the extremely rare occasion when there is a piece of Foley it's audio perspective is screwed!
The lack of Foley, audio movement, depth or sonic interest has the further consequence of dramatically slowing the pace of the film. Every scene feels slow and painfully drawn out due to this lack of pace. The actual technical quality of the audio is far better in this film than in most shorts but it's a great example of why technical audio quality is just one facet of good sound and without the other facets you've still got crap sound! The same goes for the film overall, great image resolution + crap sound = crap film. Shame, because in some respects the filmmakers and the film itself show promise, although I couldn't actually watch most of it (due to acute boredom!). It's certainly a monumental cock-up on the part of the producers.
BTW, much of the above is why location sound is so important; the dialogue performance automatically matches the visual performance, is automatically in sync and additionally boom mics are very good at capturing audio perspective, even without much conscious effort on the part of the boom op. Us re-recording mixers generally prefer the boom to lav isos specifically for this audio perspective reason, even though it's virtually always at least a bit noisier.
G
The reason why this film is so bad is because of the extreme nature of the audio perspective issue. There's a distant background ambience, in yer face/VO type dialogue and nothing else. We see a character a few feet from our point of view but hear him from a few inches away, we see them from a couple of yards away but hear them from a few inches away, we see them moving but always hear them speaking from a few inches away. What we're hearing is contradicting what we're seeing, even more so when we factor in reasonably inaccurate lip sync and flat ADR performances, as soundslikejoe mentioned.
Additionally, we've got virtually no Foley (or anything else) between the distant background ambience and the in yer face dialogue. Our eyes see things move and our brain expects a corresponding sound, even a subliminal one but in this film there's nothing. So again, the sound is not working with the visuals but fighting them and on the extremely rare occasion when there is a piece of Foley it's audio perspective is screwed!
The lack of Foley, audio movement, depth or sonic interest has the further consequence of dramatically slowing the pace of the film. Every scene feels slow and painfully drawn out due to this lack of pace. The actual technical quality of the audio is far better in this film than in most shorts but it's a great example of why technical audio quality is just one facet of good sound and without the other facets you've still got crap sound! The same goes for the film overall, great image resolution + crap sound = crap film. Shame, because in some respects the filmmakers and the film itself show promise, although I couldn't actually watch most of it (due to acute boredom!). It's certainly a monumental cock-up on the part of the producers.
BTW, much of the above is why location sound is so important; the dialogue performance automatically matches the visual performance, is automatically in sync and additionally boom mics are very good at capturing audio perspective, even without much conscious effort on the part of the boom op. Us re-recording mixers generally prefer the boom to lav isos specifically for this audio perspective reason, even though it's virtually always at least a bit noisier.
G
Too much sound design I think, is what's going on... half joke... heh heh... ok,... serious face. not funny.
I'm absolutely surprised none of you audio guys mentioned the apparent lack of noise reduction. At some points I can just hear the background hiss. Even in the apparently "dated" music, there should have been less of a hiss. The background noise is overpowering.
@soundslikejoe I personally have never come across good ADR at the amateur level. Maybe I missed the good ADRs because they were so good... who knows.
Also the baby crying at the 10:45 mark seems to be coming from the same room, when it's supposed to be from an adjacent room, and they corrected this at minute 16:15. This to me is a distinct sign that this is not a professional audio post person... so most of the 50K didn't really go into this elaborate sound design.
These are just the first impressions that I have.
Edit: Gorilla... how did you come across the series?
I'm absolutely surprised none of you audio guys mentioned the apparent lack of noise reduction. At some points I can just hear the background hiss. Even in the apparently "dated" music, there should have been less of a hiss. The background noise is overpowering.
@soundslikejoe I personally have never come across good ADR at the amateur level. Maybe I missed the good ADRs because they were so good... who knows.
Also the baby crying at the 10:45 mark seems to be coming from the same room, when it's supposed to be from an adjacent room, and they corrected this at minute 16:15. This to me is a distinct sign that this is not a professional audio post person... so most of the 50K didn't really go into this elaborate sound design.
These are just the first impressions that I have.
Edit: Gorilla... how did you come across the series?
Yesterday I filmed planning for ADR, no boom or anything.
It was definitely easier on set
but now I have to build a home ADR booth.
I couldn't find a suitable location that was far away enough from the road. And I couldn't expose properly unless it was in the middle of the day. So .. car noises all the time.
It was definitely easier on set
but now I have to build a home ADR booth.I couldn't find a suitable location that was far away enough from the road. And I couldn't expose properly unless it was in the middle of the day. So .. car noises all the time.
To be honest I didn't find it overpowering, although I did find it a bit annoying and obvious at times. BTW, it's not a noise reduction issue. There is no unwanted noise, the dialogue is close mic'ed ADR and therefore clean and as far as I can tell (in the bits I've listened to) there is absolutely no production sound in the mix so no hiss from there either. What they've done is added canned ambience, free hissy ones at a guess, and not EQ'ed them appropriately (or just about anything else for that matter!). The problem with the hiss is really a sound design issue, the reason the hiss is noticeable is because the mix is so bare, there's often nothing to disguise or distract you from it!
In all fairness, the OP asked why the sound was "so bad" (even relative to many no budget productions) and the amount of hiss is no worse than most no budget productions although, it is arguably more noticeable than average. There are a myriad of contributing errors but I stuck to the ones which had the most damaging affect overall on the storytelling. An average no budget (but serious) production uses a boom and picks up a fair amount of live ambience which includes a bunch of little, almost perceptible noises, unfortunately in addition to various unwanted intrusive noises but those little noises all add some life and pace to the mix. Getting rid of all of it (and not replacing it) just kills a mix stone dead and sooner rather than later, the film along with it! Without being able to compare it with a pro or even a good amateur (boomed) equivalent it's maybe difficult to imagine the difference or appreciate why it makes this film so bad, just that it does sound particularly "wrong".
It's almost unbelievable they had a $50k budget. To be honest it looks like they blew it all on an Alexa and then got a bunch of newbies to actually make the film. How could the producers not foresee this happening and apparently do nothing once they witnessed it? It's shocking but unfortunately not entirely surprising!
G
Okay so let's just look at two places
1: @5:18 there is a cut, and granted that we're cutting from outside the room to inside, but the change in sound is unnatural enough to make me think "what just happened?"
2. @6:20, it sounds like "production sound" to me, and there is a distinct "grey" noise that's different from ambient noise. that's the kind of noise that I think a viewer notices. It doesn't sound like it was added. It sounds like it was not removed.
I looked into them. They raised GBP 31,000 on Kickstarter. It's crazy. Is this guy famous in the UK or something? Why did so many people pay, with not even a youtube following.
Edit: and 3: And all the background chatter added @9:25 in the bar scene sounds too busy and not realistic.
But if you look at the bar scene in Birdman (and I know I'm not being fair, this is just for demonstrative purposes) the BG noise is really subtle, and I'd even say a little muffled, like the took out the high frequencies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d5KovCbU8w
1: @5:18 there is a cut, and granted that we're cutting from outside the room to inside, but the change in sound is unnatural enough to make me think "what just happened?"
2. @6:20, it sounds like "production sound" to me, and there is a distinct "grey" noise that's different from ambient noise. that's the kind of noise that I think a viewer notices. It doesn't sound like it was added. It sounds like it was not removed.
I looked into them. They raised GBP 31,000 on Kickstarter. It's crazy. Is this guy famous in the UK or something? Why did so many people pay, with not even a youtube following.
Edit: and 3: And all the background chatter added @9:25 in the bar scene sounds too busy and not realistic.
But if you look at the bar scene in Birdman (and I know I'm not being fair, this is just for demonstrative purposes) the BG noise is really subtle, and I'd even say a little muffled, like the took out the high frequencies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d5KovCbU8w
Last edited:
The lead actress - Virginia Hey - has an IMDB # of 2,385 - mostly it seems from a series called Farscape. It's not a show that I recognize but it ran for 4 seasons & she was on 50 episodes of it, so presumably she does have some sort of a fan base. I suspect that that was a big help in the fundraising.
That's really interesting. thx. she was in living daylights also.
I didn't think the sound is that bad actually. I mean even in hit movies like El Mariachi, or Paranormal Activity, they have worse sound.
I agree that the sound does not match the shot, and it sounds too close in shots where the characters are further away, but since most of the shots are close ups, you don't really notice that for most of it, it seems.
I agree that the sound does not match the shot, and it sounds too close in shots where the characters are further away, but since most of the shots are close ups, you don't really notice that for most of it, it seems.
At the most basic level (maybe?) the audio perspective shifts as the actors and camera moves within the scene, despite it being one single shot.
The same can not be said for the originally posted short/series/pilot/(whatever it is).
Isn't that standard procedure now? Spend the budget on the nicest camera they can find and then "figure the rest out in post"?
Oh dear!
Oh dear!!! What you're basically saying is that you can't tell the difference between extremes, the difference between incompetent newbies and world class pros! And, if that's not bad enough (!), the complete inability to contextualise your observations. On the remote chance you might actually learn something:
1. The available technology and what an audience finds acceptable today is quite different to nearly 25 years ago.
2. In the case of El Mariachi, what you are hearing is an attempt (by world class pros) to rescue a film shot MOS, in the context of a spaghetti western type aesthetic. In the case of PA, what you are hearing is world class pros creating a sound mix (illusion) to support the aesthetic of rank amateur "found footage".
3. With this short, the visuals imply a high production value "classy" style aesthetic but rather than supporting/complimenting this aesthetic style (as do the other examples you've given) the sound on this short does the exact opposite and completely contradicts it! In fact this short has no identifiable aural aesthetic style, it appears no one even thought about it, let alone actually designed an appropriate one!
In film, sound is a storytelling device and so good or bad film sound is defined SOLELY in these terms. This means one can encounter situations where (apparently) poor sound quality = good film sound and equally, good sound quality = poor film sound. Imagine, for example, Paranormal Activity with a pristine Hollywood blockbuster style mix (inc. big orchestral score) ... it would completely destroy the film! I wouldn't expect an average member of the general public to specifically notice/identify this huge mismatch in visual vs aural aesthetic styles but the vast majority would definitely notice the end result! As someone who actually makes films though, you absolutely need to be able to at least identify such fundamental flaws!!!
Fortunately no, it's not "standard procedure". It's not an uncommon mistake however, particularly amongst those amateurs who make films as an extension to their interest in photography. A less extreme imbalance between picture and sound is common though.
G
The title sequence is lovely, in my opinion.
I think APE has covered all the problems with the audio. I assume they just allocated their resources poorly and over-relied on ADR. Presumably they'll learn from these mistakes.
Hiring an Alexa for a web-series hosted on YouTube, does, however, seem mad to me. They could reduce their camera budget by 80% and be left with negligibly different visuals once compressed for YouTube.
I think APE has covered all the problems with the audio. I assume they just allocated their resources poorly and over-relied on ADR. Presumably they'll learn from these mistakes.
Hiring an Alexa for a web-series hosted on YouTube, does, however, seem mad to me. They could reduce their camera budget by 80% and be left with negligibly different visuals once compressed for YouTube.
Unfortunately a lovely title sequence doesn't mean anything in the context of a complete project. No one ever watched a movie and told all their friends...
"It has the most amazing title sequence. Everything else was mediocre, but you should really spend a couple hours of your life and just take in that title sequence."
That's the type of mentality of the amateur director/dp.... "the shot looks great" and it stays in the cut, despite the fact that it doesn't fit or flow with the story. I'm sure someone is thinking "well that's their artistic decision"
BS. Whatever was good or decent about this film was pissed away because they didn't take care of sound. I would never finish watching this, regardless of the look of the photography or the "good job" on the title sequence.
"It has the most amazing title sequence. Everything else was mediocre, but you should really spend a couple hours of your life and just take in that title sequence."
That's the type of mentality of the amateur director/dp.... "the shot looks great" and it stays in the cut, despite the fact that it doesn't fit or flow with the story. I'm sure someone is thinking "well that's their artistic decision"
BS. Whatever was good or decent about this film was pissed away because they didn't take care of sound. I would never finish watching this, regardless of the look of the photography or the "good job" on the title sequence.
She was also Mad Max's love interest in 'Mad Max Road Warrior.' I really rate her acting and you're right - this will help a lot.
It's one of those examples where it becomes unwatchable because of the sound. It's crazy. No idea how they could've let it get that way with $50000 USD to play with.
But I've learned a lot from their mistakes and the comments here. Genuinely very useful.
Huh? Title sequences are an art in themselves. You're right, they'll never compensate for a shitty film, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't recognise them in their own right.
The sound is a problem – though the problem is more than they had £50k and pissed it away (if they'd had £1k I doubt many people would be picking up the sound issues) – but that doesn't mean that they got it all wrong. If you're a creative involved in a collaborative project, you don't want people to go "this element is bad, ergo the every element in the entire project is bad". An audience might think that way, but this is a filmmaking forum and we're here to break down the process and look at things a bit less superficially.
EDIT: You might be interested in visiting http://artofthetitle.com to see how seriously people can take title sequences, even when they're from crap films.
Honestly, when I started watching it, in that hospital scene, I thought that it was voiceover narration - and very poor sound quality of voiceover narration at that.
Then, as the camera got closer, I realized - oh, he's actually supposed to be speaking these lines.
At this point, I am imagining that the reason this happened is they were using something like an actual hospital room in a functioning hospital or nursing home, and they had no control over the air conditioning, noise in the hallway, etc. They probably had limited availability in there and at the end of the day, the audio was just crap no matter what they had tried. They were forced to do ADR and just did a bad job.
Then, however, I see that the rest of the film is this weird ADR stuff as well.
By the way, as an "unfair" comparison (as Audio called his above) here is a hospital room scene that is similar in tone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzcD-riGHMY
Then, as the camera got closer, I realized - oh, he's actually supposed to be speaking these lines.
At this point, I am imagining that the reason this happened is they were using something like an actual hospital room in a functioning hospital or nursing home, and they had no control over the air conditioning, noise in the hallway, etc. They probably had limited availability in there and at the end of the day, the audio was just crap no matter what they had tried. They were forced to do ADR and just did a bad job.
Then, however, I see that the rest of the film is this weird ADR stuff as well.
By the way, as an "unfair" comparison (as Audio called his above) here is a hospital room scene that is similar in tone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzcD-riGHMY