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

audio leveling

Just wondering what you guys do or recommend in post to keep/have/make all your audio even and level? Programs, tips, tricks, and so on. I'm looking to "remaster" the audio from my first film/documentary and this is pretty much the only issue.
 
When it comes to people speaking (dialog, interviews, etc.) you manually adjust the volume syllable by syllable, word by word, phrase by phrase, line by line. If your audio is REALLY clean, and you REALLY know what you are doing you can use a compressor/limiter to "smooth it out" and give it a little more punch after you have gone through all of the manual adjustments.

Mixing sound-for-picture is NOT an easy gig. Leaving aside talent and skill, besides knowing WHAT to do you need the proper tools - an isolated, treated, balanced room and accurate speakers. You know, something like this:

skywalkersound.jpg
 
Disclaimer: I'm not an audio expert. In fact, i'm a complete audio noob.

I'm learning all this stuff for a film I'm editing right now, and thought I'd share.

If you're going to release on youtube, your peaks can go to -6db. Premiere might have a limit of -6.02 or something, but your youtube peaks can even go all the way up to zero ( I wouldn't go above -6db).

If you're going to level for broadcast, it depends on broadcaster specifications, and they seem to vary a lot between US and Europe. US broadcast peak levels are between -10dB to -12dB.

Go to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBFS (although on this site it says US peak is 0dBFS, lots of other sites suggest -10 to -12dBFS. It really should be broadcaster specific. Whatever they want is what you should provide.)

The dBFS values is what you're interested in. Whatever your NLE says is the dB, is the dBFS value you're looking for.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
As Alcove states, there really aren't any shortcuts as such, it's down to using your ears which of course also means decent audio monitoring system/environment.

If you're going to release on youtube, your peaks can go to -6db. Premiere might have a limit of -6.02 or something, but your youtube peaks can even go all the way up to zero ( I wouldn't go above -6db).

Youtube converts your audio into the AAC format which involves a resampling process. Without going into technical detail, it's wise to limit peaks no higher than -2dBFS.

If you're going to level for broadcast, it depends on broadcaster specifications, and they seem to vary a lot between US and Europe. US broadcast peak levels are between -10dB to -12dB.

Mmm, no! Not sure where you got this info but it's seriously outdated. North American and European broadcast specs are now more similar (though still not exactly the same) and neither specify -10dB or -12dB anymore.

although on this site it says US peak is 0dBFS, lots of other sites suggest -10 to -12dBFS. ... The dBFS values is what you're interested in. Whatever your NLE says is the dB, is the dBFS value you're looking for.

No, there's two serious problems with this advice:

1. dBFS is NOT the scale that North American or European broadcasters use anymore. In other words, the dBFS values provided by NLE's (and DAWs) are effectively useless as far as broadcast specs are concerned. BTW, this is NOT broadcaster specific, it is federal law (CALM Act 2010).

2. The dBFS scale in effect measures the amount of energy encoded in digital audio, not how loud it will sound. Therefore, two different lines of dialogue (or two different actors) could measure the same peak or average dBFS level but sound different volumes/loudness. In other words, dBFS levels cannot be used to level dialogue (or a mix in general).

If you need to hit broadcaster specs, you really need a commercial Re-recording Mixer. The OP does not say s/he needs to hit broadcaster specs though and Youtube, like many/most hosting platforms, effectively doesn't have any audio specs. So the OP can have whatever level s/he wants, although it's wise not to have any peaks higher than -2dBFS.

G
 
Last edited:
I used a program called Camstasia and it has a really nifty audio leveling feature. It's not perfect but it stops my super highs and super lows. But good advice going on in this thread!
 
I used a program called Camstasia and it has a really nifty audio leveling feature.

There are a few auto levelling tools out there. They tend to work by averaging out dBFS levels, essentially like the AGC feature in some cameras. I've never used Camtasia so I can't say for sure how it works or how well it works. I can't imagine it's better than some of the more professional audio levelling tools but even the professional levelling tools tend generally to be avoided by professionals!

You seem to be aware that your auto levelling feature is not ideal and is more of a "quick and dirty" solution aimed at presentations than a serious filmmaking tool. Depending on what features Camtasia contains, my advice would be to switch the auto levelling feature off and do it all manually, rather than to use it even as a starting point. This is because you might inadvertently find yourself in effect fighting whatever it is Camtasia is doing and ultimately reducing the quality of your dialogue.

G
 
Youtube converts your audio into the AAC format which involves a resampling process. Without going into technical detail, it's wise to limit peaks no higher than -2dBFS.

I am of course not well versed in the technical details, nor would I understand it, but from my readings on the internet, it seems that higher dBFS is recommended for youtube because a lot of youtube users watch on laptops, which might have bad speakers, and so some sites recommended higher dBFS. That's where my suggestion comes from.

Mmm, no! Not sure where you got this info but it's seriously outdated. North American and European broadcast specs are now more similar (though still not exactly the same) and neither specify -10dB or -12dB anymore.

I got this from tutorials. I'm just following what the tuts are suggesting. I'm not sure about how correct this is of course, and I personally feel your opinion is more reliable :)

No, there's two serious problems with this advice:

1. dBFS is NOT the scale that North American or European broadcasters use anymore. In other words, the dBFS values provided by NLE's (and DAWs) are effectively useless as far as broadcast specs are concerned. BTW, this is NOT broadcaster specific, it is federal law (CALM Act 2010).
According to wikipedia, the CALM act only restricts commercials from being louder than the programs on the station. It doesn't specify dBFS values for the station. I think that would still leave room for the stations to choose their own dBFS levels. Of course, I'm not sure of what I'm talking about. I read someone asking the audio leveling question as he was preparing his program and someone suggested asking individual broadcasters for their specifications, hence my conclusion.

2. The dBFS scale in effect measures the amount of energy encoded in digital audio, not how loud it will sound. Therefore, two different lines of dialogue (or two different actors) could measure the same peak or average dBFS level but sound different volumes/loudness. In other words, dBFS levels cannot be used to level dialogue (or a mix in general).

Hmmm. I have to do a little bit more reading on this, it would appear. My understanding from preliminary readings was that dBFS is the unit used because it is independent of device, as with analog devices the same energy levels would produce different dB levels. Since for NLEs and DAWs we're working digitally, I assumed that the dB values must be the dBFS values.

Also, I'm now confused that two separate audio peaks of the same dBFS level can have different volumes. Now I have to figure out what that means.

If you need to hit broadcaster specs, you really need a commercial Re-recording Mixer. The OP does not say s/he needs to hit broadcaster specs though and Youtube, like many/most hosting platforms, effectively doesn't have any audio specs. So the OP can have whatever level s/he wants, although it's wise not to have any peaks higher than -2dBFS.

G

By "a commercial Re-recording Mixer" do you mean an audio post house, or a piece of software or hardware?


On a side note, RX4 has a leveler that allows you to target RMS. I haven't used it yet. I'm still going through RX4. My 10 day trial is about to be over.


Thanks much!!

@underthegun
What software are you using to do your audio post work? I hope it's not Camtasia? Good thread though. I was about to start this same thread in about two weeks.
 
Also, I'm now confused that two separate audio peaks of the same dBFS level can have different volumes. Now I have to figure out what that means.

I'll start with this point because some of the other points I'll address only make sense if you first understand this one: You are confusing how much energy is contained in a sound/mix/waveform with how loud it sounds. The energy contained in a digital audio recording (dBFS) would only be the same as how loud it sounds if the human hearing response were linear, which it is not! Of course, our hearing response appears linear to us because obviously we're accustomed to it and we have nothing else to compare it to. But, compare it with dB measurements and the disparity is blatantly obvious. There's a very quick and simple test you can do: Your NLE might have a built in signal generator or you can find one online. Set the generator to "sine wave", a frequency of 2.5kHz - 3kHz and adjust the volume on your laptop to a moderately quiet, comfortable listening level, use headphones/earphones if you have them. Leave the level (dBFS value) unchanged but change the frequency to 8kHz, then back to 2.5kHz, comparing how loud they sound. Now compare 12kHz and 16kHz to 2.5kHz and then try comparing 300Hz, 100Hz and 40Hz to 2.5kHz. Even though the dBFS value never changes, the loudness/volume does, drastically at some frequencies. Now you've experienced it for yourself, we can move on to the other points, noting where/how I use the term "loudness" as opposed to "dBFS".

[1.] According to wikipedia, the CALM act only restricts commercials from being louder than the programs on the station. [2.] It doesn't specify dBFS values for the station. I think that would still leave room for the stations to choose their own dBFS levels.

1. For the loudness of commercials not to exceed the loudness of the programs, we obviously have to know how loud the programs are. Both the programs and commercials therefore have to be limited to the same loudness.

2. The CALM Act requires all broadcasters to adhere to the specifications detailed in the ATSC's A/85 document (the equivalent in Europe is the EBU's R128 specs). This means that all programming (programs, adverts, interstitials, idents, etc.) of all broadcasters have to adhere to the specs and have the same loudness measurements. Neither the A/85 nor the R128 use or define dBFS levels in the specs, because dBFS levels do not measure loudness. Both average and peak levels are now specified and new scales are used for both (LKFS or LUFS for averages and dBTP for peak measurement). dBFS values are now irrelevant as far as broadcast specs are concerned. European and North American broadcast specs are more similar than they were previously because both the ATSC and EBU specs are based on the same International Telecommunications Union recommendations (ITU BS. 1770).

My understanding from preliminary readings was that dBFS is the unit used because it is independent of device, as with analog devices the same energy levels would produce different dB levels. Since for NLEs and DAWs we're working digitally, I assumed that the dB values must be the dBFS values.

The dB levels indicated by NLE's and DAW's are dBFS values, usually peak dBFS levels. dBFS values are independent of device but again, dBFS just indicates the energy (signal amplitude) encoded in the digital audio data, not it's loudness. Additionally of course, you have to output digital audio to analogue devices to be able to listen to it (DAC's, amps and speakers/headphones), so there is still no direct correlation between dBFS and dBSPL (Sound Pressure Level, the actual amount of energy in the physical soundwaves produced by speakers/headphones).

... from my readings on the internet, it seems that higher dBFS is recommended for youtube because a lot of youtube users watch on laptops, which might have bad speakers, and so some sites recommended higher dBFS. That's where my suggestion comes from.

In theory/principle I agree but what you're stating is largely meaningless because TV is not measured in peak dBFS. If we stick with just the dBFS scale, it would be trivially easy to create a mix with peaks no higher than -6dBFS which sounds louder than a broadcast spec mix with peaks at say -3dBFS. Youtube contains all sorts of content, from commercial music mixes at one extreme to theatrical mixes at the other and while the dBFS peaks maybe very similar between these two extremes, the average commercial pop track is going to sound many times louder than the average theatrical mix (roughly the equivalent of 20-30dB difference).

By "a commercial Re-recording Mixer" do you mean an audio post house, or a piece of software or hardware?

I meant the role of Re-recording Mixer/Engineer, the person. When we start getting into the guts of station/network delivery requirements, specs and loudness, the whole thing turns into a bit of a rabbit hole. A decent knowledge of all the issues is required, or at the least a good understanding of the implications and how to apply them in practice, and you're only likely to find this in someone who works to commercial standards day in, day out.

At the amateur level you can simply pick something on Youtube you think sounds a decent volume and make your mix to sound roughly the same volume. Likewise, you can do the same thing with a TV broadcast for use at a low tier film festival. Get to the high tier festival level, theatrical distribution or TV/Cable broadcast and it's a completely different ball game which requires knowledge, experience and the right equipment/facilities, all of which is well beyond the resources of even the more talented/dedicated amateurs. Most, even amongst experienced amateur filmmakers, either do not know that the ball game changes or fail to appreciate how much it changes and this leads to considerable disappointment when submitting to higher tier festivals and/or looking for commercial distribution/broadcast. In other words, the more conscientious amateurs tend to study/look at the sound mixes in commercial films/programmes and try to get as near as they can to that ball park, without realising there are a bunch of technical requirements (which MUST be met) which makes the whole audio recording/mixing process far more complex and difficult to start with.

On a side note, RX4 has a leveler that allows you to target RMS.

The leveller in RX4 is about as sophisticated as they come but it's still effectively a "quick and dirty" solution and can end up causing more work than just doing it manually in the first place. It can be a useful tool but it's still just a tool, not a complete solution.

G
 
Thank you APE. Thank you for all that information, specially for that loudness tutorial. I tried to read up yesterday on what "loudness" was, but I liked your example with the frequencies better. The only thing I got yesterday was that if RMS was higher, things feel more loud.

I really am trying to be a "conscientious amateur" with my current film. My budget does not allow for any further paid professionals, or else I'd get one for my audio post.

I just want to mention one thing. I've made a few shorts, and my first movie where I didn't know what the hell I was doing, was a feature. I paid attention to audio, but not really, in the sense that I thought I was paying attention to audio, but I really wasn't. What I mean by that is this. When you're making a movie, people tell you, "Audio is very important, you should purchase good equipment." So you buy half decent (or probably worse) equipment and think you've mitigated the problem to an acceptable level and you move on. That's what I have been doing.

On this film, I didn't do that. I paid more attention to audio than to anything else. I gave complete authority to the audio person to stop a take, or call a cut or a "back to ones" if something went wrong, during the shoot. And since the shoot, I've spent more time trying to figure out the NLE / DAW workflow and to understand what is possible in the DAW, than I've spent actually editing so far.

I'm trying. But you say that there are specs that MUST be met, and I'm wondering if you mean for minimum technical requirement reasons or for 'perfection' reasons. Because after starting this project, it seems to me that most filmmakers cannot possibly have any idea about sound and what goes into it. I had simply no idea before this project, and I'm barely scratching the surface. I just can't believe that all these filmmakers sending their films to festivals and the short films being played on public tv stations are all meeting audio requirements by themselves. It's just too much work. There has to be some space between perfection and minimal technical requirements that allow for features and shorts to be "acceptable." Otherwise it means that every filmmaker with an accepted film has paid attention to the sound mix to the level of a professional, and that seems unbelievable to me. It's just too much work for the average filmmaker. And I've met quite a few. They're still talking about lenses and facebook marketing. Pluraleyes or Audition is about as far into "audio" as they will venture into a discussion. Most have no idea what to do with an AAF or OMF file. But these same people have films accepted at festivals. So what I'm suggesting is that there has to be a gap between minimum technical requirements and the levels that require a professional Re-recording Engineer. There has to be a gap there that I can achieve, with enough conscientious attention, where I can avoid hiring the professional. Because I simply can't afford it.

Anyway, like you suggested before, I'll post a few clips in a couple of weeks for your inspection and for any suggestions on how to improve them.

And I wanted to say that I truly appreciate the time, APE and Alcove. Those earlier posts by APE about how to think about sound design and how to approach audio post, really helped me set my frame of mind as I approached audio for this project. I am truly grateful.

Best,
Aveek
 
Last edited:
I gave complete authority to the audio person to stop a take, or call a cut or a "back to ones" if something went wrong, during the shoot. And since the shoot, I've spent more time trying to figure out the NLE / DAW workflow and to understand what is possible in the DAW, than I've spent actually editing so far.

I'm not sure if you've maybe gone a little too far ... and I never thought I'd say that! For example, I'm not sure I'd always give the production sound mixer the power to call "cut" but it would depend on the situation. As the Director you have to balance the different factors which give you the best chance of making the best film you can with your resources. Having a PSM calling "cut" might disrupt the actors' concentration/flow for example, the end result might be a good audio recording of a poor performance, hardly ideal. Always plan for a safety take and allow the PSM to request an additional take if s/he thinks you don't have coverage, that should be sufficient. Alcove and I bang on quite forcefully about getting good production sound because most seriously undervalue it's importance and the consequences. You no longer seem to be in that category of filmmaker though and I'd be the first to recommend a "balance". Everyone wants to end up with the best film possible, for me personally that doesn't mean a mediocre film with great sound, just as it doesn't mean a film which looks great and sounds poor, it's getting an appropriate balance which will result in the best film for one's resources. Few amateur filmmakers achieve that balance though, it's not easy, it requires considerable experience and planning, and most have specific areas of interest which end up consuming more than their fair share of resources (time, effort and money).

I'm trying. But you say that there are specs that MUST be met, and I'm wondering if you mean for minimum technical requirement reasons or for 'perfection' reasons.

No, purely for technical reasons and in the case of the USA and Canada for technical and legal reasons, as the specs are a legal requirement! There are only two ways for broadcasters to comply with this law, either they 1. Only accept programs for broadcast which have been made/manufactured to comply with the specs or 2. Accept programs which do not meet the specs and force compliance in the broadcast output chain, using broadcast limiters, auto gain controllers, etc. The networks, universally as far as I'm aware, take option #1, any program which doesn't meet the specs is simply rejected on ingest. Regional TV stations may take either approach but the smaller local TV stations tend towards option #2. The problem for the filmmaker with option #2 is that you never really know what your mix is going to sound like, the equipment forcing compliance might have an unnoticeable effect, if it doesn't have to work too hard or it could make your audio mix sound like the work of a newbie.

BTW, none of this has anything to do with aesthetics, how good a mix sounds or "perfection reasons" as you put it. It's perfectly possible to create a mix which meets the tech specs but sounds crap, but then it would get rejected for sounding crap rather than because it's not compliant with tech requirements! :)

I just can't believe that all these filmmakers sending their films to festivals and the short films being played on public tv stations are all meeting audio requirements by themselves. It's just too much work.

The low tier film festivals and even many of the mid tier ones have few, if any, specs to meet, like say Youtube. So at this amateur level it's something that's just not an issue. Go to a few low tier film festivals and listen for yourself; levels are all over the place and audio disasters are common but everyone knows (including the audience) that it's amateur filmmaking and expects that kind of thing. Additionally, at the lower tier festival level the audience is mainly composed of the amateur filmmakers themselves and their friends/families and cast/crew who are going to be the most forgiving/tolerant audiences you'll ever find! However, ask that same audience to pay to watch that (unrelated) film outside of an amateur film festival context and there's going to be a lot of irate people demanding their money back or simply not going in the first place. The lower tier festivals are effectively not film festivals but amateur video festivals where amateurs can get to see the fruits of their labour on the big screen. None of this is applicable to the high tier festivals though because they are true "film" festivals, are aimed more at professional than at amateur filmmakers and will expect/demand compliance with commercial film tech specs.

BTW, as far as audio specs are concerned, do not confuse broadcast specs with theatrical specs, they're not related!

So what I'm suggesting is that there has to be a gap between minimum technical requirements and the levels that require a professional Re-recording Engineer.

No, there really isn't. Minimum technical requirements are just that, the "minimum", go below that minimum and you're not allowed into the game. However, in practice there is a gap where you don't need a pro Re-recording Engineer because the low tier film festivals essentially don't have any tech specs or, have minimum specs which are so low that pretty much any amateur could meet them almost by accident! The same is in effect true for Youtube and similar platforms and even the more discerning hosting platforms like iTunes have relatively minimal audio specs which the conscientious amateur would probably be able to hit without the need for a pro Re-recording Engineer.

For low tier film festivals my advice previously ("At the amateur level you can simply pick something on Youtube you think sounds a decent volume and make your mix to sound roughly the same volume. Likewise, you can do the same thing with a TV broadcast for use at a low tier film festival") will not get you near actual theatrical audio specs but it will get you closer than the majority of other filmmakers.

The problem (the need for a pro Re-recording Engineer) only arises when looking towards the next step; high tier festivals, commercial theatrical distribution or TV broadcast (with the exception of the very small local/public access stations). And that's when most experienced amateurs run into a brick wall because they expect basically the same ball game just with a higher level of competition, whereas in reality it's actually a different ball game!

BTW, we've only discussed tech specs, the full compliment of required audio deliverables is also a difficult/costly challenge for the low budget filmmaker.

G
 
Last edited:
Missed this point:

The only thing I got yesterday was that if RMS was higher, things feel more loud.

That's true but again only in context of frequency content and our ears' non-linear response to different frequencies. Take a 60Hz sine wave at -20dBFS (RMS) raise it by 3dB (to -17dBFS RMS), it will sound louder. Raise any sound by 3dBFS and it will always sound louder. However, that raised 60Hz sine wave (at -17dBFS RMS) will still not sound as loud as a 2.5kHz sine wave at -20dBFS (RMS)!

G
 
I'm not sure if you've maybe gone a little too far ... and I never thought I'd say that!
G

Haha! I was exaggerating a little. What actually happened was I made him understand that audio was of paramount interest to me and that I depended on him to make sure it was okay. So if something went wrong, he would just find my eyes, and I would stop things, and then he would explain to me what was happening and if we should wait or if we could continue. He was very, very professional.
 
Just wondering what you guys do or recommend in post to keep/have/make all your audio even and level? Programs, tips, tricks, and so on. I'm looking to "remaster" the audio from my first film/documentary and this is pretty much the only issue.

I have a really simple setup which is extremely effective. My workflow is:

1. Put the speech bit in at -6db
2. Add in a load of foley from my library or wherever I can get it.
3. Get Mike McGuill to compose some awesome music
4. Mix it all together, personally until I like it.
5. Give it to an audio professional to sort out the mess.

Last time I did this, the theatrical sound held up well next to other shorts.
 
One more question: Should I leave the gain adjustments alone while I'm editing, and wait until I take my audio into the DAW at the end, or is it okay to adjust now and finalize later? thx.
 
One more question: Should I leave the gain adjustments alone while I'm editing, and wait until I take my audio into the DAW at the end, or is it okay to adjust now and finalize later? thx.

That depends on your workflow. The usual professional workflow would be for the Pic Editor to make all the adjustments, make a temp mix and then export the whole thing as an AAF + a MOV file (which contains the temp mix). When I import the AAF I have the option of ignoring all the Pic Editor's gain adjustments and starting from scratch, which is what I usually do. In your case, this workflow might not make much sense if you're the Pic Editor, audio post person, director and producer because it basically means going through the levelling/mixing process twice, potentially wasting time and effort. So, depending on the software you're using, how comfortable you are with the software and how you like to edit, you can use either a conventional pro workflow or develop a workflow more suited to your own preferred way of working.

G
 
There are a few auto levelling tools out there. They tend to work by averaging out dBFS levels, essentially like the AGC feature in some cameras. I've never used Camtasia so I can't say for sure how it works or how well it works. I can't imagine it's better than some of the more professional audio levelling tools but even the professional levelling tools tend generally to be avoided by professionals!

You seem to be aware that your auto levelling feature is not ideal and is more of a "quick and dirty" solution aimed at presentations than a serious filmmaking tool. Depending on what features Camtasia contains, my advice would be to switch the auto levelling feature off and do it all manually, rather than to use it even as a starting point. This is because you might inadvertently find yourself in effect fighting whatever it is Camtasia is doing and ultimately reducing the quality of your dialogue.

G

Totally understandable. I guess I should have included that this is, more so, for outside the professional field. That is, too, to say and assume that professional tools are going to be quite expensive and outside of a budget.

I have a really simple setup which is extremely effective. My workflow is:

1. Put the speech bit in at -6db
2. Add in a load of foley from my library or wherever I can get it.
3. Get Mike McGuill to compose some awesome music
4. Mix it all together, personally until I like it.
5. Give it to an audio professional to sort out the mess.

Last time I did this, the theatrical sound held up well next to other shorts.

I have some idea of what's being discussed in this thread but it's obvious that I would have to dive well into the field of audio alone to get something I'd consider good (better than what I can do). With this, I'm thinking outsourcing may be needed for my audio needs. Yay nay?
 
Last edited:
Totally understandable. I guess I should have included that this is, more so, for outside the professional field. That is, too, to say and assume that professional tools are going to be quite expensive and outside of a budget.

Using your ear is FREE! Some great tools are mentioned here, and years are spent training to become an audio professional; having either will definitely increase your budget. But honestly, if you want the best advice (doing what an audio professional would do), the best thing is just to listen to your whole project and make adjustments from beginning to end. You can do a lot with very little. Your two main tools should be a compressor and an EQ; both of which usually come with any DAW. If you want a DIY approach to sound, knowing the in's and out's of a compressor and EQ is necessary!!

With that being said, leveling tools can be very helpful. Coming from the world of gaming, I have worked on projects with over 90 thousand lines of dialogue, leveling tools and good batch processing techniques become quite necessary. From what I have found, it is important to make sure you realize that not everything should be auto-leveled the same way. A whisper and yell, for instance, should be treated very differently and levelers will not handle these cases very well. However, if you have a narrator who has consistent emotion, than auto-leveling will come in quite handy! It is important to pick the right tool for the right application.

I like hearing filmmakers do their own sound. Like Nike says, "Just do it!". But in the end, you get out of your feature what you put in. If you don't budget for audio post (either with TIME or money), than then you get like APE mentioned, a very unbalanced feature. Audio is 50% of sensory input for experiencing films. Treat it as such, 50% of your film!!
 
I have some idea of what's being discussed in this thread but it's obvious that I would have to dive well into the field of audio alone to get something I'd consider good (better than what I can do). With this, I'm thinking outsourcing may be needed for my audio needs. Yay nay?

I didn't notice and therefore didn't respond to your question, apologies.

At the professional/commercial level the audio needs are ALWAYS outsourced. I only know of two exceptions to this rule, both are/were at the very highest filmmaking level and are due to the fact that they (Lucas and Jackson) started up their own commercial audio post companies. They still don't/didn't physically do their own audio though, the employees of their audio post facilities do/did. This "rule" is also usually (though not exclusively) the case at the higher amateur filmmaking level, when the goal is a more professional appearing film suitable for the mid to high tier film festivals.

At the lower amateur and no budget levels the decision becomes a little more complicated. Who are you going to outsource to who can do a better job than you? That depends on how much time and effort you are willing to commit to improving you own knowledge/capabilities vs how much knowledge/experience/skill you are likely to find in someone who is effectively investing in your film by charging nothing, just expenses or an unsupportable hourly rate, effectively in return for improving their own experience? The first part of this equation is something only you can answer.

While I agree with Bob_at_RSound that "using your ears is free", what goes into your ears in the first place and therefore what affects all your decisions isn't! By this I mean the speakers/listening environment. While this issue might not be the most crucial at the amateur Youtube level, it becomes more of a concern as one moves up through the ranks and at the commercial level can cost millions to address.

G
 
Back
Top