I use FCPX and while I'm in editing my bass lows and sound effects the levels are just perfect and i love it, THEN i share it to a master file and upon watching it my speakers are almost about to blow. It just sounds very loud and the levels are as if i never leveled them. Anyone know why this happens? and while editing should i edit with my volume on computer and speakers at half, full or what?
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
FX much louder after shared to master file, WHY?
- Thread starter RoJo
- Start date
As I understand it, you are creating/editing your sound effects in one file, and then exporting the results to another (master) file. Are you remixing the sound effects in with the dialog, etc. after you import them into the master file?
I have a similar process; I create/edit sound effects, perform/edit Foley and edit dialog in separate sessions. However, I don't do large amounts of processing (with the exception of some sound effects) in those sessions, and only very basic volume automation. The results of those sessions are imported into a master project session - again, only basic volume automation and here I do some basic EQ.
I do not do anything detailed until I do the final mix. Dialog, Foley and sound effects are sometimes volume and EQ automated syllable-by-syllable or footstep-by-footstep (or smaller!). I record the master mix in real time; I do not trust other methods.
You should really be using a dedicated DAW for your audio.
Oh, what is your audio monitoring situation - audio interface, speakers, room, etc.?
I have a similar process; I create/edit sound effects, perform/edit Foley and edit dialog in separate sessions. However, I don't do large amounts of processing (with the exception of some sound effects) in those sessions, and only very basic volume automation. The results of those sessions are imported into a master project session - again, only basic volume automation and here I do some basic EQ.
I do not do anything detailed until I do the final mix. Dialog, Foley and sound effects are sometimes volume and EQ automated syllable-by-syllable or footstep-by-footstep (or smaller!). I record the master mix in real time; I do not trust other methods.
You should really be using a dedicated DAW for your audio.
Oh, what is your audio monitoring situation - audio interface, speakers, room, etc.?
I get tripped up on this one on occasion.
The trick is to figure out a consistent output setting for your editing computer system, both on speakers AND headphones, then work your audio tinkering from there.
I know when I listen to most things broadcast on the internet that my computer's volume needs to be set on max and my $50 out-of-the-box 3" speakers need to be dialed to point X.
However, when I listen to most things with my headphones plugged in I gotta dial the computer's volume down to 6 - 12%.
So, when I start editing audio using speakers I gotta run the computer's volume back up to max + set my speakers to point X, and THEN start editing at that point, (hopefully without above normal inside/outside noises going on.)
Where I often get into trouble is when I'm editing audio mainly by headphones (often late at night when everyone else in the house is trying to sleep) with the computer's output dialed down to 8% - then when I goto play it the next day on the speakers everything's FUBAR. Okay, maybe not FUBAR, but certainly not where I wanted it.
You kinda gotta listen to things on both speakers AND headphones before settling on something as being "Done."
And this is just for youtube-like products.
I've yet to get to any festival 3.0 quality audio demands, but the simple stuff isn't always just Humpty-Dump simple.
GL.
EDIT: I forgot to include, for your rinky-dink table top speakers (FWIW, even by my self-acknowledged lowly standards I wouldn't even consider lap top speakers) you gotta make sure you always turn them facing your "90% of the time sitting position" at your monitor.
Not facing 90° from your monitor aimed to the left and right of your ears.
But at your head.
You're looking to develop a consistent system. An acoustic situation that you can replicate... consistently.
No leaning back in your chair.
No L/R listening with one of the speakers "accidentally" knocked facing 90° from the monitor.
Basically you want a triangle: screen in front, you 90° ahead of that, your nose pretty much within the same 4" space as it usually is, and your two rinky-dink speakers aimed at your nose or ears "pouring" sound into your head - not beside it, not on the wall, not beside you.
Two speakers. Pouring sound into your head.
Each.
And.
Every.
Single.
Time.
Make it your routine for audio editing.
Consistency.
Just like when you shoot video: you check for L/R screen level (usually), your white balance, your focus, your zoom, your resolution, FPS, & aperture. Shutter speed might be gravy.
When you're audio editing: you check your computer's output, adjust the speaker volume, aim your speakers, sit in the same place, and don't move around much.
APE brings a spot on point of acoustics, and why I favor audio editing on a desk top to lap top computer.
Most of us leave our desk top computers in a fixed location. Ideally it's in some acoustically sensible location (preferably symmetrical). With enough usage you'll develop a good sense of how the noise bounces around. Sure, headphones seem like a sensible work around, but they just don't work out as good in my experience. My levels produced on headphones too often come back AFU when played back on my speakers where I know I can put out some pretty consistent levels.
Lap tops, however, tend to be pretty darn portable, which means the acoustic space you're TRYING to edit in (already compromised by the cr@ppy little speakers lap tops come with) changes constantly. To boot, the lap top speakers probably aren't aimed at your head anyway. God only knows how much "acoustic resolution" you're missing.
So... back to the headphones as a work around and: FUBAR city al over again. Nice.
I'll take a stab at this one: It's really two different volumes, A) where you naturally WANT to listen to it, and B) just a little bit louder than comfortable.
Yeah, for the final playback "proof" you'll want to listen to it at a normal comfortable level. Fine.
But for editing you wanna pick out all the tiny little nit-picky things that you'll only hear about 10dBs too loud. It should be irritating, short of annoying, but above pleasant.
Edit and filter with your speakers turned up juuuuust a little too loud.
Self-critique @ juuuuust a little too loud.
Play back for proof at normal volume.
Oh, and I'd quit trying to do audio editing on a video editing program.
Just like DSLRs and camcorders do a fine job at video and a meh job at recording audio, a NLE (pretty much all of them) does a fine job of editing video but not so great at editing audio.
Download Audacity for free and edit your audio there then lay in the WAV soundtrack into your NLE.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/
Last edited:
Yes, I know exactly why it happens but a simple explanation would need to be so dumbed-down as to be virtually useless but I'll try and keep it as simple as possible. As Ray implied, volume and loudness appear on the face of it to be very simple concepts because it's second nature and we can judge loudness effortlessly most of the time. But, appearances can be deceptive, under the hood what's going on in reality is actually quite complex. In our normal lives we don't need to know what goes on "under the hood" but if you're serious about making films, your films include any audio content and you are DIY'ing the audio yourself then you have to take these audio considerations just as seriously as the other aspects of your filmmaking!
What you are talking about is "monitor calibration" and is absolutely something which all serious DIY indie filmmakers need to know about but almost none do. This is not much of a problem for those making home videos of their cat to post on Youtube but becomes more of a problem for those trying to make films/content which the filmmakers want to be taken seriously and becomes an exceedingly serious problem for those who want to make films/content for professional distribution/broadcast or to screen in a professional venue (say in a cinema at one of the better festivals).
At it's simplest, monitor calibration involves three main areas: 1. Loudness, 2. Various level reference points and 3. The conversion of digital audio data into speaker power output.
1. Loudness: This is a complex area because loudness is not a single simple measurement but a perception. Because it's a complex area (psychoacoustics) I won't go into it much, except to mention that as you listen to audio at higher levels it doesn't just sound louder, the actual balance changes. The louder you play back a mix, the more bass heavy the mix will appear to become. It is this phenomena which explains why your bass sounded just right when you mixed it but sounded completely unbalanced when you played it back at a significantly different level.
2. To help avoid the problem above, of a mix sounding completely unbalanced at significantly different playback levels, the audio industry uses 3 main reference points: theatrical standard, TV broadcast standards and music industry standard. The music industry isn't really a standard as such, more like a tendency towards getting peak and average levels as close to the absolute technical limit of digital audio as possible. There isn't an actual standard for DVD/BluRay film releases either and so they can be a bit all over the place but in practise commercial releases are usually somewhere around the TV broadcast standard. BTW, we are NOT talking about some small inconsequential differences in professional standards here, the differences are a massive!! A commercial music mix for example is likely to contain 20 - 30 times more physical energy (voltage output) than the average commercial theatrical mix. The TV broadcast standard falls very roughly between these two. On Youtube you get all kinds of content; commercial music mixes, TV broadcast standard mixes and pretty much any level from indie film and home video makers (although they often tend towards the music standard), very few theatrical standard mixes seem to exist on Youtube though.
3. The last main variable is your speakers and their amplifier and of course these all vary tremendously. Sit 10ft away from a large set of commercial monitors/amplifier in your editing room with the volume set at half and it could be so loud that you cause yourself pain, set your laptop speakers to half volume, sit 10ft away and the same mix could be almost inaudible. In other words, without knowing what audio level standard you are aiming for, what speaker/amplifier combo you are using or in what physical location you are using them, there is absolutely no way of advising you of even a ball park position of where the volume knob of your system should be set.
So, the first thing you have to know is which standard you are mixing for? Do you need to be in the ball park of whichever standard you are working towards or do you need to hit it accurately for commercial or expectational purposes?
G
Last edited:
No Ray, that's less than half the equation! It completely ignores the massive differences I mentioned in point 2 of my previous post. The position of the volume knob of "where you naturally want to listen to it" is going to vary massively depending on which standard has been used to create the mix in the first place. Set your volume knob at a comfortable level for a theatrical mix and then play a piece of commercial pop music and you will blow your head off, blow your speakers out or both!! Even the difference between TV broadcast levels and commercial music will make a very significant difference to where your volume knob needs to be set to be at a comfortable level.
So, it's not just the level at which you set your amplifier/speakers but the level of the mix which you output to your amplifier in the first place. In other words, you can make a quiet mix with your speaker volume turned up high or a loud mix with your speaker volume turned down low, both will sound the same volume but produce radically different mixes! Without knowing (at least roughly) the mix level standard you are listening to (or working towards), the volume setting of your speakers is pretty much completely arbitrary.
Unfortunately, that's a bit of an oxymoron! Placing your speakers on (or right next to) a desk top is one of the worst places you can put them acoustically, as the desk top itself will act as a major reflective surface. The problem isn't really about getting used to how the sound bounces around. It's about how the reflections of the sound interact with the direct sound coming from the speakers. This interaction will cause huge variations in the frequency response your speakers appear to be producing. Differences of 30dB between different frequencies are not at all uncommon and it would be extremely unlikely in an untreated room for there not to be at least 5 or 6 different frequency ranges which vary by at least 12dB. There is no way to eliminate these huge variations by getting used to the way the sound bounces around and these problem frequencies often change dramatically with just tiny variations of the acoustic conditions. Consistency is good but again is only part of the equation. I would think variable quality mixes would be better than consistently bad ones for example. So a consistent monitoring environment is not of so much benefit if it's a bad acoustic environment to start with!
G
Last edited:
No Ray, that's less than half the equation! It completely ignores the massive differences I mentioned in point 2 of my previous post...
No, I didn't ignore it.
There are no directions for the OP or anyone to actually do anything in point 2.
I'm not providing directions for making silk purses out of sow's ears.
I'm providing directions for making gross, disgusting wallets out of sow's ears.
Garbage In Garbage Out vs. (left to their own devices) Garbage In Horrible Useless Trash Out.
So, it's not just the level at which you set your amplifier/speakers but the level of the mix which you output to your amplifier in the first place. In other words, you can make a quiet mix with your speaker volume turned up high or a loud mix with your speaker volume turned down low, both will sound the same volume but produce radically different mixes! Without knowing (at least roughly) the mix level standard you are listening to (or working towards), the volume setting of your speakers is pretty much completely arbitrary.
Right. It's not just the level at which the speakers are set.
In order to put out a consistent product the speakers NEED to be set at a consistent level - THEN - have a mix mixed using those levels.
By definition it's a two part process: Speakers/Monitors + Mix. One. Two.
I'm bringing an AWARENESS of the variables likely to trip up a rookie DIY filmmaker, like "always set your computer output to X - BEFORE - set your speakers to Y - BEFORE - setting your mix volume levels."
ReUnfortunately, that's a bit of an oxymoron! Placing your speakers on (or right next to) a desk top is one of the worst places you can put them acoustically, as the desk top itself will act as a major reflective surface. Tells me "it's bad", but provides no actionable alternative. The problem isn't really about getting used to how the sound bounces around. It's about how the reflections of the sound interact with the direct sound coming from the speakers. You're the expert, I'm a novice. But common sense tells me that mixing with speakers in variable locations in variable spaces is going to produce variable outcomes when I (attempt) to mix my audio. We might as well toss in there variable computer volume output + variable speaker volume to make the example as FUBAR as possible. Maybe we can have earbuds in playing Def Leppard while the household dogs bark at the parrot squawking at the kids fighting, too!This interaction will cause huge variations in the frequency response your speakers appear to be producing. Agreed Differences of 30dB between different frequencies are not at all uncommon and it would be extremely unlikely in an untreated room for there not to be at least 5 or 6 different frequency ranges which vary by at least 12dB. Agreed, but almost no one has a treated room. I'm addressing practical solutions to realistic scenarios There is no way to eliminate these huge variations by getting used to the way the sound bounces around and these problem frequencies often change dramatically with just tiny variations of the acoustic conditions. Right, elimination is impossible, amelioration by changing the environment is possible. Consistency is good but again is only part of the equation. Consistency in a static & symmetrical environment; as opposed to consistent in a static asymmetrical environment or consistent in a dynamic asymmetrical environment. I would think variable quality mixes would be better than consistently bad ones for example. That's a given bordering on argumentative. So a consistent monitoring environment is not of so much benefit if it's a bad acoustic environment to start with! Which is what I'm guessing a lot of rookie DIY filmmakers aren't aware of what they're working with and EXACTLY why I'm bringing these issues to their attention.
Please provide a sensible alternative 98% of DIY filmmakers are likely to obtain.
My five bucks/pounds wagers 98% of the out-of-the-box 3" cr@ppy speakers (not monitors) sold with computers are placed somewhat symmetrically L/R of the monitor on a flat tabletop.
That's the arrangement the overwhelming majority of desktop users are listening to.
I have no idea what room space they're listening to them in, but I'll wager another five bucks/pounds it isn't in an acoustically treated room.
Likely, it's in a home office-like space involving bedrooms, living rooms, basements, armoires, desks, and table tops surrounded by latex painted drywall with carpet floors and flat/popcorn ceilings.
(Sound about right, ITers?)
Therefore, the sensible thing to do is to replicate that "standard" and mix accordingly to what they're going to hear.
The number of DIY filmmakers that will EVER have their shorts and $/£8,000 features ever shown in a proper theater with Dolby registered speakers is minuscule.
The number of DIY filmmakers that will have their shorts and $/£8,000 features broadcast over the internet and listened to with cr@ppy 3" speakers is tremendous.
The greatest number of people will benefit from... what advice or guidance given here?
How can we help the most number of people?
What you're saying sounds sensible in theory, in practice it's not though, because you are labouring under the false impression that as "home office-like spaces" are similar in appearance (size and furnishings) they are also similar in acoustic response and therefore represents some sort of loose "standard" which can be emulated. In practice though the acoustic similarities are going to be extremely generalized, so much so that trying to emulate this "standard" is completely unworkable and far more likely to result in a poor or unlistenable mix! We can make some generalizations, for example a home office like space is always going to have serious acoustic problems because they are generally built in a cuboid shape, which is the worst possible shape acoustically. The average home office-like space is packed with hard parallel surfaces (walls, floor, ceiling) and it's these which cause the vast majority of the most serious problems. So all we can say is that there will be serious problems but the reason why your theory doesn't work in practice is because even in two different rooms which appear almost identical, how many serious problems they exhibit and where in the frequency spectrum they occur will vary hugely.
Let's say you make a mix in your bedroom and one of the problems in your particular bedroom is a 12dB phase cancellation (loss) in a frequency range centered around 100Hz. 12dB is quite conservative by the way, it could be 5-10 times worse than 12dB and in some cases it could literally be infinitely worse! Your mix is going to sound like it doesn't have much bass, so you are going to add bass to make your mix sound good. Now here's the rub: Even in another room of the same class, a bedroom, and even in a bedroom which appears to be of very similar size and furnishings, the listener could just as easily be experiencing phase summation (gain) around 100Hz in their bedroom rather than the phase cancellation (loss) in yours. The problem of your mix (which has far too much 100Hz bass) is going to compound rather than offset the problems in this other, very similar bedroom. If for example you've attempted to compensate for the 12dB loss at 100Hz by adding 12dB to your mix and the other almost identical room boosts 100Hz by 12dB the listener is going to experience 24dB more in this frequency range than you intended. As an experiment, add 24dB at 100Hz to one of your existing mixes and see how good your mix sounds then! This example only covers one of the probably half dozen or more serious problem frequencies in your room (all of which will be different, even in a very similar appearing room). In fact, finding two untreated rooms with exactly the same acoustic response is not far off as likely as finding two people with the same fingerprint. Even finding two untreated rooms with a usefully similar frequency response is very unlikely. And don't forget, we are talking here about two rooms of exactly the same class and of very similar size and appearance, rather than the extremely very wide variety of rooms (at least as far as acoustics are concerned) you are talking about; basements, bedrooms, offices, studies, etc. In other words, as the "standard" to which you refer does not exist, your "standard" mix will only ever work even roughly as you intended for a small minority of those who ever listen to it. For a roughly similar minority your mix will sound terrible or even unlistenable and for the majority it will probably just sound quite poor!
Therefore, before we can progress with this conversation, you have to drop the whole notion of a "standard" untreated room or of trying to acoustically emulate one, because such a thing does not exist! So, what's the solution? Well, there is no solution per se, the best you can do is damage limitation. OK, so what's the best damage limitation? The best damage limitation is a mix room with a perfectly linear response, IE. A mix environment which allows the creation of mixes which are not influenced at all by any acoustic monitoring problems. In the example above, our friend in another bedroom is still going to hear 12dB too much at 100Hz and you are still going to hear 12dB too little but the majority of people (whose problems aren't centered at 100Hz) will hear at least that part of the spectrum as intended and, no one will hear a mix with a 24dB problem at 100Hz (unless their room has a 24dB problem!). This is because our mix is effectively neutral and therefore not compounding any of the problems in any of our listeners' specific environments. So next question is, how do we create a mix environment with a perfectly linear response? Unfortunately, you can't! Even with a virtually unlimited budget you can only get reasonably close and it starts with constructing a room with no parallel surfaces. This first and most important step is usually the most obvious difference between a fully professional/commercial audio facility and and an amateur/semi-pro setup.
So, getting a perfect mix environment or even just a very good environment is way, way outside the scope of even a well funded indie filmmaker (let alone a no budget film maker) and that's why so many commercial audio facilities exist. None of this means to say there is a nothing a lo/no budget film maker can or should do about the situation!! There's an enormous gulf between a decent professional mix environment and the mix environment most no budget filmmakers attempt to work with. The reason for this is because generally no budget filmmakers tend to work in mixing environments at (or very close to) the worst imaginable mix environment! While this gulf cannot be bridged without a very serious investment, there are ways, even with an extremely restricted budget, which can elevate the quality of a mix environment well above "the worst imaginable".
Practical Advice Alert: The first step, IMHO, is to actually find out what the frequency problems of your room are. This will take time and study but NOT much money. You will need; a calibrated measurement microphone and RTA software (Real Time Analysis, acoustic analysis software). A decent measurement mic (such as this one) will cost about $100 and REW is a good piece of RTA software and is free (Windows or Mac). Learning how to use the software, understanding what's it's telling you, will take sometime. You can start here, on the REW Forum. Obviously, knowing what the problems are doesn't solve them but at least if you are aware of them you can be a little more circumspect about how you apply (or don't apply) EQ around those problem areas. You still won't be able to produce a good mix but it might just help you to produce a less bad one! The next step up the ladder is to treat whatever problems you've identified and of course that treatment is going to vary depending on what the problems are. Some of those problems will probably be quite easy to alleviate to some degree, changing the position of the speakers or the listening position for example, some might be quite effectively treated with $100 or less of cheap materials and a couple of hours of DIY, while other problems will likely be untreatable without tearing your house down and starting again. IMO though, just because you can't solve all the problems doesn't mean you shouldn't bother trying to treat some of them and improving your mix environment. "Not very good" is still way better than "worst imaginable" and to put it into perspective, "not very good" is not just a small almost unnoticeable difference from "worst imaginable", even a completely untrained ear will notice a considerable difference.
Correct. So the obvious question is what do you set your speakers to before you start mixing? The process is called speaker or monitor level calibration and what exactly this entails has been covered on this forum previously. The reference level to which you calibrate will depend on which of the three standards (mentioned previously) you are talking about, in the case of music though the is no specific value as such. One of the big dangers, is how easy it is to calibrate incorrectly and is directly related to what I discussed above, as the level of the calibration signal will obviously be affected by your room's acoustics. The calibration signal is pink noise which contains all the audio frequencies in the spectrum (20Hz - 20kHz). As your room will have at least one big hole somewhere in the frequency spectrum you will have to turn the output of your speakers higher than they should be to compensate for the loss of energy in part of the spectrum, the result is incorrect calibration, possibly very significantly incorrect. Of course the situation isn't quite this simple because there will be other parts of the spectrum where your speakers/room are causing an artificial increase in the level, rather than a hole. Unfortunately though, the chances of all the increases adding up to the same amount and cancelling out all the holes is next to zero. Usually far more is lost in cancellations than is gained in summations (but not always!). Speaker level calibration is therefore always the last stage of the acoustic setup process.
BTW, your interpretation of the levels used for DVD/BluRay is not quite what I meant to convey. As there is no explicitly defined level DVD/BluRay, levels tend to be far more variable than say the TV standard, which is designed to be so specific and well enforced that there should be absolutely no noticeable variations in level whatsoever. Variations in levels on DVD/BluRay releases are noticeable and therefore a bit "all over the place", relative to TV content for example, but they are not "whatever you feel like". In practice the vast majority are at or near the TV spec.
Agreed but as explained above you don't want to emulate what the end user is doing because there are too many small variables which have a large affect on the frequency response at the listening position. The size and distance of the speakers' cones from the desktop, the frequency output of the speakers, the horizontal angle of the speakers, the dispersion pattern of the speakers, the position of your head relative to the desk, the material the desk is made from, etc. Putting it musical pitch terms rather than in audio frequencies might help you to appreciate the variability of the issue: The variables above mean that going from one average desktop system to another, the problem frequency area could be different by more than an octave! In my experience, desktop reflections are usually centered on any frequency from about 150Hz to 500Hz and if you're very lucky only causes a 3dB-6dB error. 10dB -20dB is more common but it can be as much as 30dB or so. As explained previously, the problems are caused by the direct sound coming from the speaker interacting with the fractionally out of time reflections of that sound. It stands to reason therefore that placing your speakers directly on a large sonically reflective surface (such as a desk) is pretty much the worst place you could put them. Actually, it could be worse, the desk could be against the wall, now you have two large and very reflective surfaces in very close proximity to the speakers and therefore double the number of serious problems and/or double the severity of those problems.
Again Ray, you seem fixated on the idea of a standard where none exists. Desktop speakers might seem like a standard but they're not! And of course we are not even mentioning that not all of the listeners will be using desktop speakers, some will be using headphones, some a laptop, others a smartphone and some will even have a very high quality sound system/environment!
Practical Advice Alert: So where should you place your speakers? If you accept my argument above, logic would suggest anywhere but on your desk! Best place would be on speaker stands, which have a very small surface area supporting the speakers no bigger than the footprint of the speakers themselves. You can make speaker stands very cheaply but don't use an empty box type construction (which will act as a resonating chamber!), filling them with sand should do the trick. And don't place the speakers right against the wall or too close to your desk. Placing your speakers right adjacent to the edge of your desk is likely to make only a marginal difference or no difference at all. The usual arrangement professionally is to place your desk two-thirds of the way to the back of the room. The best option though is start two-thirds of the way back and move your desk to various locations around that point, measuring each location with a measurement mic and RTA (using the equipment I suggested above), until you find the position which has the least/fewest problems. You obviously have to measure at least twice, once for each speaker. BTW, you will be amazed at the amount of different in the frequency response of each speaker!
There's an easy informal test you can do yourself to prove most of the above, presuming your software has a signal generator. Set the generator to generate a sine wave at 3kHz and pan it hard left or hard right, doesn't matter as long the signal is only being output by one of your speakers. Set the output level of your speaker to be quite loud but not uncomfortably so and don't touch the volume control for the rest of the test. Now change the frequency to say 120Hz, immediately it should sound quieter (as our ears themselves do not have a linear response!). Now move around the room, stopping in various places and listening out for changes in volume. Change the frequency and repeat, say 100Hz, 150Hz, go down to 50Hz and up to say 800Hz. Change the output to the other speaker and try again, I'm sure you'll be surprised by what you hear! If you search around, you should even be able to discover at least one frequency and one position in your room which exhibits complete cancellation, IE. From quite loud at 3kHz to completely silent (inaudible), even though your speaker is still outputting exactly the same level.
Sorry, this post has ended up much longer than I intended!
G
Last edited:
Yeah, these conversations tend to get rather in depth.
Can't be helped though as we try to fill in the gulf of genuine misunderstandings and ignorances of the relevant issues.
Think it's fair to say we're both approaching this from opposing POVs?
I think I have a pretty good handle on what you're identifying: Because the listener environments ARE so varied there CANNOT be any "standard" environment, so the proper approach is to mix in an acoustically neutral environment.
Whereas I'm identifying about the polar opposite: Because the listener environments ARE so varied the goal is to OPTIMIZE emulation of a "standard" environment, so the practical approach is to mix in an acoustically average environment.
Your POV is from a purity perspective. The filmmaker should provide the cleanest possible product, after that... it's out of their hands and each individual end user's acoustic problem.
My POV is from a pigpen perspective. The filmmaker should provide a one standard deviation product suitable for the wide variety of average end user's acoustic problems.
I'll concede to being an acoustic pig/swine myself.
When you validly discus the problems with adding or subtracting at 100Hz because of a room's deficit in that area creates the opposite effect in another seemingly "similar" listening space, purchasing calibrated measurement microphone and Real Time Analysis acoustic analysis software, and placing out-of-the-box speakers on stands that this is inarguably the proper way to go about this, but likely not what most of the "I've got a $/£1,000 budget for a camera, what should I get?" posters here are going to do.
There already seems to be too many people wanting mix using laptop speakers or headphones.
I don't think there's going to be much tweaking of the 100Hz range by any dB amount!
Volume up. Volume down. Fade in. Fade out. Filter to the best of our abilities in a close enough range - IF - we filter at all.
And in a perverse sort of way, I'd suggest this reoccurring discussion between us likely promotes an increased adoption of the methods you promote among those of us who want to make a superior product.
You're promoting professional fighting.
I'm promoting street fighting.
There's an audience for both.
Last edited:
Yes we are but in this particular case I can't see that it makes any real difference because in effect we both want the same thing. We both want what we mix to translate to other peoples listening environment and neither of us want to spend much time or money achieving this. The difference between us is where we set our bar and for me that means I've had to learn a considerable amount about acoustics and spend many tens of thousands on it.
Although you don't seem to realise it, you're argument is not the polar opposite of my argument but is in fact exactly the same! In the example I gave in my previous post, of the theoretical problem of your bedroom and the very similar bedroom of our imaginary friend, you had a 12dB loss at 100Hz and he had a 12dB boost at 100Hz. According to your "practical approach", what is the optimised average of these two theoretical bedrooms and therefore what should our "standard" environment be? In this case a room with a 0dB loss/gain at 100Hz appears to be exactly what both of us are advocating, where's the "polar opposite"? The only difference is in how we are explaining the same thing!
In other words, small room acoustics are so variable that for all practical purposes a perfectly neutral mix environment is the acoustically average room! I think you are having difficulty reconciling the fact that a highly treated neutral mix environment costs way more than your bedroom, doesn't look anything like your bedroom and doesn't sound anything like your bedroom. The reason for this is that the average listening environment effectively doesn't exist (actually some enthusiasts do build them but for the sake of this argument we can discount them for now). Let me draw an analogy; the average family in the US has 2.4 children, yet of course there's not a single family in the US which actually has 2.4 children. In effect, what we are trying to achieve with a mix environment is a family with 2.4 children, which of course doesn't look like any actual real family.
Hopefully my paragraphs above have helped you to understand that these two different POV's (as you call them) are in fact one and the same thing!
In all honesty, I think we do have different POVs but not in the way you have explained. Your POV appears to be in effect that you have a reasonably average bedroom and therefore by leaving it exactly how it is or by spending a tiny amount of money and time on it, it will represent the acoustically average listening environment or close enough to it to satisfy your standards. You seem to be scratching around for arguments to justify having a terrible acoustic mix environment but unfortunately the argument you've chosen actually proves the exact opposite. Saying that the average household has a terrible listening environment and therefore having a terrible mix environment should work out fine, is a logical fallacy. It's a bit like making a statement such as: "I think French food is terrible, therefore if I make a terrible meal French people will like it"!
Agreed, but these posters are not serious about being a filmmaker. They are making films to give themselves a reason for using their shiny new £1,000 camera but they are not really interested in the package of arts which is filmmaking, only in it's photography ingredient.
Once these people have bought their £1,000 camera do they take it out of the box and just leave it on it's default settings for all their filmmaking career hoping to make something good enough to entice a distributor to give them shed loads of money to hire a professional DP who knows what all those pesky settings are for or, do they spend more money on camera accessories and spend hundreds or thousands of hours learning and experimenting with their camera's settings, with lighting and lenses to try and improve the look of their photography? Yet with the sound mix they spend pretty much zero hours learning or experimenting with the setup of their speakers and budget pretty much zero £'s as well, even though this defines the quality of their sound mix which in turn partly defines the quality of their entire film! If one of these people then turns round as says that they take the sound of their films seriously, sorry but they are not fooling me, only themselves.
The obvious question is how do you know if the volume needs to go up or down or if you need to filter and if so where? You turn up the volume of a sound because it sounds too quiet relative to another sound but how do you know if it is actually too quiet (and therefore needs turning up) or if it only sounds too quiet because of some frequency loss in your mix environment? And, are you applying a filter because your mix has too much of those frequencies or because your acoustic environment does? Forgetting about the frequency response of your room and turning to speaker level calibration instead, how do you know that the sound which appears to be too quiet is actually too quiet rather than everything else being too loud?
It's like trying to do colour correction while wearing a red tinted welding mask and not knowing that it's been red tinted or even knowing that you're wearing a welding mask!
G