Sound on the Big Screen

[mckinise]

I have a project that we are thinking about bringing to film festivals. We are worried about proper audio video syncing. Currently, the original sound, ADR, Foley, and score playback flawlessly on computer, and we have gotten it to play back on a couple different televisions with excellent synchronization of both spoken word and action sequences.

We are worried about the synchronization of sound in a larger theater. Does anyone have any tips or ideas that would help us get proper sound on the big screen?

Particulars:

GH2 Video
Basic audio was recorded with a Tascam DR-40 via Audio Technica Shotgun mic
Foley was recorded into the DR-40
Edited on laptop with external speakers and Studio Monitors
Video Editing Sony Vegas Pro 12
Audio Editing Sony Vegas Pro 12 and Audacity

Currently experimenting with 5.1 Surround Sound

And just to be precise, no budget. And sound was captured with a mixture of stereo mics for ambient noise/room noise. Shotgun for the majority of vocals with some spoken parts recorded directly into the DR-40 in mono mode.

 

[mlesemann]

It seems to me that we've been over this 10,000 times in many different threads.
Yes, there's a difference between what many of us and APE consider acceptable audio.

End of story. (not really, but I can always hope)

 

[AudioPostExpert]

It seems to me that we've been over this 10,000 times in many different threads.

And still you don't seem to have learnt anything from them!

Yes, there's a difference between what many of us and APE consider acceptable audio.
End of story. (not really, but I can always hope)

A minuscule percentage of those in my profession get to work exclusively on film sound where sound quality is the priority. The rest of us have to do the best we can with the budgets provided to try and get at least acceptable commercial sound quality. For twenty years my job has to a very large extent depended on me being intimately familiar with the difference between what the market considers acceptable, barely acceptable and higher sound quality. If there is as you say a difference between what many of "you" and I consider to be acceptable then any moderately intelligent filmmaker who falls into this category will be thinking about how to realign their concept of what is acceptable with what the market considers to be acceptable. Burying your head in the sand, dismissing the difference and hoping it's the "end of story" is not even moderately intelligent. The reason the OP started this thread is because he wants to do what he can to get as close as possible to "acceptable", there are ways to do that and ways not to do it. You seem to be in the camp who doesn't care, so this thread is not really for you and your contribution is unwanted.

G

 

[mlesemann]

I very much care. I just think you're beating the proverbial dead horse.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

You're talking about less than ideal tools for the job, I'm talking about tools which could hardly be any worse. That's a pretty big difference! I can only imagine we also have a pretty big difference between what we consider to be barely acceptable quality audio.

Clearly - as it should be. Your job is to make the audio as good as it can possibly be. To live on the far right edge of the pareto curve for audio quality, where 90% is sub-par. My job, on the other hand, is to entertain an audience. Given enough time and budget I'll gladly turn over the audio part of that job to you, but that's a luxury that most of us don't have. And it truly is a luxury, because I know from experience that I can get the job of entertaining an audience done, and do it fairly well within the resources I have, with the tools I've got - regardless of whether you dismiss them as unusable.

If there is as you say a difference between what many of "you" and I consider to be acceptable then any moderately intelligent filmmaker who falls into this category will be thinking about how to realign their concept of what is acceptable with what the market considers to be acceptable.

Which market? The millions of kids who spend hours a day now watching youtube videos shot by other kids on their webcams? Or watching torrents of theatrical films shot on a phone camera from the back of the theater? Or the people watching netflix streaming on their ipad under the covers listening on a set of $30 earbuds so they don't wake their spouse? Or the family sitting at home, watching an sd cable signal being upscaled to HD, zoomed to get rid of the ugly black bars, saturation, brightness and contrast boosted to the max, and 'smoothscanned' with virtual 3D surround coming from the 2" stereo speakers built into the frame of the TV? Which of those people, all of whom are being entertained and satisfied by what they're watching and listening to, do you think we should be realigning our concept of 'acceptable' to?

Any member of indietalk could probably do noticeably better than those examples with a little time, knowledge and some basic, inexpensive equipment that you say 'could hardly be any worse' - and it will be good enough for the audience. More than good enough, in fact, because it will be measurably better than much of what they are used to watching and listening to. So given that our resources are limited, and our primary job as filmmakers is storytelling - not attempting to achieve a technical ideal - what is even 'moderately intelligent' about realigning our concept of what's 'acceptable' to your concept of what's acceptable, when your concept of acceptable seems to be so far out of step with what the audience is telling us through their actions is acceptable?

 

[rayw]

Which market? The millions of kids who spend hours a day now watching youtube videos shot by other kids on their webcams? Or watching torrents of theatrical films shot on a phone camera from the back of the theater? Or the people watching netflix streaming on their ipad under the covers listening on a set of $30 earbuds so they don't wake their spouse? Or the family sitting at home, watching an sd cable signal being upscaled to HD, zoomed to get rid of the ugly black bars, saturation, brightness and contrast boosted to the max, and 'smoothscanned' with virtual 3D surround coming from the 2" stereo speakers built into the frame of the TV? Which of those people, all of whom are being entertained and satisfied by what they're watching and listening to, do you think we should be realigning our concept of 'acceptable' to?

Any member of indietalk could probably do noticeably better than those examples with a little time, knowledge and some basic, inexpensive equipment that you say 'could hardly be any worse' - and it will be good enough for the audience. More than good enough, in fact, because it will be measurably better than much of what they are used to watching and listening to. So given that our resources are limited, and our primary job as filmmakers is storytelling - not attempting to achieve a technical ideal - what is even 'moderately intelligent' about realigning our concept of what's 'acceptable' to your concept of what's acceptable, when your concept of acceptable seems to be so far out of step with what the audience is telling us through their actions is acceptable?

I'm sorry, but I gotta agree with IDOM on this one.

ITREF​

+10

I think of the movie Amadeus when Wolfgang steps away from the highbrow court of the King to visit his friend Emanuel at a rowdy theater presenting bawdy shows that the less-than noble audience LIVES FOR!
Those guys.
Those dedicated less-than noble audiences that have traveled from the countryside to spend their tuppence to see the "big show" in the city.
THOSE are our people.

That's the meatball Dolby 5.1, or something masquerading about as it, we no-budget indie filmmakers honestly do need to learn to produce to the best of our humble capabilities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_U1Rcqmkz8

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Clearly - as it should be. Your job is to make the audio as good as it can possibly be. To live on the far right edge of the pareto curve for audio quality, where 90% is sub-par. My job, on the other hand, is to entertain an audience.

This is EXACTLY what I meant in my last post. My job is to entertain an audience! How do you entertain an audience if what you have made is not allowed to be distributed/broadcast to an audience? My job is virtually never to "make the audio as good as it can possibly be", only a tiny fraction of 1% of all commercial films/programs have the time or budget which allows this to be the goal! My job is dominated by knowing what standards are acceptable and achieving those standards within the time/budget provided and there is a large gulf between acceptable and "as good as it can be"!

Which market? The millions of kids who spend hours a day now watching youtube videos shot by other kids on their webcams? Or watching torrents of theatrical films shot on a phone camera from the back of the theater? Or the people watching netflix streaming on their ipad under the covers listening on a set of $30 earbuds so they don't wake their spouse? Or the family sitting at home, watching an sd cable signal being upscaled to HD, zoomed to get rid of the ugly black bars, saturation, brightness and contrast boosted to the max, and 'smoothscanned' with virtual 3D surround coming from the 2" stereo speakers built into the frame of the TV? Which of those people, all of whom are being entertained and satisfied by what they're watching and listening to, do you think we should be realigning our concept of 'acceptable' to?

With the exception of the youtube webcams, virtually all the other content you have described had at least acceptable commercial standard audio made by professionals. If it didn't, how many of "those people" would for example download and watch a torrent of a film/program which never achieved the standards required for distribution/broadcast? If for example Paranormal Activity had never had a small fortune spent on the audio to make it acceptable for distribution and get beyond the festival circuit how many people would have downloaded and watched the torrent, would anyone even have bothered to make and distribute a torrent of it in the first place?

I'm not sure if the example you have given is just ignorance or you are being disingenuous to justify the poor standards you seem willing/able to find acceptable? Your example quotes the lowest common denominator but that's only a part of the market. I can go to the other extreme and quote the other end of the market: Look at places like the AVS forum with over a million members or HTS with over 90k members. Most of these people take sound very seriously indeed, on AVS for example the forum with the most posts (over 1.6 million) is one of the audio sub-forums. Many AV Receivers on the market today contain built-in calibration and room correction functions and a surprising number of members strive (and succeed!) in creating environments which exceed the specifications of most commercial audio facilities. The consumers who take sound so seriously may only represent 1 in a hundred or maybe even less but these people will often spend a hundred times more buying content than the kid watching a torrent on his/her tablet. We have to consider these high end consumers, just as we have to consider how our 5.1 mix will sound when downmixed for the other extreme. The reality is that most consumers are somewhere between these two extremes but your posts make it clear that the median is obviously way above where you think it is or where you feel it should be because as far as sound is concerned you are a member of the extreme group who doesn't care. The simple fact is that sound is important to the majority of consumers and so many complaints regarding audio standards have been made (by consumers) that laws have had to be introduced in some countries, the USA and Canada for example and strict guidelines in others (the EU for example). All this must seem very strange from your point of view, that's if you're even aware of it! However, being ignorant of these basic market facts, denying they exist or ignoring them is not going to make them go away and is not IMO an intelligent way of addressing the issue.

Any member of indietalk could probably do noticeably better than those examples with a little time, knowledge and some basic, inexpensive equipment that you say 'could hardly be any worse' - and it will be good enough for the audience. More than good enough, in fact, because it will be measurably better than much of what they are used to watching and listening to.

Not even close, not even vaguely in the same ball park! If you want to deny the facts, bury your head in the sand or continue fooling yourself, that is of course your prerogative. Maybe you wish to remain an amateur hobbyist or occasionally just reach the fringes of the film industry, which is fine if that is what you want. But, if you wish to make a living out of filmmaking one day, then your point of view regarding sound will HAVE to change. If it doesn't, at least after my posts you will have an explanation for your failure!

G

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Those dedicated less-than noble audiences that have traveled from the countryside to spend their tuppence to see the "big show" in the city.
THOSE are our people.

I absolutely, 100% agree Ray. The difference of opinion here is of what standard and of how you achieve that standard required to get those "less-than noble" audiences to spend their tuppence! The mediocre standards of performance of Opera Buffa (or musical vaudeville) were far lower than the standards of performance of Mozart's high brow compositions but they were still of a high enough standard to be put on as a "big show" and for people to want to spend their tuppence. I can't see how only aiming for or only achieving the standards acceptable to those who are unwilling or unable to pay their tuppence (or even a ha'penny) can make one a living as a filmmaker. Neither do I see the merit in arguing otherwise, especially as these days there are laws (and/or unbreakable specifications) governing aspects of the acceptable standards which are allowed to be presented to a paying audience.

What constitutes "acceptable" standards does of course vary tremendously but there are quite strict standards and requirements even for the tuppence audience, standards which cannot be met and who no one in their right mind or who had any idea of what they were doing would try to meet with the equipment mentioned above. This thread though was not asking about how to cater for the absolute lowest possible acceptable audio standards but about the opposite extreme, cinema sound!

G

 

[rayw]

01-16-2013, 06:31 PM
The festivals I am thinking want a DVD for entry, and one requires a blu-ray for playback. I will have to get more information from both of them.

Did you ever get audio spec information from both of them?

From the initial looking around I've been doing many festivals are fine with DIY 3.0 audio, but if you wanna and you got the Benjis there's no getting around taking your tracks to a registered Dolby sound engineer for a theatrical 5.1 mix.
I believe the learning curve with ProTools (industry standard, it seems) is too high and the equipment too expensive for a single DIY feature every two or three years.

Looks like about a couple to a few thousand dollars for a quick and dirty theatrical 5.1 mix.

 

[rayw]

I can't see how only aiming for or only achieving the standards acceptable to those who are unwilling or unable to pay their tuppence (or even a ha'penny) can make one a living as a filmmaker. Neither do I see the merit in arguing otherwise, especially as these days there are laws (and/or unbreakable specifications) governing aspects of the acceptable standards which are allowed to be presented to a paying audience.

What constitutes "acceptable" standards does of course vary tremendously but there are quite strict standards and requirements even for the tuppence audience, standards which cannot be met and who no one in their right mind or who had any idea of what they were doing would try to meet with the equipment mentioned above.

Fair enough.
Rather than seeing it as "only aiming for or only achieving the standards acceptable" I see it as "A minimum standard is there to be utilized as a pass/fail point."
Film festival entries, which is what this thread was originally inquiring about, and even second or third tier film festivals at that, are not going to allow anyone to make a living as a filmmaker.

However, I will gladly acknowledge your championing of the cause for a higher standard than minimum has greatly increased my interest in the subject.
Previously I was good with Lt/Rt.
Then... I grasped the beneficial concept of 3.0 left right and center, dialog going in the center. Good. Great. Cool. I can work with that.
And now I'm seeing how there REEEEEALY isn't a DIY work around for a Dolby theatrical 5.1 mix.
I can get 1080p images on a theatrical screen with a $/£/€100 camera, but I can't get Dolby 5.1 audio in a theatrical space for anything less than a few thousand $/£/€.
Fact.
I'm dealing with it.

It's all you and Alcove, and I appreciate it.

This thread though was not asking about how to cater for the absolute lowest possible acceptable audio standards but about the opposite extreme, cinema sound!

Review McKinise's two posts.
He really didn't specify a quality of cinema sound.

"We are worried about the synchronization of sound in a larger theater. Does anyone have any tips or ideas that would help us get proper sound on the big screen?"​

and

"And just to be precise, no budget."​

The OP criteria is bagged and tagged: No budget for theatrical 5.1.

So, now the next immediate question becomes "Okay. Then how much does a theatrical 5.1 mix cost?"

About $/£/€2k - 5k for some pretty rudimentary work.
Entry level.
Nothing fancy.
Meat N taters.
Meatball mix.
No "best possible."
No "ideally."
Just "what do I need to deliver to ride this ride?"

How much does a ticket to Disneyland cost? I'll forego the $4 Cokes, $6 hot dogs, and $35 T-shirts. Just gimme the ticket.

Likewise...


R

 

[AudioPostExpert]

However, I will gladly acknowledge your championing of the cause for a higher standard than minimum has greatly increased my interest in the subject.
Previously I was good with Lt/Rt.
Then... I grasped the beneficial concept of 3.0 left right and center, dialog going in the center. Good. Great. Cool. I can work with that.

OK, I'm a little confused here. When you say LtRt, do you really mean LoRo? An LoRo mix is standard 2 channel stereo without a centre. An LtRt mix is a 4 (or more) channel mix with a centre but is encoded using two standard audio channels and will therefore play as a standard 2 channel stereo mix if the festival only has a stereo sound system. In this respect an LtRt mix could be a good choice for film festivals but there's several downsides as LtRt mixes still need to be mixed in surround and can be more tricky to make than a 5.1 mix.

BTW, I don't feel I am championing a cause for higher audio standards. I am providing information on what IS the standard (or standards), not what I would like it to be!!

And now I'm seeing how there REEEEEALY isn't a DIY work around for a Dolby theatrical 5.1 mix. I can get 1080p images on a theatrical screen with a $/£/€100 camera, but I can't get Dolby 5.1 audio in a theatrical space for anything less than a few thousand $/£/€.
Fact.
I'm dealing with it.

It's all you and Alcove, and I appreciate it.

Well, that's true, there simply is no DIY or really cheap way of getting a 5.1 mix to sound half decent in a cinema without a budget. However, there are two bits of good news here: 1. Creating a Dolby 5.1 datastream is easy and cheap, Apple's Compressor program will do it for you for $50! and 2. You only need a Dolby certified mix if you are delivering on 35mm film. You can't put a Dolby 5.1 mix on DCP for example and an AC3 Dolby Digital (5.1) datastream can be used on a BluRay or DVD without needing to be Dolby certified. The difficulty is in what you put in those 6 audio channels....

Review McKinise's two posts. He really didn't specify a quality of cinema sound. The OP criteria is bagged and tagged: No budget for theatrical 5.1.

So, now the next immediate question becomes "Okay. Then how much does a theatrical 5.1 mix cost?"

About $/£/€2k - 5k for some pretty rudimentary work.
Entry level.
Nothing fancy.
Meat N taters.
Meatball mix.
No "best possible."
No "ideally."
Just "what do I need to deliver to ride this ride?"

How much does a ticket to Disneyland cost?

The simple answer is anywhere from $50 to $250k or so but I don't think this answer is of much help! There are a number of variables which define where on this scale the cost will be but then it's not going to be a simple answer! When is it ever with film?

1. First of all, you have been talking about a 5.1 mix but there's more to the equation than this because you've got to have the sound editing/design done in 5.1 before you can start the 5.1 mix process. Because theatrical mixing facilities are so expensive the audio post process has always been divided into two phases, the editing and the mixing.

2. The duration and genre of the film. Obviously a 100 min feature is going to take way longer and cost many times more than a 10 minute short. And, an action film is generally going to be more difficult, take more time and cost more than a simple drama.

3. As I mentioned before, commercial theatrical standard isn't a single fixed point but a range of standards, running from low commercial standards all the way up to world class. Film festivals have a far wider range of acceptable standards. A zero budget 2.0 DIY mix might be perfectly acceptable for many of the small regional film festivals but enter a feature in Cannes and you'd need a pretty serious audio budget to get accepted. The bigger film festivals will go through several stages of acceptance, the last stage being screening in a commercial quality screening room to the panel. While screening the DVD entries is not of course providing the visual resolution of the exhibition copy, screening rooms do generally have decent sound systems, good enough usually to identify audio problems which would be inaudible on even good quality prosumer equipment and therefore good enough to reject those with audio issues or weaknesses which don't conform to the standards/expectations of the festival.

4. Knowing all the answers to the above questions, the next question is how much of a risk are you prepared to take? You can hire someone for below union rates, working in a non-dolby theatrically certified facility but the lower in price you go, the greater the risk of hiring someone who might seem to have all the gear and knowledge but ultimately may not be able to achieve the standards you (or rather the festival/s you are entering) require. And just to make this problem more difficult, their mixes might sound absolutely fantastic in their studio but that's no indication of whether it will sound even mediocre in a cinema or a commercial quality screening room!

Lastly, the OP did give some indication of expected quality. In post #5 the OP stated DCP was an option. Only the really serious festivals allow DCP as an exhibition format and the inference is therefore he'd almost certainly be looking at low commercial 5.1 theatrical audio standards. Even taking the very high risk route, that's not something which is likely for a feature without around 5 figures to play with.

G

PS. Just to make absolutely clear here, even with 6 figures ($100K) we are not talking about "as good as it can be" or world class, for that you'll need a budget for sound well into the 7 figures (depending on duration and genre of course).

 

[rayw]

OK, I'm a little confused here. When you say LtRt, do you really mean LoRo? An LoRo mix is standard 2 channel stereo without a centre. An LtRt mix is a 4 (or more) channel mix with a centre but is encoded using two standard audio channels and will therefore play as a standard 2 channel stereo mix if the festival only has a stereo sound system. In this respect an LtRt mix could be a good choice for film festivals but there's several downsides as LtRt mixes still need to be mixed in surround and can be more tricky to make than a 5.1 mix.
As an audio nube I was thinking just simply "noise coming out of both left and right speakers equally"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downmixing
http://www.osd-uk.com/2011/10/faq-what-does-loro-and-ltrt-stand-for/
http://www.triggertone.com/term/Left_Total_[slash]_Right_Total_Stereo
I wasn't aware of the "splitting left/right before or after a mix" - until now.
More homework.
Gracias.

BTW, I don't feel I am championing a cause for higher audio standards. I am providing information on what IS the standard (or standards), not what I would like it to be!!
LOL! Law of unintended consequences.
What you say vs. what you meant to say vs. what your audience hears and all that.

Well, that's true, there simply is no DIY or really cheap way of getting a 5.1 mix to sound half decent in a cinema without a budget. However, there are two bits of good news here: 1. Creating a Dolby 5.1 datastream is easy and cheap, Apple's Compressor program will do it for you for $50!
Good to know. Interesting.
From the websites and forums I've been looking at for the last couple weeks there's no mention of that, but there's plenty about needing to mix in a Dolby certified studio space if not an actual Dolby theater space.
Hardware and software are fine and dandy and all but of little use in the wrong/inappropriate space.

and 2. You only need a Dolby certified mix if you are delivering on 35mm film. You can't put a Dolby 5.1 mix on DCP for example and an AC3 Dolby Digital (5.1) datastream can be used on a BluRay or DVD without needing to be Dolby certified. The difficulty is in what you put in those 6 audio channels....
Nothing much here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package
These folks seem to think cinema 5.1 can be delivered on DCP: http://www.dcpinfo.com/
Interesting:

TIP #3: Mix audio with at least 3 channels!

Having dialog or voiceover in the center channel, and music/effects in the L/R side channels is the standard in theatrical exhibition. It is not much more work to mix audio in three channels instead of two (simple stereo), but the result in theaters is dramatic! Simply put, audiences are used to and will expect dialog to be in the center channel.

If you are planning to have your film qualified for an Academy Award, you must mix with at least three channels of audio. This is a mandatory Academy requirement.

Of course, if you are mixing with three channels (Left, Center, Right) -- it's not much more work to mix in full 5.1 stereo. Like editing in 24p, it's best to make this decision early so that your sound editor will know to keep dialog and voiceover in a separate track.​

​

The simple answer is anywhere from $50 to $250k or so but I don't think this answer is of much help! There are a number of variables which define where on this scale the cost will be but then it's not going to be a simple answer! When is it ever with film?
It isn't simple, that's fosho.
While I recognize that the cost can be anywhere from $50 to $250k I'm pretty sure about the budget levels around here at IT and this audio mixing stuff is beyond the scope of almost all of the regulars here and I don't think any of them have budgets to garner a $250k theatrical 5.1 mix.
However, occasionally someone here does want to get into a second tier film festival for which a bare bones, qualifying to participate, theatrical 5.1 audio mix is a necessity (third tier festivals are fine with 3.0 it seems) and this process that you and I and others are going through is how we learn to achieve "minimum" necessity.

1. First of all, you have been talking about a 5.1 mix but there's more to the equation than this because you've got to have the sound editing/design done in 5.1 before you can start the 5.1 mix process. Because theatrical mixing facilities are so expensive the audio post process has always been divided into two phases, the editing and the mixing.
Correct.
I understand GIGO and "a stitch in time saves ten times as much in post" and that's why you see me putting in this effort to learn quite a bit much more than just making pretty pictures for youtube before wondering why my pretty pictures can't be seen in a theater.
"Well... because, (dumb@ss), you failed to record and deliver your audio in an appropriate format. Moron."

2. The duration and genre of the film. Obviously a 100 min feature is going to take way longer and cost many times more than a 10 minute short. And, an action film is generally going to be more difficult, take more time and cost more than a simple drama.
Understood.
I believe we were talking about a feature length movie, though, generally recognized between 90 - 110min.
And of course an action film with gunfire and explosions and whatnot will require more hours than talking heads discussing mutual dysfunction (easily remedied with the aforementioned gunfire and maybe just a small explosion!)

3. As I mentioned before, commercial theatrical standard isn't a single fixed point but a range of standards, running from low commercial standards all the way up to world class. Film festivals have a far wider range of acceptable standards. A zero budget 2.0 DIY mix might be perfectly acceptable for many of the small regional film festivals but enter a feature in Cannes and you'd need a pretty serious audio budget to get accepted.
Yeah. There ain't going to be too many Cannes quality sorta folks cruising around IT.
2.0, 3.0, and theatrical (not home!) 5.1 audio deliverables is pretty much all we're looking for/at here.

The bigger film festivals will go through several stages of acceptance, the last stage being screening in a commercial quality screening room to the panel.
Yeah, I don't see that level as being germane, here.
And no one here's been shooting much of anything on 35mm. Just digital. So... one less hassle.

While screening the DVD entries is not of course providing the visual resolution of the exhibition copy, screening rooms do generally have decent sound systems, good enough usually to identify audio problems which would be inaudible on even good quality prosumer equipment and therefore good enough to reject those with audio issues or weaknesses which don't conform to the standards/expectations of the festival.
Yep. I think that's all we're shooting for, here.

4. Knowing all the answers to the above questions, the next question is how much of a risk are you prepared to take? You can hire someone for below union rates, working in a non-dolby theatrically certified facility but the lower in price you go, the greater the risk of hiring someone who might seem to have all the gear and knowledge but ultimately may not be able to achieve the standards you (or rather the festival/s you are entering) require.
Yeah, these are all good things to know at the beginning stage of production design and development.
If you're cruising some of these other threads you might see where I'm asking people "where is the final product going to be shown?"

• If youtube get this not that.
• If a film festival get that and not this.
• Forget about theatrical distribution from Lionsgate/Magnolia/Anchor Bay/Sony Classics. Pfft. LOL.
• If VOD get this or that.

And just to make this problem more difficult, their mixes might sound absolutely fantastic in their studio but that's no indication of whether it will sound even mediocre in a cinema or a commercial quality screening room!
And EXACTLY what I cited above - needing to mix in an appropriate space and probably not just mixing blind on a $50 software package.

Lastly, the OP did give some indication of expected quality. In post #5 the OP stated DCP was an option. Only the really serious festivals allow DCP as an exhibition format and the inference is therefore he'd almost certainly be looking at low commercial 5.1 theatrical audio standards. Even taking the very high risk route, that's not something which is likely for a feature without around 5 figures to play with.
Yeah, well... that "no budget" angle is going to place that DCP standard juuuuuust outta reach, I think.

R

PS. Just to make absolutely clear here, even with 6 figures ($100K) we are not talking about "as good as it can be" or world class, for that you'll need a budget for sound well into the 7 figures (depending on duration and genre of course).
Well... of course! Duh!

Meatball theatrical 5.1 is allllll we're looking for.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

As an audio nube I was thinking just simply "noise coming out of both left and right speakers equally"... I wasn't aware of the "splitting left/right before or after a mix" - until now.
More homework. Gracias.

Lots of people get confused with this, it's like "when is stereo not stereo?". There are lot's of potential issues with LtRt (and LoRo), the worst of which is having material suddenly jumping to completely the wrong speaker. This was mentioned in the "Sound Advice" article you linked to earlier. I did explain LtRt in some detail in a couple of posts on IT earlier last year.

... there's plenty about needing to mix in a Dolby certified studio space if not an actual Dolby theater space. Hardware and software are fine and dandy and all but of little use in the wrong/inappropriate space.

Absolutely, as this is where the cost piles up so rapidly. A studio (dub stage), Dolby certified for theatrical mixing is essentially a medium sized cinema. The simple fact is that the hardware needed is specifically designed for cinemas and just doesn't fit in an average studio. It's NOT a case of using bigger speakers for a larger space and therefore emulating that by doing the reverse and using smaller speakers in a smaller space. Unfortunately it just doesn't work like that and is why translation is such an issue and why there is no escaping from the need to use a theatrical dub stage. The risky low cost solutions all involve methods of minimising the use of theatrical dub stages but eliminating their use completely is pretty much a recipe for disaster.

These folks seem to think cinema 5.1 can be delivered on DCP ...

Absolutely 5.1 can be delivered on DCP! I think maybe you're getting confused again. When you mix in 5.1 you essentially create 6 wav files. These wav files can be fed into a Dolby Mastering Unit (or Apple's Compressor) which spits out a Dolby datastream. In the case of Compressor, a single computer file with the file extension ".ac3". A Dolby decoder unit reads the AC3 file and extracts the 6 audio channels again. DCP does not support a Dolby datastream, for 5.1 the actual 6 wav files themselves have to be included in the DCP. Without Dolby encoding there is no explicit requirement for Dolby or Dolby certified dub stages to be involved in creating the 5.1 mix for DCP or indeed a 7.1 mix for DCP. Dolby Atmos rectifies this problem for Dolby, giving them (they hope) their stranglehold back on the most common theatrical distribution format!

I'm pretty sure about the budget levels around here at IT and this audio mixing stuff is beyond the scope of almost all of the regulars here and I don't think any of them have budgets to garner a $250k theatrical 5.1 mix.

I concur but the fact remains, that's what it will most likely cost when taking the relatively risk free route to achieve low commercial standards (higher tier film festival standards). This is something IT members need to know and appreciate. This is because taking a risky bargain basement route can reduce this figure by 10 times and possibly, under specific circumstances by 20 times. These resultant figures are potentially within the reach of a few indietalkers but understanding that these sorts of figures are already cut to the bone is imperative! Some here seem adamant that the better film festivals and the lowest commercially acceptable standards are achievable with a budget 5 or 10 times smaller again or even (in at least one case) that they can do it themselves with a pair of computer speakers and consumer earbuds!

And of course an action film with gunfire and explosions and whatnot will require more hours than talking heads discussing mutual dysfunction (easily remedied with the aforementioned gunfire and maybe just a small explosion!)

This is fine in theory but in practise it can take almost as long with the talking heads film as the action film. All the time saved making complex gunshots and explosions might end up having to be spent correcting poor production dialogue!

Obviously I don't know what the expected audio standards are for all film festivals which indietalkers are likely to enter. One of my main complaints is that most indietalkers themselves don't seem to know the answer to this most basic question either! And, if they wish to progress as filmmakers they really should make an effort to find out the difference between these low level festivals and low level commercial standards.

What I find surprising in several threads like this is that the indietalkers who participate are far more interested in trying to prove it is possible to reach low commercial standards (or close to them) for zero budget than in actually wanting to understand the issues or in how it might be possible to reduce the cost of achieving low commercial standards by a factor of 10 or 20 times. You and your last couple of posts is pretty much the first time since I joined IT!

G

 

[rayw]

I try to create the illusion I'm paying attention.






I'm pretty sure Troma Dance will take my DIY 3.0 mix: http://tromadance.com/submit.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7cFXrkkk-A

 

[Morris]

Saw this and thought it was interesting. http://wolfcrow.com/blog/the-3-best-audio-editing-software-for-video-editors/

 

[mckinise]

I think I have learned more about festival sound, and sound in general, in this one thread than I have in the last 5 months. I appreciate everyone that has participated.

That said, I am waiting on replies from several festivals regarding sound. It is amazing how few of the film makers I know offline even care about getting mediocre sound. My DP and I nearly came to blows over booming the first couple shorts we worked. He didn't feel there was a real need for it.

Here is where I am right now. First feature film. I am going to do everything in my power to get the most out of the equipment I have and do some crowdfunding to try to increase the sound budget.

We have some entry level prosumer sound recording equipment as well as some recommended software talked about here.

I am going to use every bit of information I can find to record high quality sound. Once we have that as a base; hiring a sound guy to record it, if possible.

We are not shooting until the middle of next month. Hopefully, I will have enough knowledge by then to make more educated decisions.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Meatball theatrical 5.1 is allllll we're looking for.

Is that alllll? I'm trying to explain, obviously not very successfully (!), that what I think you're asking for is not really possible. That statement is not precisely true, a more precisely true statement would be that it maybe possible but it's extremely unlikely and not worth the risk. The risk you run is the mix not sounding anything like what you expected, destroying any suspension of disbelief or even making your film completely unwatchable. To reiterate and put in slightly different language, a theatrical sound system is designed to 1. Take advantage of the fact that large spaces reduce certain acoustic problems and 2. To compensate for the other acoustic problems which are caused by large spaces. This is in complete contrast to consumer sound systems and even professional monitoring systems designed for commercial music studios, commercial edit suites and other relatively small spaces. Slapping an 800bhp engine and slick tyres on a Ford Focus does not turn it into Formula 1 race car, it's a different technology and does not translate. If you really know what you're doing, you'll already know that you can't build a Formula race car from the starting point of a Ford Focus and if you don't really know what you're doing the chances are you'll spend considerable time and effort and end up with an un-drivable Ford Focus! You can't DIY build a meatball formula 1 car, you can't even hire a professional road car mechanic to build one for you. For a meatball formula 1 car you're going to need a mechanic with at least some experience of building a formula car, who has access to the equipment and materials needed to build a formula car and who has a fairly decent idea of how to use it.

It's strange, indie filmmakers have a very good idea of what's possible visually with very little or no budget. There are frequent, finely detailed discussions here on the subject of creating certain looks and feels with prosumer cameras and other relatively low budget equipment. Likewise, from all except the very newest to filmmaking there's a very good understanding and acceptance of what is not possible visually with little or no budget. I don't see anyone on indietalk asking how to visually make a meatballs version of say "The Avengers" with a consumer camera, iMovie and no budget, let alone anyone arguing that it's possible. I don't even see anyone arguing that it's possible with a decent DSLR, Adobe Premiere and a $5k budget. However, the audio equivalent of both of these arguments have been made vociferously by a number of indietalkers! I'm not having a go at you Ray, you (and the OP) are at least vaguely curious and are trying to understand the basics of audio and audio formats.

I think I have learned more about festival sound, and sound in general, in this one thread than I have in the last 5 months. I appreciate everyone that has participated.

That said, I am waiting on replies from several festivals regarding sound. It is amazing how few of the film makers I know offline even care about getting mediocre sound. My DP and I nearly came to blows over booming the first couple shorts we worked. He didn't feel there was a real need for it.

Here is where I am right now. First feature film. I am going to do everything in my power to get the most out of the equipment I have and do some crowdfunding to try to increase the sound budget.

We have some entry level prosumer sound recording equipment as well as some recommended software talked about here.

I am going to use every bit of information I can find to record high quality sound. Once we have that as a base; hiring a sound guy to record it, if possible.

We are not shooting until the middle of next month. Hopefully, I will have enough knowledge by then to make more educated decisions.

Good approach! The skill really is in finding the best balance between the film crafts with whatever budget you've got. There's no point spending all your budget on camera equipment or cinematography for example to get decent visuals if your audio is poor. Although a DP too tied up in the visuals rather than the film itself might argue otherwise! Likewise the reverse is also true, spending too much of your budget and time on the sound and neglecting say the visuals but to be honest I rarely see an imbalance this way around at the low budget level.

If you aim for a 3.0 mix and approach 3.0 as a thinking filmmaker's stereo rather than as a poor man's 5.1, I believe that will give you the best chance of ending up with a mix suitable for most of the cinema based film festivals. If you're determined to go for the really major festivals though, you will need a reasonable budget for audio post. Fortunately, neither a 3.0 nor a 5.1 final mix need to affect the production sound recording process, IE. You just record the same as you would for a stereo mix, no need to record anything actually in 3.0 or 5.1 format. Just do what you are doing now and try to get the cleanest highest quality dialogue recordings your time and budget will allow.

G

 

[rayw]

Is that alllll?
Yep, that's the beginning point we're trying to uncover.
Entry level theatrical 5.1.

I'm trying to explain, obviously not very successfully (!), that what I think you're asking for is not really possible.
Yeah, it's possible. (You are sooooo pessimistic! )
You yourself stated that theatrical 5.1 is achievable on a budget from $50 and upwards.

The simple answer is anywhere from $50 to $250k or so but I don't think this answer is of much help! There are a number of variables which define where on this scale the cost will be but then it's not going to be a simple answer!
1. First of all,...
2. The duration and genre...
3. ... a range of standards...
4. ... how much of a risk...

Obviously the product will sound like sh!te on a stick until filmmakers pass the task off to someone with the proper tools and skills, and as you've made clear (and I easily understand) the proper tools come with a price tag, often beginning around $2k-5k for a week or two's worth of basic, no frills mixing.

Now, once the general consensus if IT-ers can clearly manipulate the entry level criteria THEN it's time to start scaling up the comprehension of what do we get for a few thousand more?
And a few thousand more above that?
What do we get for a $2k theatrical 5.1 mix vs. a $5k theatrical 5.1 vs. a $10k vs. a $25k?

You can't DIY build a meatball formula 1 car, you can't even hire a professional road car mechanic to build one for you.
Ah, you're setting yourself up for...

For a meatball formula 1 car you're going to need a mechanic with at least some experience of building a formula car, who has access to the equipment and materials needed to build a formula car and who has a fairly decent idea of how to use it.
... your own contradiction.
Not all formula cars are equal.
Some are more equal than others.
Some are pretty far from equal.
Fine.
What's the minimum build standard to enter a formula race? Surely there's a "you must be this high to ride this ride" criteria.
That's all we're looking for NOW.

You kinda need to ease the throttle back on the "It's all impossible. It can't be done" angle.
We need more "What you need at a minimum is A. But what you're missing out on is B. With B you get all the benefits of A plus a fair bit more. Option C doesn't really cost all that much more and allows for X, Y, and Z. But... option D is really going to start to hurt your wallet. Etc."

It's strange, indie filmmakers have a very good idea of what's possible visually...
LOL! I'm pretty sure you're not familiar with just how far we're trying to go with what little video equipment.
I sh!t you not, many of us here can literally get a 1080p image up on a theatrical screen with what we can shoot on a $100 camera. They have sh!tty little 1/2.5" CMOS chips in them.

We're not all running about with whopping APS-C Canon 5D camera's getting images at a minimum to get into film festivals.
There's several of us here getting wimpy little micro four thirds sensor images into festivals.

So... we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel technologically. Visually.
So, what do we need to achieve acoustically for an equivalent?

However, the audio equivalent of both of these arguments have been made vociferously by a number of indietalkers!
See above.
What do we need just to get in the door with a theatrical 5.1 instead of a 3.0?
How do we know when we're being ripped off by an incompetent audio engineer?
Those are the sort of things we need to know.

I'm not having a go at you Ray, you (and the OP) are at least vaguely curious and are trying to understand the basics of audio and audio formats.
No, we're cool.
Ain't no shrinking violets around here.
Gimme a year and I'll be teaching classes in this arena. I'm more than vaguely curious. Considerably.

Just show the hoop to jump through and I'll figure out a way to do it.




Fortunately, neither a 3.0 nor a 5.1 final mix need to affect the production sound recording process, IE. You just record the same as you would for a stereo mix, no need to record anything actually in 3.0 or 5.1 format. Just do what you are doing now and try to get the cleanest highest quality dialogue recordings your time and budget will allow.
Excellent.
Good to know.
You confirmed what I suspected.

R

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I do appreciate what filmmakers are achieving or at least trying to achieve with cheap cameras. How they are pushing the technology to it's limits (or even beyond) and achieving passable results with budgets and equipment which would appear to make passable results an impossibility. I realise that some here on indietalk have become experts in achieving the virtually impossible and seem to have an expectation that the same level of ingenuity can achieve the same sort of results when applied to the field of audio. It can't unfortunately because we're not really dealing with modern technology and therefore no amount of knowledge or technological ingenuity or trickery will make the slightest bit of difference.

What do we need just to get in the door with a theatrical 5.1 instead of a 3.0?

To create a 5.1 mix might cost nothing at all if you've already got software which can handle 5.1, you don't even need Compressor as you can put the 6 raw wav files on a BluRay disk without encoding it as a Dolby datastream. The only thing you'll need to buy if you don't have one already is a cheap home cinema sound system, $200 - $300 should do the trick. You'll probably also need a 5.1 capable reverb plugin but I'm sure there's something out there for next to nothing. OK, so now you can create a 5.1 mix but that was not your question, your question was a theatrical 5.1 mix. The first thing you need for that unfortunately is a theatre or rather a theatrical dub stage! Sorry, no getting away from it, there is no ingenuity or trick of technology which will make your room sound anything like a cinema or your home cinema system perform anything like a cinema sound system. Sure you can make a decent sounding mix on a home cinema system but it will only sound decent on another cheap home cinema system. So item #4 on the list was a biggie, you can make a 5.1 mix on a cheap home system but the chances of it sounding decent in a cinema are extremely remote. Your chances are still pretty remote on an expensive professional 5.1 monitoring system let alone a cheap home system! Are you willing to take the real risk that the translation to the cinema is so bad that your film is unwatchable. 3.0 on the other hand can be viewed as the theatrical equivalent of standard home stereo, it still won't translate well and so it's still overwhelmingly likely your film will sound like crap but there's much less to go seriously wrong with 3.0 and therefore much less likely that the sound will be so crap that your film is completely unwatchable.

BTW, the figures you've estimated were not accurate, I know of nowhere in the world where you can get a theatrical dub stage for $2k - $5k a week. In the US, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one for $2k a day! Rates are more likely to be around $2.5k - $7k a day and the workflow for a standard low commercial quality feature would be around 2-3 weeks of pre-mixing in the dub stage and then a week or so of final mixing. But as I said before, there are ways of reducing this most expensive part of the audio post process but there is risk involved there too.

BTW 2, a small room is technically defined as any room smaller than 5000ft³, although for theatrical mixing purposes the general consensus is a bare minimum of around 18,000ft³. A full size theatrical dubbing stage is going to be somewhere around the 100,000ft³ size, give or take 20,000ft³ or so.

How do we know when we're being ripped off by an incompetent audio engineer?

Now this is a particularly good question!!! While there are plenty of people out there who seem happy to rip you off deliberately, most of what I've been employed to fix has been due to a hard working, well intentioned audio post person who just didn't know enough about what they were doing. So I've been thinking of some questions you could ask when choosing an audio post person/service. Providing you believe what I've said previously, the obvious audio post person to be wary of is one with a room which is obviously smaller than 18,000ft³ who offers to provide a theatrical mix without recourse to another facility which does have a proper sized dubbing stage. Here are some other questions which could sort out the at least vaguely knowledgeable from the potential charlatans:

1. What is the relative difference between the sub woofer calibration level and each of the surround channels? A: The sub woofer is calibrated +13dB higher.

2. At what SPL level is their studio calibrated? A: 85dBSPL for the front main speakers and 82dBSPL for the surrounds is the international standard but ONLY for a full sized dubbing stage! A smaller room could be anything but somewhere around 79dBSPL (and 76dBSPL for the surrounds) would be most likely. This answer is a bit vague but is still a good question because if they don't know the answer or say the Dolby standard (85dBSPL) when they have a small room, you know to run away!

3. What is the crossover frequency of the sub woofer in a theatrical sound system? A: Trick question, there is no crossover with the sub in a theatrical system, only in studio or consumer bass managed systems.

4. What is frame edge alignment and do they have it? A: Frame edge alignment is where a house master clock and sync unit are used to reference and synchronise the audio sample frequency of the audio equipment with the video ref of the video card or picture playback device. Having a frame edge aligned system is obviously better than not but not necessarily too much of a problem if the picture is not being output to a separate display device, say a HD TV or Projector. They should still know what Frame Edge Alignment is though!

5. What is the Dialnorm setting for a Dolby Digital theatrical mix and a BluRay mix? A: -31 for theatrical and -27 for BluRay/DVD.

I can come up with more if you need them but these are a good start. This is all very basic technical information and any audio post pro would easily be able to answer all these questions off the top of his/her head, they would stump many music producers/engineers though!

G

 

[rayw]

Excellent!

Thank you very much, G.


Yep, DIY home theater 5.1 doesn't intimidate me at all.
I know I have the physical space, hardware and software for that.

Yep, it's the theatrical 5.1 that I recognize requires physical space, hardware and software that I really don't need to be fooling around with.

And are you suggesting that we DON'T even really NEED a Dolby theatrical 5.1 mix, just a plain-Jane no-name theatrical 5.1 mix should be fine at four outta five festivals?
That'd be nice.


Great audio engineer interview questions (and ones I'll of course investigate further.)

Thank you, again.
Please, keep 'em coming.



R

 

[Cracker Funk]

Burying your head in the sand, dismissing the difference and hoping it's the "end of story" is not even moderately intelligent. The reason the OP started this thread is because he wants to do what he can to get as close as possible to "acceptable", there are ways to do that and ways not to do it. You seem to be in the camp who doesn't care, so this thread is not really for you and your contribution is unwanted.

I think this borders on a personal attack, and is both unfounded and uncalled for. I'm not sure just what it is that you think we don't get, APE. Yeah, we know that what we're producing is nowhere near theatrical standards for audio. Thanks for rubbing it in our faces. If we had the money, I assure you, we'd spend it on audio. But we ain't got the money, bro, and that's why it's incredibly more helpful when you simply give us advice on how we can make do with what we have.

To answer the OP's question, if the audio is in sync at home, it'll be in sync at the theater. If you require blu-ray, just give them a blu-ray, no need to toy with the sync.

That being said, this thread that APE started, warning about the dangers of a 2.0 mix is very valid. In that thread, you can read about a very negative experience I had at one particular fest, and APE's explanation of why that happened.

Every other fest I screened at projected my 2.0 mix, and it sounded just fine (I do not mean to say that it was professional quality, only that it sounded as good at the cinema as it did in my home).

I'm just speculating here, but I can't help but suspect that the reason the audio was funky at one of those fests might've been because they were using an older system? At this particular fest, they screened it at a newly-renovated old-timey theater. But it wasn't a big-budget corparate renovation, more like an indy DIY renovation. I dunno if that contributed to the problem, just guessing.

By the way, if all you're concerned with is what format the festival is asking for, if they're okay with blu-ray as a screening copy, I find it highly unlikely that they'd need anything other than boring-ol' 2.0 stereo. That being said, if there's an affordable way to wrap your 2.0 mix in a 5.1 format, that sounds kinda cool, no?