Seminal musician and video artist Tom Ellard of Severed Heads recently marked a 30th anniversary of the groups music with a special performance at the 2010 Sydney Festival. Accompanying the performance was a presentation given by Tom entitled Why Are We Here? Both a self effacing question from the ever humble Tom about why people would come to see Severed Heads after so many years and, at the same time, a deeply thoughtful question on the nature of exploration in music and art, the impact of nostalgia and the notion of 'looking forward'.
"Despite the revolutions to and fro we continue to look backwards for
authority and approval. Nothing has changed except we have a whole new
layer of language that marginalises creativity. Rather than record an
album we 'examine the idea of recording an album'. We review, revise,
we analyse, we do everything through safety glass and avoid
responsibility for the creative act as if it were pornographic. Art has
fallen into a passive language that once typified the physical sciences.
I am disturbed by the fear implied by this kind of language. I hear
people denying that they do anything. They are not making music, its
non notational, its random, its all about process. This fear also
means keeping to a comfort zone where need approval from the past while
hiding behind fake irony."
In particular i was struck by the powerful simplicty of Tom's manifesto regarding music but which can easlly be expanded for all arts. (in particular the 2nd point which seems wholly applicable to digital filmmakers who measure their creations by the tools they used and are more articulate in discussing their editing software than they are their ideas...)
Weve had 40 years of post everything. Stop with the
passive language. Stop analysing. Publish and be damned. Progress is
pornographic, but that's not a bad thing.
Music is
not research, its not measured in milligrams. I dont want to told how
many speakers you used, whether it was MaxMSP, whether you used a
Wiimote. Its not to be metricised. To hell with funding as the score
and festivals as the new concept album. We need people to make music
thats intangible, loud, tiny, ridiculous and in every way
metaphysical. Music thats brave and foolish.
Stop
seeking approval from the past, seek community, seek experience, seek
humour. But the whole 'golden age / end times' argument has got to go.
It belongs in the 1800's.
I am not afraid of pop
music, of pubs, of top 40. I make things. I make chairs, I make myself
useful. Milton Babbit asked Who Cares If You Listen? I do.
Reclaim
randomness. Randomness is an energy source, infinite opportunity. It is
not shuffle, its not a nihilistic everything is the same as everything
else. Difference is an energy that can lead us onward.
And then there's Reaper... What do they know that everyone else doesnt?
Much like video editing systems, the tools for crafting, mixing, and
multi-tracking digital audio projects - be they music, audio or sound
for video endeavours - have reached a very mature stage in their
development and evolution as technologies. The Digital Audio
Workstation (DAW) market has grounded itself in all-digital workflows
and common production practices whilst, at the same time, diversified
into an array of major players. Each major software DAW has its own
strengths and weaknesses, each has an established market share and
there is consistent (albeit too often tentative) innovation pushing
ever forward.
From ProTools as a staple of professional audio
multi-tracking, to the music, composition and MIDI strengths of Logic,
Sonar and Cubase. Into this mix we also see the likes of AcidPro,
Digital Performer, Audition and even the synthetic power of Ableton
Live, as well as the light-weight but highly effective integrated
production-suite tools of SoundtrackPro and Soundbooth. It's a dense
and mature market with each of these apps more than capable of
professional work in a variety of different contexts.
Audiences
can forgive you a shot that?s soft in focus, a camera that?s too shakey
or white balance that?s a bit off; but rarely will they forgive bad
sound, in particular bad dialogue editing.
Whilst great dialogue editing is an art unto itself it?s not nearly
as scary, difficult or arcane as many imagine. Ive come across two
great articles that help provide some perspective and insight into the
process.
SAY WHAT?: EDITING VOICE TRACKS LIKE A PRO
is an article by Sound editing Guru Jay Rose. The article breaks down
in a very accessible way some key techniques for cutting spoken word
audio tracks.
EDITING DIALOGUE
is an interview with a panel of sound editors discussing their
techniques and processes and it provides a host of good ideas and tips
for how to assembled a great dialogue track and improve problematic
ones.
When a new software version is released there is an unavoidable decent of vultures to pick at the bones of the young software hatchling and uncover the newness. Such pickings invariably focus on either big new features or previously unknown additions or dwell on the implementation of long awaited fixes or missing components. When the software release is as big and multi faceted as AdobeCS4, undeniably the most comprehensive and application rich software suite on the market, it is inevitable that such picking and scrambling over the features are long winded and detailed.
But when the dust settles it is often the small things, those that don't make the top of the New Features press release, that prove to be among the most interesting and forward thinking.
In Adobe CS4 there is much discussion of improved integration between applications, expanded metadata handling particularly in Premiere Pro, and a host of workflow improvements in apps such as After Effects. Likewise among the younger/newer apps in the suite such as Soundbooth, the focus falls to its multitrack options that move it beyond the basic waveform editor it used to be. But there is something else in Soundbooth which hasn't gathered as much immediate attention but heralds some great options for integrated post production.
When it comes to sound production it's never too late to revisit audio fundamentals and core production processes.
In teaching student filmmakers it quickly becomes apparent that audio presents one of the more significant challenges for many student productions. In many ways a good picture is a lot easier to acquire than good sound. Moreover some of the central processes for handling sound in production are conceptually tricky requiring a bit of head-bending to understand the concept let alone technical wrangling to make the process work well.
What I have gathered here are a collection of very short and to the point articles on specific sound issues and concepts from GeniusDVthat help to put audio cocnepts into succint practice.
NORMALIZING One of the primary processes for working with sound is Normalization. As the name might imply the process is primarily aimed shifting the levels of a sound file to a benchmark level and by proxy using this benchmark to match other sound files in your project.Its not an easy process however to wrap your head around conceptually however this short article does a pretty good job clarifying what normalizing does and why its important to your production.
"Oftentimes, despite your best efforts in production, you'll find yourself editing together clips shot with audio that sounds different. Most importantly for our purposes today, some clips' audio might be louder or quieter than other clips'. One way to bring every clip into the same volume range is called normalization - and, while audiophiles have good reason to turn up their noses, it's probably the best way we have to fix this kind of editing problem."
CLIPPING The other issue that can be perplexing is audio 'Clipping' and, more specifically, the processes that help us avoid or curtail clipping in post-production, namely Limiting and Dyanamic range compression.GeniusDV has three short articles that go together to overview these key issues.
Part1Part 2 and Part3 which covers who to deal with clipping in SoundtrackPro using Limiter the plugin.
BACKGROUND NOISE Background noise is fact of life in any production. Avoiding it on-set is always the best option but invaribly you will have some noise left over in post that needs software to deal with.
ADJUSTING LEVELS IN FCP The great failing of Final Cut Pro is audio, its audio editing and mixing tools are bloody woeful. But sometimes you cant avoid using FCP to prepare sound and so you have to work the best you can with it.
Last of all is the Absolute MUST READ article from FilmSound.Org entitled An open letter from your sound department which shoudl be complusory reading for not just filmmakign stduents but everyone involded in production...!
One of the trickier post-production processes for indie filmmakers is
working with dual-system (aka double system) sound in post production.
This has been a challenge a number of my students at the International Film School Sydney have been facing of late and, with their
collaboration, we compiled a document which outlines some contemporary
options for synchronization.
Some found that they'd
prefer to get a complete cut of their film first using the temp audio
track and then sync only the clips they need on the NLE timeline.
Others much preferred the idea of getting all the leg work out of the
way upfront, do all the sync-ing before starting the edit so the edit
can take place uninteruppeted by technical wrangling. Further workflow
options include rolling the process of sync and transcode to lossless
intermediate files (ProRes, Avid DNxHD, Cineform)
together.
The document entitled (rather
unimaginatively) 'Dual-System Sound Sync Options' can be read on the
film schools open production website - www.ifssproduction.net It can also be
downloaded as PDF from the Production Bible part of the
site.
Conforming Audio to Edit Changes in SoundTrack pro
One the great dilemmas of the sound editor is dealing with editor who change their mind.
Kevin P. McAuliffe over at PVC as assembled a fantastically succinct video that shows how to use the Conform Project feature of SoundtrackPro to match up a sound edit/mix to a revised edit from FCP.
I confess that i was until very recently ignorant of this feature in STP. SoundtrackPro has long struck me as the great DAW that almost was, but isnt quite. At times tedious, frustrating, dare I say slightly unstable. But at the same time presenting a great deal of promise and some great moments of workflow inspiration. I more readily find myself a happier sound editor in the more powerful Adobe Audition or fluidly fast Sony Acid. But with my eyes now opened to the beautiful effectiveness of CONFORM in STP. I may just find myself using STP more often.
Workflow is the key to 21st century cinema. Planning it, Managing it, Wrangling it, Customizing it. Where once workflow was consistent and predictable we now live and work in an age of near infinate production posisbility. No two movies are made quite the same way. And whilst it's easy to see the importance of workflow planning in terms of visual edit and effects and grading, audio is often neglected.
In this vein UK-based wesbite The Broader Issue has assembled a series of highly informative series of podcasts that explore modern audio workflow by way of interviews with some highly prominant and experienced sound designers from around the globe.
The series is in 5 parts and well worth a listen.
Part 1 - The technology of motion picture sound has changed radically, but what has happened to the way the work is done?
Part 2 - Programme two starts at the beginning of motion picture workflow -
modern sound recording techniques and looks at how changes in
technology affect workflow down the line.
Part 3- This episode focuses on how multitrack recordings are used in picture
editing and how these decisions are passed on to the audio department.
Part 4 - Programme four examines changes in ADR recording and editing technology.
Part 5 - This, the final episode in the series, is a wrap-up of where we stand today with motion picture and television audio workflows. How have changes in technology changed the lives of audio professionals?
Podcasting has become very quickly one of the key terms of digital media in the simple sense of being a term a great many common users are familiar with. Podcasting as a means of expeirencing and accessing digital audio productions is a common industry delivery means and in many cases has lead to a resurgence in the perspective of 'radio' as a contemporary medium rather an antiquated one.
And yet, Im often surprised by the very limited perspective many digital media producers have on what casting is and, more importantly, represents. To think of Podcasting as simple an audio file on a webpage is to fundamentally miss the point of what Podcasting means for the digital age.
In dealing with this issue I was recently asked to present a class at the Australian Film TV and Radio school (AFTRS) on Podcasting for location sound recording students.
But, that said, whilst i wrestled with the exploration and explanation of what podcasting really is I stumbled across the bastion of all Wisdom - The Ninja - who really made Podcasting clear as crystal.
Sunday May 04, 2008
Circumventing FCP's audio shortcommings
FCP may be a great visual editor but its got some major short-comings when it comes to audio. The Mixer is clumbsy and often inaccurate, there's no real-time fx adjustment, there's no surround sound, doesnt properly handle mixed sample rates, no VST support, no bus-to-bus routing, no track-level effects and so on and so on. Where once these where the domain of dedicated DAW's they are now standard on virtually all other NLE's. Apple have some serious catching up to do in the audio department but the most glaring and most absurd of all is that FCP is the only editing system on the market that needs to Render MP3 files before you can hear them or play them back on the timeline !
FCP is, in many ways, a rather old-fashioned editing system. By virtue of it having copious options for visual arrangement and a scarcity of functional audio tools, it saids that the designers of FCP still see the role of the Editor as one focused on the visual rather than a combined and more flexible approach that involves both visual and aural elements. FCP's audio is designed to be able to prep audio for production outside of FCP (soundtrack, proTools etc) All other NLE's on the amrket have moved to a more integrated approach as a 'finishing system' whereby full audio options are availible right on the timeline. You can still move outside to a DAW if you want, but you can also complete full mix in the NLE. Vegas and Premiere for example are both DAW's as much as NLE's. FCP is still in the traditional, seperatist aporoach. Most of the rest of the NLE market is moving the other way.
The other element that may be the reason FCP cannot work with Mp3 files, is that Mp3, as a compressed audio format, isnt traditionally considered a proper format for production. Its almost like FCP is declaring to you that you shouldnt be using mp3?. (a very snobbish attitude i reckon)
Mp3 is indeed a compressed and lossy audio format but its a very good and clever one. It discards aural information that human ear cannot hear anyway so most of the data mp3 throws away has no effect on the quality at all. Of course the more the mp3 is compressed the more the quality loss does become noticeable.
This is where bitrate comes into play. Mp3 audio is measured in a bitrate expressed in Kilo Bits Per Second:
64kbps is considered FM Radio quality
128kbps is considered CD quality
192kbps+ is considered aurally Lossless
256kbps is considered to be Transparent. (ie has a bitrate so high that it is impossible to tell the difference)
So FCPs approach that all MP3 is BAD is simply old-fashioned and stupid. (hopefully something Apple will rectify sooner rather than later) MP3 is a very viable production audio format at high bitrates, indeed all the major field recording units such as those from Marantz can record in both Uncompressed WAV or high Bitrate Mp3. A 192kbps or 256kbps MP3 will still be considerably smaller in file size than the WAV with longer record times but the same quality.
When using online sound resources such a the FreeSoundProject you will also often come across MP3 files (and other formats) that youll need to use in FCP. To avoid the pain of rendering everytime you make an edit its best to convert (aka TRANSCODE) these MP3s to Uncompressed WAV or AIFF files.
The simpliest way to convert an MP3 to a WAV or AIFF file is to use Quicktime.
Open the Mp3 file in Quicktime and select FILE > EXPORT. Then where its says Export: and has a drop down list select SOUND TO WAV (or SOUND TO AIFF, they are both the same) Then click the OPTIONS button choose LINEAR PCM as the format and 48.000khz as the Rate. The Sample Size should be 16 BITS.
This will make a professional standard 48k, 16bit Uncompressed audio file from your Mp3, ready for render-free editing in FCP. A simple solution but really Apple, why should be have to double handle to use a common mp3? What in your core engine of FCP is so inefficient that it cant playback mp3; soemthign all other NLE's can do....?
One of the difficult areas for student filmmakers (as well as low budget indie productions) is sourcing music. Composers can be expensive and may fall outside of budget, time or logistic restrictions; and sourcing copyright on music can be a painful and slow process when dealing with major record labels. In the same vein, its very common to need small sections of music, aural bridges and motifs, to work into the edit but which would seem too small to demand the attention of a dedicated composer. In both these cases there are alternatives to breeching traditional copyright and goign through the tedium of seeking copyright releases.
OpSound is a fantastic resource of free Creative Commons music. In much the same vein as StockXchang, OpSound provides a vast library of audio resourses that do not require permissions or fees to use in your projects. All Music on OpSound is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.5 copyright.
CC Share Alike simply requires that the creator of the music is credited (thats the Attribution part) and, more importantly, that any derivative works that use the music (ie a film using the music as part of the score) use the same Creative Commons copyright (thats the Share Alike part)
In other words, you cannot use music copyrighted as 'CC Share Alike' and then use traditional restrictive Copyright on the resulting combined work. If you use the CC Share Alike material you must 'pass on' the same freedom.That freedom is the right for anyone to to Share to copy, distribute and transmit the work and to Remix to adapt the work.
Some may baulk at this idea, it goes against the grain of the inbuilt 'copyright' culture we have grown up in. But Creative Commons is becoming an increasingly popular and viable way to make more open creative projects that retain some legal rights and protections but do not automatically restrict further use and distribution. For more info on Creative Commons check out their website www.creativecommons.org
Audition: The audio app that should have shipped with CS3
Once upon a time there was an audio tool called Cool Edit Pro; a humble, unassuming digital audio software
system that none the less garnered quite a reputation for efficiency,
flexibility and an easy learning curve. CEP also made a very smart
market share building maneuver in allowing access, of sorts, to their software for free.
The
Trial version of CEP didn't time out and instead allowed for only a set
number of selected features to be turned on - the choice as to what
left up to the user. What this did was make CEP very popular with
zero-budget students who then went on to become professionals and very
often stuck with CEP. By this process CEP built up a formidable user
base in the face of an overpopulated DAW market. CEP particularly
found, by its easy entry point and learning curve, a solid user base in
radio and journalism.
This is the legacy Adobe inherited when it bought CEP developer Syntrillium and re badged it Audition. Adobe has traditionally had no set piece in audio production and Audition filled a vital vacancy on its path to presenting a complete end to end production solution.
There is a widely held belief that different mediums (TV, film, mobile, on-line, book, magazine, blog etc) have inherent, in-built, parameters dictating acceptable length; the duration and density that a viewer/reader of that medium will accept from that medium. We very often hear this in regard to on-line streaming video; that the YouTube aesthetic demands everything be under 5 minutes or viewers will switch off and move on to something else. I've heard pundits of mobile media technologies talk about the 30second threshold, that people wont watch anything on their mobile phone for more than 30seconds. And all this spills over into (or perhaps indeed spills over from) Print where there is the widely held belief from editors and writers that writing on-line cannot engage the same depth, length or breadth that could be 'sustained' in print publications newspapers and magazines.
To this I say Bullshit...!
I say a work will be watched or read for as long as it is engaging, useful or interesting.
I say it's in a large part a self-fulfilling prophecy where by the assumption is that on-line media needs to be shallow and short and therefore it is Made shallow and short.
I say just because a homemade YouTube video of a pet dog taking a shit in a pair of shoes cant be sustained for more than 30seconds does not mean that the medium itself has such restrictive paradigms.
I say these concerns are artificial constraints derived from short-sightedness on the highly transitory 'now' rather than forward-thinking visions of what's to come. Constrains borne of temporary technical limitations (bandwidth, connection speed, screen size) which are everyday being washed away to obsolescence. 5 years from now will any on-line video be delivered at pixelated 320x240..? Of course not.
I say that writing on-line demands that content dictate form far in excess of any other medium ever known and so long-form writing is more at home on-line than anywhere. An open-ended, infinite publishing platform cannot help but drive towards new definitions of long-form detailed writing. Not least of all because on-line allows for viewer interest specialization en-masse that the economies of scale in print publishing can never accommodate.
I say that anyone singing the mantra of what on-line media Can and Cannot accommodate when it comes to length, duration or complexity is living in a very narrow and backward thinking world.
As a small element of proof in such a verbose diatribe I present an article by Dan Brockett entitled
The article examines sound, locations recording, microphone technology and reviews a vast array of different microphones makes, models and types. The article is long, deep and wide and is a fantastic resource as well as fine example of on-line journalistic reviewing tha moves beyond the Fluff mentality and expectation.
Just as audio is the great neglected art of video production with too many movie makers focusing on the image and treating sound as subservient, so too do we similarly neglect our hardware. Well happily spoon out large sheckles for widescreen monitors but too often leave sound to a tiny set of PC speakers or cheap and nasty headphones.
While powered bookshelf audio speakers are the ideal for mixing your soundtrack, the truth is that many home studios are simply not conducive to such setups. Likewise the editor working from laptop can't very we'll carry speakers with them.
When it comes to watching movies, a home theatre setup might be optimal for many, but a thumping subwoofer in the lounge room may not be appreciated by partners and sleeping children. So with these scenarios, it is that most of us find ourselves turning to the humble headphones for our audio production work and quality audio listening experience. The new XFones from Hauppauge seem aimed at satisfying a very broad spectrum of user needs.
International Mega-Band Radiohead turned a few heads recently with the release of their latest album, In Rainbows, as a free/pay-what-u-like download. Spurning the traditional 'record company selling physical product' model, Radiohead lent heavy weight support to the much more digitally tuned direct marketing and delivery approach on line.
Radiohead were certainly not the first however to embrace this model that aims the delivery of music as a promotional vehicle rather than purely an end product. Numerous have been the indie and unsigned musos who've embraced the Internet as a major means of self promotion and music delivery. Whilst Radiohead's move lends enormous weight to what might otherwise be dismissed as a viable solution only for the underground independent, musicians such as 'Brad Sucks' have long been a step ahead.
Canadian musoBradSucks has his entire debut album fallible on line as free mp3 downloads along with on line sales of his CD. Moreover Brad also goes a step further by providing all the individual parts from the multi-track for his songs. In the age of the re-mix culture, the Prod-User and pro-active co-creation Brad has embraced his ever growing audience as participants in the creative process.
For media-makers resources such as these provide fantastic opportunity for editors and sound designers to build their skills. Brad's songs (taken from his album 'I don't know anything') are very well recorded and the individual parts make for fantastic building block assets for learning the craft of song arrangement, sound mixing and remixing.
Not to mention the fact that this album by BradSucks is a really good listen and more than worth the download.
