Is it possible to make instruments sound natural through audio editing like this?

[Josh Bass]

The idea is that you hand it off to people who KNOW WHAT THEYRE DOING. How are you finding these folks? How are you evaluating them? Do you look at reels or samples of the finished products they've worked on? How much do you pay them?

[Greg Miller]

The issue of music volume could perhaps be said to be somewhat subjective. I certainly agree that it overpowers the dialog in some places. Let's skip over that and talk about the room tone, which is much less subjective.

I can't imagine any time when that change in room tone would be acceptable. I would hope the mixer at least knows that the final result sounds bad. Without hearing the actual tracks you gave him, I can't entirely place the blame on him, because you might not have given him the material he needs to make it better. Just saying you "gave him room tone" doesn't help; that's a broad term (like "celeste" is a broad term).

Ideally you would have an experienced mixer with a good ear, and then you would not micromanage him; he would just give you a good track. I, at least, can't say with 100% certainty what went wrong with that track. Maybe he's not the world's best mixer. Or maybe you gave him inadequate material to work with. Or maybe there was some communications issue (your communication is, IMHO, often very bad).

But why does the final release sound like that? If he handed you that mix, and if you could tell it was bad, why not have him fix it? Or did you not hear that it was bad? But the fact that you are willing to release it when it sounds that bad says something about your judgement. No explanations or excuses will change that.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. Well I gave him a minute of room tone to work with so couldn't he just have repeated the room tone track if he needed more, and just use the same room tone track over and over for the whole scene if he needed more?

I did let him know that there were problems, but he said it would cost more for him to work on it more, and I was already going over budget somewhat, so I couldn't go over anymore with that one.

[Paul R Johnson]

I am beginning to realise that while we know Ryan has trouble getting decent actors, and finding decent locations, but what we actually have are people who all are not professionals. I don't like commenting directly on people not involved in the discussion why can't defend themselves, but this surely must be the blind leading the blind.

If you have competent people, they do NOT need supervising, and even if they did, Ryan clearly doesn't;t have the role dependent skills to do that supervising. He has his own likes and dislikes but they are just an amateurs view of the world.

If you have a costume designer - you give them a budget and they do their thing. The sound people seem to have done a poor job of capturing the original sound, they didn't notice the background noise, and then the person doing the balance clearly could not process the audio to a standard where it becomes transparent. Ryan handed over room tone - but we have no idea what that actually was? Maybe it was equally unusable - we don't know. The composer seems to have produced something totally mismatched to the visuals and not produced music that would have worked mood wise. Ryan got hung up on silence, but suspense silence is rarely silent - it's normally quiet subliminal suspense sounds - not a tune, not a melody, not music, but something to make you move closer to the edge of your chair. In a way it's often quiet enough to almost be room tone.

Ryan - you specifically mention re-using the room tone. Of course he could, he didn't and perhaps he should, but it was your job to say "Stop - what has happened here - I can hear the joins?" As the commissioner and the final judge of quality, you do not need to know how to do everything, but it's your product so your quality standard. I don't know why you didn't sort it - it really is obvious. A question - why didn't you turn the aircon off when you heard it humming away?

[Ryan Elder]

The original location become unavailable so I found another one for shooting in time. Their was a computer mainframe room down the hall, from the room we shot in. The computers were doing the humming. But we were not allowed to turn off the computers. I will make try to make sure of that for next time.

But if I am to leave the people along in post and let them work and not check back until they are finished, what if they want more money, to fix the issues, going over budget then? I new that the audio and music had the errors in it that were mentioned already, but for next time, when I get them back and they have errors in, what do I do? Or do I work with them, and catch the music and sound issues during the process more so? Or do I wait till it's done, show it to a test audience, and wait for their notes, if my judgment is not the best? What do I do to fix the errors for next time?

I think the whole just hope it comes back good because the people working in a vaccuum are that good, is just kind of too risky, and there needs to be a different approach? I don't mean to blame anyone I worked with or make it sound that way. I was just saying I felt disappointed with the music and audio and felt I could have done more myself when working with them, and blame myself.

It was said before to just leave them do their thing and wait for a finished product without supervising the process. I have done that before, and was not satisfied in the past, such as in this example. So isn't this example a case in point, on how that is risky, and could end up not working?

[Brian Drysdale]

You should always attend the sound mix. The director should go or at least the editor, the sound is 50% of the film has George Lucas is well known for saying.

Find a day when you're available or make a day available by taking a day off work.

[Ryan Elder]

Okay sure I can do that. How come I should atttend the sound mix but not the music creation though?

[Brian Drysdale]

If you're not a musician it may be a distraction, like sitting over the shoulder of a writer. However, it's not unusual at the later stages, as in the the recording studio - the equivalent of the sound mixing.

Unfortunately, you seem to suffer from the equivalent of falling in love with the temp tracks. Which can get in the way..

[Greg Miller]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

It was said before to just leave them do their thing and wait for a finished product without supervising the process. I have done that before, and was not satisfied in the past, such as in this example. So isn't this example a case in point, on how that is risky, and could end up not working?

We've discussed that point over and over again. You have an excuse for every problem.

Excuse: There was a server room down the hall. Is your sound man deaf? Can he hear the server noise on his headphones? If he can't hear it, you need a new sound man. If he can hear it, then obviously he should mic differently. Use lavs if necessary. Don't have lavs? Get some?

Excuse: You heard the mix, it was bad, but the mixer said it would cost more money to fix it. Do you want your film to have good sound? Then spend the money. Don't have the money, then find a less expensive hobby. OR, if the mixer said he couldn't make a good mix from the tracks you gave him, then get another mixer to listen to them.

Etc.

My god, man, what is your role here? Chief whiner and excuse-maker? Or director?

If you feel that film has an important story to tell, then re-doing that film becomes your *next* film. Get a better mixer. Let him hear the raw tracks (pre-music). Ask him if he can do a better mix from those tracks. *IF* he says the raw tracks are hopeless, then you're out of luck. *IF* he says he can do a better mix, then let him try, and evaluate it when he's done. Once you get past that point, then you can re-think the music.

Watch some local films. Get some names of people who captured good dialog tracks, who did a good mix, who wrote a good score. Hire those people next time. If you can't afford them, then be prepared to end up with a disappointing (most polite word I can think of) end result. Or find a less expensive hobby.

Hiring bad craftsmen and then micro-managing them is not going to solve your problem. The fact that you do not really understand music and you don't understand sound will work against you as long as you try to direct. Perhaps you should accumulate some more basic knowledge and skills, before you try managing other people who obviously haven't done stellar work on this past film.

It's too bad you can't serve an apprenticeship, or otherwise sit in on some local productions by some known better directors. Just to see how things are normally done, rather than trying to re-invent the wheel and being so seemingly clueless about the details.

You are asking how to make a good film, shooting in bad locations, recording bad audio, making a bad mix from that audio and bad music, while working with an insufficient budget ... well, Ryan, that's an unrealistic question. Going around in circles here ad infinitum is not going to solve your problem.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Greg Miller

We've discussed that point over and over again. You have an excuse for every problem.

Excuse: There was a server room down the hall. Is your sound man deaf? Can he hear the server noise on his headphones? If he can't hear it, you need a new sound man. If he can hear it, then obviously he should mic differently. Use lavs if necessary. Don't have lavs? Get some?

Excuse: You heard the mix, it was bad, but the mixer said it would cost more money to fix it. Do you want your film to have good sound? Then spend the money. Don't have the money, then find a less expensive hobby. OR, if the mixer said he couldn't make a good mix from the tracks you gave him, then get another mixer to listen to them.

Etc.

My god, man, what is your role here? Chief whiner and excuse-maker? Or director?

If you feel that film has an important story to tell, then re-doing that film becomes your *next* film. Get a better mixer. Let him hear the raw tracks (pre-music). Ask him if he can do a better mix from those tracks. *IF* he says the raw tracks are hopeless, then you're out of luck. *IF* he says he can do a better mix, then let him try, and evaluate it when he's done. Once you get past that point, then you can re-think the music.

Watch some local films. Get some names of people who captured good dialog tracks, who did a good mix, who wrote a good score. Hire those people next time. If you can't afford them, then be prepared to end up with a disappointing (most polite word I can think of) end result. Or find a less expensive hobby.

Hiring bad craftsmen and then micro-managing them is not going to solve your problem. The fact that you do not really understand music and you don't understand sound will work against you as long as you try to direct. Perhaps you should accumulate some more basic knowledge and skills, before you try managing other people who obviously haven't done stellar work on this past film.

You are asking how to make a good film, shooting in bad locations, recording bad audio, making a bad mix from that audio and bad music, while working with an insufficient budget ... well, Ryan, that's an unrealistic question. Going around in circles here ad infinitum is not going to solve your problem.

Oh okay he said lavs were picking up more of it, so we used the hypercarioid mic, since the hyper was picking up the least of it. The thing about mics is they always hear what the human ear will hear and if the human ear can hear a computer mainframe down the hall, than every mic will pick it up. Unless there is actually a mic that can truly cancel out things like that fully? I don't think there is, and I the lav was doing a worse job than the hyper. As for paying more for more sound mixing, I just didn't have the budget for more at the time, so it was just one of those things, when it comes to microbudget.

I didn't think I was making excuses. I still made the short film. I still directed it. It was said before that I need to learn to make the best of what I have with real locations so can I not do that hear, with realistic location sound and just make the best of it, since that is what I have? I just was asking what to do better for next time in post, but still be able to supervise the process more, before it's too late, if that makes sense.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

If you're not a musician it may be a distraction, like sitting over the shoulder of a writer. However, it's not unusual at the later stages, as in the the recording studio - the equivalent of the sound mixing.

Unfortunately, you seem to suffer from the equivalent of falling in love with the temp tracks. Which can get in the way..

When you say the later stages, you mean after the composer has created a rough draft of the whole score, so to speak?

[Brian Drysdale]

In your case yes.

The important part isn't the instruments, but is the music communicating the emotions etc to the audience? If an actor's performance is weak, is the music helping to convey what's going on that character's head at that moment?

You could have all the instruments you wanted, but if the music fails in this it's not working for the film. On the other hand, it could have all the instruments you don't want, but the music really engages with the film and all the emotions.and works on every level with the film itself and lifts it to another level.

A good director will recognize this and understand what the composer has given them.

[Paul R Johnson]

Now I'm older, I don't mind so much any more sitting with a client while I compose. Years ago I hated it, because they interfere destructively. From a musical perspective, the most creative time for me was always on my own, I got things done quicker and I suspect I didn't want people to see me try things and then scrap them because they reached dead ends. Now, my work gets split into two client groups. Those that trust me to work from what they give me as a brief and perhaps video and audio files. I do it, and invoice them. That job is done. With others, the difficulty of explaining in words means sitting with me is more efficient, and actually is more lucrative for me.

My best clients ask for X minutes of music, give me the steer and ask how much, and I might figure it will be a day - that happened yesterday. It took about 6 hours, including lots of coffee/thinking/revue breaks. Invoiced last night when they emailed to say it's great.

When you have a client with you it's different because they see it emerge, and offer suggestions. How about when that movement starts, we remove all the rhythm stuff and have a twinkly sound. You save v4 (because you know you might need it again) and start twinkles. Three hours later you have it sorted and then they change their mind. You ask where they'd like to go back to and load up v4 again - 4a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l are scrapped. evening falls maybe at v13. next day you pick up but they've had overnight ideas. Maybe stupid ones, but they are the client. It's soul destroying writing things you know they will hate in an hour. 3 minutes could be 6 hours work. 3 minutes could also be 4 days work, and the clock is ticking and their budget vanishing. Sometimes you know they will run out of money before its done. I hate that. One client kept it up for two weeks before deciding it didn't work, and left me alone for another day to start again from nothing and liked it. Now they do one or two a year and never come to the studio. They finally realised it wastes money.

However, one client always wants to be there because his ideas are often better than mine. every suggestion is a good one and we rattle through it. I have even asked him to play something I have in my head but cannot get my fingers to do - he'll take my seat = play it, then we swap again.

This is actually odd in the paperwork, because in the UK copyright system, this gives him a performer credit, so I get the composer, arranger and contracted performer credit and he gets the featured performer credit, which is funny when I give him the six pounds 20 pence it generated a year later!

[Brian Drysdale]

On one film, I was in with the composer for a couple of hours as he worked. He asked what I thought should be next in the piece, I gave my suggestion. I don't know if he was seriously asking me or just testing me.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, well the instruments I wanted were in the example tracks, which is why I wanted instruments like that, so the tracks could be similar to what I wanted. I could just tell the composer I want those sounds, similar to in the example tracks done in the same context if that's better. I just don't want the composer to make it sound too different like I had before, so I feel like I need to be more specific, rather than describe general feeling I want, in a general way only as a case in point with the music in the short film I posted.

Or I could just describe to the composer what I want but only have him come up with some of the tracks, just a little bit, that way I can make sure the music is on the right track, before composing all of it?