Quantcast
Dialogue Editor Leveling advice - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Dialogue Editor Leveling advice
Old 11th September 2012
  #1
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Dialogue Editor Leveling advice

Im working on a film where I'm hired as the sound editor (dialogue, SFX, BG, Foley, etc) however someone else is going to mix the film. I would like to make sure my sound design fits well with the dialogue. My question is can someone give me a reference to what DB the dialogue should be so I can base all of the other elements off of that. I have 2 trial plugins that have a few days left that will hopefully help me achieve this. I'll purchase them if these are the right tools for the job. I have QuietArts WaveRider and Waves WLM meter. I dont know how to use WLM meter but I was thinking that if I knew what the dialogue should be and can set everything up in WLM then i can have WaveRider act on the desired settings (just as a rough mix). I just want to set it up for playback purposes.

Will those plugs help or should i look at some alternatives? What is Waves WLM typically used for?

I apologize in advance if my questions come off newbish. LOL
Old 11th September 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Talk to your mixer. Don't ask us.
Old 11th September 2012
  #3
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
I was under the impression that someone could give me a general guideline for dialogue loudness settings, how to use the Waves WLM plugin and how its integrated into an editors workflow. LOL
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Sonsey@mac.com's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalxvi ➡️
I was under the impression that someone could give me a general guideline for dialogue loudness settings, how to use the Waves WLM plugin and how its integrated into an editors workflow. LOL
Tom just did!

Your job as an editor is NOT to try and mix things, unless your Mixer SPECIFICALLY asks you to. Films aren't necessarily mixed to a specific DB or loudness setting, they are mixed to ear in a tuned, calibrated room that mimics the theatre environment(there's a whole 'nother set of threads on that actual environment, but for now, let's just go with this). If you try and level things out in your edit suite, unless it also happens to be a calibrated room, what you will end up with is a mess, that the Mixer will have to spend time undoing. Which isn't going to make you popular with either the Mixer or the Director/Producers. Make sure all your FX and Dialog edits work in and of themselves, and let your Mixer worry about how loud or soft they should play. While your EDITING, feel free to make soft sounds play soft, and loud sounds play loud, but be sure to remove the automation before sending it off unless your Mixer asks for it. Set your dialog at unity and go from there. As far as the Wave Rider goes, yes it can be used to level out the dialog if it's wildly dynamic, but again, DON'T send that to the mixer unless he/she specifically requests it (and odds are, they won't) and don't do the dialog edit with it on. It can be a wonderful tool, but can cause you grief if you aren't careful.

Some mixers (myself included) don't mind a little volume graphing on Composite FX so we know which parts are intended to be louder than the others, but avoid any more than relative mixing. Again talking with the person who will be mixing the film is THE BEST WAY to insure everything goes smoothly.
Old 12th September 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
As dilaog a mixer I never use any volume automation from the dialog editor.
Old 12th September 2012
  #6
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
The dialogue is on -31LKFS but for my opinion this depends on the way they are talking etc.
A good example is "Drive", (for me is one of the best mixes a have heard for the last years) the dialogue is less and Gosling' s lines are way less than that, but he is whispering all the time. And i thing it's one of the reasons of that nice wide dynamic rage.
But this is mixer's - sound designer's, director's decision, not sound editor's.
Old 12th September 2012
  #7
Lives for gear
 
cananball's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Seems this thread re-emerges every month or so around here. Use the search feature all of the info you are looking for had been posted in previous threads.

Ditto to what these guys are saying. If you were hired as the editor dint mix unless asked to. Talk to your mixer.

Sent from my DROIDX
Old 12th September 2012
  #8
Lives for gear
 
dr.sound's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
If I'm hiring someone to "Edit" then impress me with your "Editorial" because I guarantee you I won't be impressed with your mixing!!!
Old 12th September 2012
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Bill@AudioVision's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Scenario:
I have a line of dialog in which the actor turns slightly away from the boom mic. I have a lav channel, but it's buried a bit under clothes, so I want to use the boom track. I look for alternate takes and find something that will cover the line nicely, but it's a bit low. My reaction is to bump up the level to match the surrounding line with clip gain (just to that one piece) Should I?
Old 12th September 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
As I work both editing and mixing I always seem to be the odd one out on this subject...
In general I agree with the statement: editors edit, mixers mix.
But applying general levelling to rectify relative level issues will only make the mixers life easier.
I'd go ballistic if the editor would give me a mess of levels where the basic levels of all the lines are all over the place.
It's impossible to make judgment calls on noise floor issues (requiering ADR) if the levels aren't in the ballpark.
I really don't mind GENTLE volume graphing on dialog IF the editor is experienced and have spent time on a dubstage.

I rarely have to redo any volume graphing I do in editing when I start mixing proper on our dub stage...

But it can't be done in a non calibrated studio environment or using headphones.
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #11
Deleted e479b20
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikG ➡️
As I work both editing and mixing I always seem to be the odd one out on this subject...
In general I agree with the statement: editors edit, mixers mix.
But applying general levelling to rectify relative level issues will only make the mixers life easier.
I'd go ballistic if the editor would give me a mess of levels where the basic levels of all the lines are all over the place.
It's impossible to make judgment calls on noise floor issues (requiering ADR) if the levels aren't in the ballpark.
I really don't mind GENTLE volume graphing on dialog IF the editor is experienced and have spent time on a dubstage.

I rarely have to redo any volume graphing I do in editing when I start mixing proper on our dub stage...

But it can't be done in a non calibrated studio environment or using headphones.
+1

I also wonder where the total rejection of levels from editing comes from. Are editors on the other side of the pond that deaf that they delivery tracks leveled all over the place?

I have no idea how we would make it though todays mix-schedules without dialog-tracks that hit the mixing-theatre sounding consistent in level within each scene.

I really wonder why any mixer would want to drop the entire leveling of the tracklack and mix like in the days of mag where every single fade had to be done manually on the console.
Sure when you have 6 months to mix a film, why not. But why do something on a console with a slow hand that can be done much better inside a DAW during the edit.

Do you seriously start painting out lip-smacks and extreme esses when the mix starts? The facility must love you for that since it keeps the stage busy for weeks just for the dialog premix at premium rates.

When editing dialog I can't stand having to listen to things that are completely obviously too loud or too quiet. Why would anyone what such a track-lay to start with?
I have to deliver rough-bounces constantly during a project. I'd be fired in no time if those bounces make the AVID editor jump out of his chair on every incoming clip just because someone further down the line banned any kind of volume-graphing during editorial.

But maybe that's just something we do over here? Not sure? Maybe it's union-thing? People being afraid of other taking away what used to be their job even when it's good and useful for the outcome of the project?

Are you saying that in the US no one ever uses the levels from editorial? Select all and hit backspace at day one of the mix?
Old 12th September 2012
  #12
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-q ➡️
+1

I also wonder where the total rejection of levels from editing comes from. Are editors on the other side of the pond that deaf that they delivery tracks leveled all over the place?

I have no idea how we would make it though todays mix-schedules without dialog-tracks that hit the mixing-theatre sounding consistent in level within each scene.

I really wonder why any mixer would want to drop the entire leveling of the tracklack and mix like in the days of mag where every single fade had to be done manually on the console.
Sure when you have 6 months to mix a film, why not. But why do something on a console with a slow hand that can be done much better inside a DAW during the edit.

Do you seriously start painting out lip-smacks and extreme esses when the mix starts? The facility must love you for that since it keeps the stage busy for weeks just for the dialog premix at premium rates.

When editing dialog I can't stand having to listen to things that are completely obviously too loud or too quiet. Why would anyone what such a track-lay to start with?
I have to deliver rough-bounces constantly during a project. I'd be fired in no time if those bounces make the AVID editor jump out of his chair on every incoming clip just because someone further down the line banned any kind of volume-graphing during editorial.

But maybe that's just something we do over here? Not sure? Maybe it's union-thing? People being afraid of other taking away what used to be their job even when it's good and useful for the outcome of the project?

Are you saying that in the US no one ever uses the levels from editorial? Select all and hit backspace at day one of the mix?
From my point of view, an editor is basically wasting time trying to level anything. Totally useless to me. It's a time management thing. You have 2 days to edit the dialog for this tv show, if the editor spends a day editing and a day trying to do my job, I have a half assed edit and a unusable half assed mix. The entire show suffers. Editors please just spend 100% of your time giving me a correct edit.
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #13
Deleted e479b20
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandoncross ➡️
Editors please just spend 100% of your time giving me a correct edit.
What is a "correct" edit for you?
How would I be able to know if my edit works when one clip running into the next is 10dBs apart. How would I match RT fills if I'm not "allowed" to match the level of the fill with the noise floor of the outgoing and incoming clip?

I have no idea how I could possibly deliver a working dialog edit that way.

Sorry for me that's like working on different planet. I could as well use mag and a moviola . That would would offer just about the same feature set.


Old 12th September 2012
  #14
Deleted 2d58179
Guest
i think people here didn't read the original post entirely.

Op was asking for a dialogue guideline so that he can edit everything (not just dialogue) at reasonable levels. I infer from that his relative levels will be used as a starting point.

I think the cleanest solution is to spend some time really calibrating the playback level in the room you'll be cutting the sounds in. Make sure your calibrated level translates to the mix stage, and then lock that speaker level off.

From there edit and premix aesthetically instead of according to numbers. Your speaker levels should end up loud enough that you won't really be tempted to push levels to clipping.

here's a thread where I spelled out a workflow for if you were doing the entire thing yourself, which I think would still mostly apply in this scenario.
Old 12th September 2012
  #15
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
For dialog, I wouldn't set any levels. Dialog mixers have very specific needs regarding gain structure, and chances are you are just going to make things difficult for them and confuse the issues. Let them deal with it.

For sound effects it really depends on how good the editor is at setting levels. Sometimes it is really useful and other times it is such a PITA that I have to get rid of all the automation because it is just getting in the way and slowing me down. I usually find that the most experienced editors give me very useful levels that help rather than hinder me.

In general, for sound effects I prefer if editors restrict themselves to setting an overall level for each clip and using fades to make things work, rather than doing fader moves. For one thing, if the effect works well with just those basic elements, then it is generally a good choice, but if it doesn't work without a lot of major fader moves, then it probably wasn't. Also, working with a constant level for the clip is just easier for me and I can see and hear the what I'm working with better in terms of what the underlying material is. Make sure your room is calibrated correctly! I get really irritated when everything comes to me 15 to 20dB too hot, which is what generally happens.
Old 12th September 2012
  #16
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Well... Theres really no point in having a controlled monitoring environment if there's no leveling...
And I have to say thats what is ALWAYS mentioned as the first basic thing to deal with setting up a sound edit suite, both here on GS and other forums...

If following the no leveling approach that's just a waste of money. I totally disagree with the "hollywood" approach, both as a editor and as a mixer. With good monitoring and proper meters in the editing rooms the editors will be able to deliver a consistent and reasonably balanced sound to the stage. Thats where I start.
I'd hate to deal with each and every sound on a molecular level. Or really I wouldn't, I'd actually love to. But not in the time I currently have to make a feature film mix... Give me a few months to mix a film and I'd love to do that. But I don't have that kind of luxury.
The better prepared (NOT over-prep'd, just a good prep) the faster I can get trough the basic menial work and the more time I can spend on the important stuff.

I'd love the production companies to spend more time on our dubstage, but not doing basic prep work, thats a waste of time and money imho.
In my book, consistent shot to shot levels is prep for dialog. Slight graphing when levels go off and become unbalanced. Consistent levels between boom and lav obviously. And leveling of all sound effects and backgrounds so all intent is clear.

I suppose some folks like to work as it was still mag, just faster. I'm not one of them.
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #17
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-q ➡️
What is a "correct" edit for you?
How would I be able to know if my edit works when one clip running into the next is 10dBs apart. How would I match RT fills if I'm not "allowed" to match the level of the fill with the noise floor of the outgoing and incoming clip?

I have no idea how I could possibly deliver a working dialog edit that way.

Sorry for me that's like working on different planet. I could as well use mag and a moviola . That would would offer just about the same feature set.


Let's assume we have some experience and a set of ears. Just find the average dialogue level by listening, adjust your monitor level to what you're used to and level it from there. Levels, not mixing. That way the "basic" level of the recordings stays intact and the editor can judge what he is doing. The mixer gets a smooth dialogue edit and gainstaging into his processing is as easy as raisingor lowering the overall levels; a few clicks and drags.

Any mixer deleting that kind of leveling before starting a mix is

a. trying to increase the billable hours
b. being an "Artiste" (there's talented people, but it's not brainsurgery, just air moving and somebody in charge yelling he wants more air)
c. a moron
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #18
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan ➡️
For dialog, I wouldn't set any levels. Dialog mixers have very specific needs regarding gain structure, and chances are you are just going to make things difficult for them and confuse the issues. Let them deal with it.

For sound effects it really depends on how good the editor is at setting levels. Sometimes it is really useful and other times it is such a PITA that I have to get rid of all the automation because it is just getting in the way and slowing me down. I usually find that the most experienced editors give me very useful levels that help rather than hinder me.

In general, for sound effects I prefer if editors restrict themselves to setting an overall level for each clip and using fades to make things work, rather than doing fader moves. For one thing, if the effect works well with just those basic elements, then it is generally a good choice, but if it doesn't work without a lot of major fader moves, then it probably wasn't. Also, working with a constant level for the clip is just easier for me and I can see and hear the what I'm working with better in terms of what the underlying material is. Make sure your room is calibrated correctly! I get really irritated when everything comes to me 15 to 20dB too hot, which is what generally happens.
+1

Once a relationship is built between the mixer and editor, the details in what should be done become more apparent. A team atmosphere always brings out better work.

As an DXer, I play with levels to see if my cross fades work between lines but I don't automate anything. For SFX, I will automate some of the more elaborate designs to give the mixer an idea of what I think all the elements should sound like together and let them know when I do it.
Old 12th September 2012
  #19
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
I'm going to add my two cents and piss off of the old folks on this thread. I'm one so I can do that

I'm going to make some assumptions. If your new to this industry I'll assume that this is a super low budget project. A really efficient way to proceed would be to get your dialog mixer (is he working from home?) to slam through a quick mix of the dialog reference that was delivered with your work print. Then you can build your elements to this reference. Don't go for subtle moves just ballpark... a little on the hot side.

This is the way I have been working for years with my team. While I rarely mix film this is our TV method that works really well for us. I'm sure the difference might be the youngest guy on my team has been at his craft for 20 plus years and can make a judgment call like no one I've ever worked with. With smaller budgets these days you need to work efficiently. Hopefully you have a conversation with the mixer(s) about how best to pull this off. The other advantage to working this way is if your client wants to hear your work in progress it's a simple matter to just bounce it all down to a Quicktime to hear it all in context.

One project was in post for over 6 months and the sound design was constantly evolving as visuals were delivered. My sound designer delivered effects, foley and background stems to me for each new area (panned in 5.1). I created a session with my rough dialog Predub and his stems tweaking the mix from his stems, constantly adding new sections when completed. This way I always had a reasonably decent Predub to play for the client at any point in time. I was also adding new ADR as it was shot and cut. When we were ready to really mix, I took my sound effects level tweaks and pasted them into the group masters of the final sound effects delivery (300 plus tracks) making the mix quite easy and no surprises for the client as they were used to hearing it this way.

I think some Hollywood workflows should be confined to the few in this business that are working old school (perhaps those in the new Paramount/Technicolor facility?) and have funny money budgets. There are many ways to get to the finish line these days.

Works for me!
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #20
Deleted e479b20
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceme ➡️
Let's assume we have some experience and a set of ears. Just find the average dialogue level by listening, adjust your monitor level to what you're used to and level it from there. Levels, not mixing. That way the "basic" level of the recordings stays intact and the editor can judge what he is doing. The mixer gets a smooth dialogue edit and gainstaging into his processing is as easy as raisingor lowering the overall levels; a few clicks and drags.

Any mixer deleting that kind of leveling before starting a mix is

a. trying to increase the billable hours
b. being an "Artiste" (there's talented people, but it's not brainsurgery, just air moving and somebody in charge yelling he wants more air)
c. a moron
Well yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Old 12th September 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
If you are working with a tight team, then there are a lot of excellent possibilities and I really appreciate being able to trust others to do as much advance work as possible to make my job easier and faster. Having worked with Peter, I can say that he has an incredibly well organized team that works together as a cohesive unit, and he reaps the benefits.

Unfortunately my experience has been that too often there is little or no attempt made to work out a game plan between editorial and mixing in advance. The attitude of, "This is how we do things, deal with it" is one of the more obnoxious holdovers from the old school. Thankfully, new budget realities are forcing more cooperation, but it doesn't always happen like it should. If the editorial crew and the mix crew are working totally independently and not coordinating with each other, there isn't much opportunity for the kind of efficiencies that Peter describes.
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikG ➡️
I totally disagree with the "hollywood" approach, both as a editor and as a mixer. With good monitoring and proper meters in the editing rooms the editors will be able to deliver a consistent and reasonably balanced sound to the stage.
There is no standard "Hollywood" approach anymore. Everyone tries to level the FX in editorial, some just are more competent than others. In terms of dialog, though, I'd say that there is a lot less leveling going on, and there is a reason for that. However, if you speak to a dialog mixer and they give you a thumbs up to do leveling, then go ahead if you have the time.
Old 12th September 2012
  #23
Lives for gear
 
dr.sound's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
No, It "D" ... NONE OF THE ABOVE!

What in the hell makes you think that it takes "months" on a movie because I asked "Sound Editor" not to level out every line?
Talk about slow. And by not asking them to do it I am hugely increasing my billable hours, wake the hell up. Obviously you haven't mixed a Feature Film lately. Let’s go to the main issue, COMMUNICATION.
Any Editor needs to discuss things with the Re-Recording Mixer.
If the OP had picked up the phone/ met the mixer then most of this would be taken care of. I don't delete volume automation that a Dialog Editor for example gave me, but we sure talked about what I need before he went through the motions. Efficiency is the issue. All I want is for someone to do their job first. Prove to me that you can. Many people here think they can. I have been less than impressed on so many editors work and then compound that by them trying to do too much and not focusing on the main job at hand.
Let me give you an example of our workflow at "The Dub Stage".
On our latest Feature "The Possession" which is still the #1 Movie at the Box Office, we were first told (with little notice) that they wanted a temp that they would do an audience preview (in a few days). Our team quickly took care of the job at hand.
We edited and mixed the temp. It sounded amazing especially for the amount of time we had. The clients were blown away with the sound. We then took that temp and all the work and carried it through to another unplanned for last minute temp.
We do all our work in Pro Tools so we took the first temp and used it for the 2nd temp. We also had a few days to create (not weeks) and the team once again exceeded the client’s expectations. The temp sounded great.
For efficiency we used all our work on the previous temps to then refine what we did in the final. Chris Jacobson who mixes FX/ Sound Design and Foley with me is extremely fast, creative and we have a way of working that our clients appreciate.
We communicate with the other people in our team and work together to create
Sonic mixture that our clientele have come to appreciate and demand for their work.
COMMUNICATE, COLLABERATE, CREATE!
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Whatever method works, works. But we cannot know what it is for the original poster and the team putting together the sound. He should ask the mixer how they want the FX prepared with respect to levels, layout etc. He wanted numbers, something definite. Can't give it, not the mixer.
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceme ➡️
Any mixer deleting that kind of leveling before starting a mix is

a. trying to increase the billable hours
b. being an "Artiste" (there's talented people, but it's not brainsurgery, just air moving and somebody in charge yelling he wants more air)
c. a moron
How about none of the above. I doubt the above poster has done much serious mixing.

First off, if the level of a line of dialog is wildly different from the next, then put it on another track. And when I say wildly, I'm talking 20-30 db in level difference. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure I can deal with it by moving a fader, which is still a million times preferable to rubberband static moves.

The statements of billable hours and artiste are nonsense. Yes, I've seen mixers who put on dog and pony shows with every mix. And in my experience they do it to hide their lack of talent. And billable hours, well, we have a set schedule. And using more time, usually just pisses of the client who will go elsewhere next time.
I don't use automation from DX editors. Ever.
They should be focusing on editing. Drawing out pops and clicks, finding cleaner alts and dealing with extreme Esses , if possible.

And as far as "across the pond" goes. My mix partner and I get through a 42 minute show in one day. With day two for 2 playbacks and fixes. Some shows, we've had three playbacks in one day.
MOW's 3-4 days, easily. Last ABC family musical we mixed in 3 1/2 days.
No pre-dubs whatsoever on anything.

So, I don't know who's effing the dog, when they are talking about needing 6 months on a mix. Especially if it's a walk and talk drama.

And I do take offense to the "artiste" comment. We do more than just move air.

At least some of us do.

So, does that mean that I am a moron then?
Old 12th September 2012
  #26
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
The little shows I get often are docs, and have really wildly differing levels from clip to clip. Usually the editor has tamed these somewhat so that they can listen to the cut, this is usually done with the FCP volume graphing (or whatever Apple calls it). In some cases, it's been good to have this volume graphing as a starting point, in others I find it's all just in the way. Often this audio comes in as 2 channels for every clip (often with the same audio on both sides)--I only want one so half the pair goes right away. That changes the apparent level of the clip, now panned center. Then, per the discussion of trim vs. clip gain in another thread), I like to "trim" or whatever you want to call it the clip so that the fader for that channel is fairly @ zero, so I have the most "room" for ride-finesse. I'm also going to low-cut and maybe EQ and probably compress and maybe also peak limit this audio on the way to a mix. By now that original editorial level, set on a full-ingested-volume clip via FCP volume graphing, is almost certainly wrong for the mix I need to deliver. So is it worth it to keep it? For the temps described above, certainly. For later--it seems like they'll all be changed anyhow.

phil p
Old 12th September 2012
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Philper, i would fire the DX editor who would deliver both sides for every clip. THAT is their job. Pick the best side, put the other on an x-track.
I have mixed a ton of reality and docs as well. An I have also edited docs.
A dialog editor who isn't picking tracks, is just cleaning up an OMF, IMO.
Old 12th September 2012
  #28
Lives for gear
 
mikevarela's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
It sounds possibly like this is a fairly low budget job. Asking you to handle all editorial and Dx is asking a lot, though it happens often. In this case, as stated above, likely you're sharpening your teeth and getting some credit with a more experienced mixer finishing the piece.

Marti's right, ask the mixer.

For you to handle the editorial however, you DO need to get an approx level of dialogue, or at least run a quick pass on it to work in BG's and atmos, plus design and if on a budget, find out where BG's can cover fill lacking in Dx chain.

all are correct above, you must mix in a calibrated environment. Film isn't TV, DX isn't pinned. it's dynamic.

as a dx editor, find and promote best takes, keep alts for mixer below on a muted track, pull Pfx if you have time, run fill through scenes (room tone etc) to gel it together, mix the dx to taste, but don't spend lot's of time here, and don't compress, Noise remove or eq, just keep it moving and at a general level so that it's not wildly jumping out at you.

next, go back and lay BG's and atmos

next, start on hard fx and psudo foley.

then design last.

try and create some sort of template and sort things into stems (dx,mx,fx) so that it's not 80 tracks of junk.

if this is indeed a low budget film, you might not have the benefit of help, so it's likely the director will want to hear some temp mix from you, stupid i know, but it happens.

the final mixer will however often be responsible for dialogue processing and mixing. he'll also mix the effects and BGs and sonically bring the project together.

if you're in a calibrated environment, mixing normal dialogue will vary in level, but around -31 to -27 is a place to make a mental note. if this is destined for web and not normal film routes, then all the levels will rise considerably.

it's ok to ask questions here, be humble. if you don't know these things, search first and read often to get an idea.

There aren't hard and fast rules and often people take offense to codifying art, but general practices do exist.

Knowing the scope of the project and communicating ALL the way through will help you now and as the film progresses. also, be honest about what you can do. knowing a little pro tools doesn't make you an all around great editor. lot's of people specialize in a stem and though, handle others at times, they often get really good at what they know.

this all-you-can-eat approach often robs the collaboration and art from a film, perspective and nuance get lost and with no one else helping, there isn't anyone else to learn from.

oh, and manage expectations!!!!! you're likely not going to be turning in the next big mix for peanuts.

good luck, hope it goes well.
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #29
Deleted e479b20
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman ➡️
Philper, i would fire the DX editor who would deliver both sides for every clip. THAT is their job. Pick the best side, put the other on an x-track.
I have mixed a ton of reality and docs as well. An I have also edited docs.
A dialog editor who isn't picking tracks, is just cleaning up an OMF, IMO.
Now that's interesting. Not so long ago there was a thread here about who's job it is to pick which channel of a production sound conform started by someone who was asking almost the exact same question like the OP in this thread but aimed at picking sides on clips.
Back then most mixers said something like "bring ALL the channels to the theatre. The editor isn't qualified to pick what sounds best. Just make sure they are in sync and on the right track."

Now all of a sudden it IS the editor's choice?



This discussing reminds me a bit of that old one.

Seriously: If I left the 30dB too loud or too quiet clips at their original level on a separate track I could NEVER get through a spotting session with a director. I would be DJ-ing my master-volume up and down like crazy trying to "emulate" how it might sound in 3 months time.
There's no way I could work that way or get anything done. Let alone deliver rough bounces back to the AVID for producer's screenings out of the AVID.
I need to provide rough bounces for the rest of the team so they know what's going on in dx-editing. WHy would they want to listen to a reel where every single clip makes then either jump out of their seats or isn't audible at all.

What's so destructive about bringing everything to a consistent level anyway? What difference would it make for a genius mixer who is happy to level 30 clips in every scene from scratch? What's bad about a consistent dialog level to start with?
It's not that we're talking about denoising or other highly sound-invasive processing. We are talking about levels.

What's so sacred about a clip that was recorded mistakenly 30dBs too hot or too low on set that an editor could "destroy" it by bringing it down or up to a range that lets him actually hear it without either going deaf or hear nothing?

How will he be able to do his job in the first place if he has to wait for the maestro mixer to finally bring the level up or down so you can actually hear it at a decent volume?
Sorry, I don't get it. Maybe it's a language thing and I'm not getting what is being said by the "disable volume automation when editing"-party.

I fully agree with the point about communication etc. and that's usually I also approach my projects. But to force a dialog-editor to not not even use static levels on the clips as a dogma to me is plain silly. Why would I want to keep insanely loud clips that clip PT constantly at their original level during editing for weeks or even months?
Old 12th September 2012 | Show parent
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple-q ➡️
Now that's interesting. Not so long ago there was a thread here about who's job it is to pick which channel of a production sound conform started by someone who was asking almost the exact same question like the OP in this thread but aimed at picking sides on clips.
Back then most mixers said something like "bring ALL the channels to the theatre. The editor isn't qualified to pick what sounds best. Just make sure they are in sync and on the right track."
I guarantee you if you go back and look, you will see that I said I only want one good mic.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 295 views: 74189
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 15929 views: 1533108
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 181657
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump