Joe Finlan

It's a Davinci Resolve issue, not a FCP issue.

Doing some audio post workflow tests with an editor using Davinci Resolve 11 and Final Cut Pro. Production shot some tests using SD 664 and BM Ursa. Fed tc from SD to slate and Ursa. I was supplied with a copy of all the original source audio. In Resolve the editor synced the 664 source audio files to the Ursa's RAW video clips. All synced as it should. He then exported the video (as proxies) and synced audio for use in FCP. On the FCP timeline everything is in sync but the audio has now been renamed to their associated video clips' titles rather than retaining the source audio files' names (scene#, take#). They sent me an xml file of a rough edit but of course the names of the audio clips no longer match the source audio files so I can't match them. Does anyone have any idea how the editor can keep the source audio file names when they export the synced files from Resolve to FCP so the xml file will show the correct file names that I have? I've perused the BM forums and searched around the net but haven't found an answer. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Love the manual.

Well what do you know, there was a 2nd page!

So, the director is expecting you to record what would otherwise be the sound of the actor singing & playing the piano live in the room with a boom mic. That's as simple as finding the best spot to place the boom mic to give you the best possible balance between voice, piano and room. However, in this instance, a speaker will be replacing the piano as the piano sound source. The same technique applies. Ideally, if the shot allows, place the speaker flat on its' back (facing up) on the floor directly behind the piano bench. Adjust the volume of the speaker to give the desired balance between the voice and the piano sound and record it. Take a dry feed of the electric piano and use a lav to record the voice to separate tracks for possible use in post. If you use a high quality monitor speaker it should come close to sounding much like the real thing. You might also consider patching an eq between the EP and the amp to give you some tone control. Knowing the level of productions you work on, Jeff, they should be able to find some time and dollars to allow you, the actor and the pianist to get together in a room with a real piano and run through the scene in advance. This will allow you to hear how the balance should sound between voice and instrument. Maybe even make some test recordings of the voice and piano and voice and speaker setups so the you and the director know what to expect.

I just finished mixing a low budget film using the D8's for LCR, D5's for the surrounds and a JBL sub for the LFE channel and checking bass management. I quite like them and the mix held together at both a theatre showing for cast and crew as well as on a home 5.1 system. I found them quite easy to mix on. Excellent imaging and clarity and the bottom end sounded fine without the sub though the sub does open up the bottom 2 octaves. They really are a steal at their price.

I recently finished a film shot on the Red Epic and I had insisted the tri-level sync be plugged into the genlock input to ensure the tc was synced to the start of each frame even though we were shooting single camera. By chance I was talking to the editor today and he actually mentioned how well everything was syncing up. This may be the secret of successfully putting tc on the Red.

"They'll pay me to do this!?"

Calvin Russel - Crossroads http://youtu.be/xLUMmp0tLJA

Ah, my age is showing, lol. It has been some years since I last did post for tv. That or the stations here in Canada hadn't yet moved into the digital age with their transmitters.

It still surprises me at the number of misconceptions and misunderstandings concerning recording levels that exist within our industry. While it is true that there are differing operating procedures between film and eng/tv work, as production sound recordists/mixers we should be well aware of the whys and wherefors of what is good practice when recording for a particular end medium and how these affect the post production chain. Having had a background in music recording and audio post production before moving into production sound, I knew what kind of levels I needed to record in the field in order to make the post process work cleanly and effeciently. If I'm doing tv, eng or corporate video I'll record at 48K/16 bit with my average rms levels in the -24 to -20 dbfs range with peaks averaging somewhere in the -12 to -10 dbfs range with the occasional louder peak. Why do I do this? Because when I put my audio post hat on that is exactly where I want the levels to sit in the final mix. Every tv delivery spec I've ever seen stated that the maximum peak level must not exceed -10 dbfs and that average rms levels should not exceed -20 dbfs. What's the benefit of doing this? I, or any other post engineer, doesn't have to waste time in post either increasing or decreasing levels that were recorded too low or too hot for the project. I've never had a video editor tell me my levels were off and I've had feedback from posties complimenting me on my tracks because they didn't have to spend time "fixing them in the mix". If I'm working on a film project then I will adjust the way I work. I record at 48K/24 bit with the average rms dialogue levels in the -34 to -30 dbfs range and the peaks around -24 to -20 dbfs. Why do I do this? Once again it comes back to the final mix. Mix stages are calibrated to -20 dbfs = 85 db spl at the mix position. In the real world the spl of conversation is around 65 db or about -40dbfs if you think of your meters as an spl meter. A dialogue track recorded with an average rms level of -20 dbfs is going to sound unnaturally loud on the mix stage if played back at unity gain. Tracks recorded 10 to 15 db lower tend to "sit" at a volume level that sounds more natural in the film mix. (Not only that but I've now got more headroom for that unexpected change in performance delivery). Once again in post the mixer doesn't have to spend extra time adjusting overall levels up or down prior to mixing, they're already in the ballpark. And to those who think they need to record dialogue as close to the top of the dbfs scale as possible I'll say this: "you've gained nothing and lost something". You've gained nothing because the level you record at does not affect the frequency response of the sound in any way and the noise floor of your mic/ preamp and recorder is already well below the signal you are recording. The days of tape hiss are far behind us. What you've lost is the headroom necessary to handle that unexpected loud exclamation or sound in the background that now causes your limiters to clamp down excessively and become audible or, worse yet, to distort. You're walking a tightrope without a net. Though, as production sound recordists we are at the beginning of the audio production chain, how we do our job has an effect on the entire chain. The better we understand that chain and its' requirements the better we can provide tracks that need the least amount of attention throughout the post process. And that keeps everyone happy, even Henchman.

I use a Browning Camping Directors Chair XT. Light, sturdy and cheap.

Best response I've seen so far re PT 11 and its' features: "So 2007".

While it isn't "inferior" today, back in the early '90's it was.

Can we say "Pro Tools". Back in the early days of DAW's they bought their market share by advertising everywhere and in everything. You couldn't open a mag without seeing their ads. Eventually it became an almost generic term for a DAW. Unfortunately, as a result, far better systems fell to the wayside as non-techy types insisted it had to be PT. Proof that advertising can sell an inferior product.