Jump to content

Jay Rose

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Jay Rose

  • Rank
    Hero Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Boston US
  • About
    Sound designer and industry author. Member CAS and AES. Humor, articles, and studio info at www.dplay.com.
  • Interested in Sound for Picture

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No offense taken. Jim's book is the bible of dialog editing for narrative feature film, and it's well written besides. He devotes a whole book to to the subject. My book is bigger... but it has only one chapter on dialog editing, because it covers the entire soundtrack process from prepro to mix, for all kinds of films and budgets. I'm also sorry you haven't read my book. Jim and I take completely different approaches to figuring out exactly where to make the cut in a spoken line. Both are valid, both are fast and reliable in the heat of editing, and a good editor learns to use both...
  2. Assuming they're logarithmic, like the sounds we can normally hear, most of the separately distinguishable tomato sounds would be in the bottom end of that 20k - 100k range. Just like the acoustic middle of our 20Hz - 20kHz range is considered to be 1k... or why middle C on the piano is ~261 Hz, not 10 kHz. So I'm guessing that if we had a need to record veggie dialog in a production, we could get a lot of it with 96 k s/r. [At worst, the top end of fruit fricatives might suffer. But there is no truth to the rumor that Spanish onions have a lisp.] The golden ear, or golden thumb, types may certainly disagree.
  3. According to an article in New Scientist, ordinary plants make audible* sounds when stressed: (* - Well, audible by dogs and teenagers. Or by 96 kHz files with good mics. Or possibly beating with other sounds up there. At least, they're sounds and apparently reasonably loud.) In the article, drought-stressed tomato plants made 35 sounds an hour... when plant stems were cut, tomato plants made an average of 25 sounds in the following hour... unstressed plants produced fewer than one sound per hour... The implications for farmers and gardeners are obvious. For our productions... well, at least it's another source for stuff that can be manipulated in post.
  4. I hear an animal chattering, filtered and sped up with pitch shift... leading to a reversed crash-with-reverb, so it builds. Your clip cuts before the crash itself; if it were up to me, I'd do a quick fade into the natural verb and ambience so we never hear the crash itself... but that's wild: I've got no pix or story reference, so I don't know what should happen next in context. -- I guess I'm also sort-of Lucas Certified: Randy Thom and I developed a book together, had a contract from a big publisher... but could never make our schedules work to actually write the thing (and cancelled the contract). That being said: 1) I agree with D. Start recording your world. Then get home, start listening to little pieces, organize them, and turn them into little sound montages. That second part is as important as the first: it'll teach you to hear real world in the context of what's usable for sound design. 2) Since I brought up Randy, read his essays. They're all over the web, and he's brilliant. 3) While you're at it, you could read the free tutorials on my website. And if you've got $35, read my audio post book... big chapters on sound effects and manipulation.
  5. How about that you posted a 90 second ad-supported clip, rather than trimming it to the desired sound, or telling us where the sound is located, or (most preferable) posting just the piece of audio you wanted to emulate?
  6. Please add a basic understanding of acoustics, particularly the inverse square law, and a sensitivity to the real echoes in practical rooms.
  7. We are generating commercial story-telling to keep an audience entertained so they either pay cash or pay attention to commercials. Some of us, above and below the line, manage to do some art at the same time. But that's not what brings in the bucks, either to pay for location shoots (or vfx), or to buy us new gear. From a post POV, I just hope they treat the LCD-equipped studios acoustically so you can boom and get a sense of perspective. Otherwise, I'd argue that lavs in a controlled studio need a lot less fixing than lavs in a randomly scouted location.
  8. YouTube has a fascinating piece about a new virtual set technology demoed at Siggraf. Actors work in front of a high res, large LCD like an old-fashioned rear projection... But instead of projecting a pre-shot still or moving plate, the system renders in real time... with real perspective, based on the lens and camera position! Move the camera, and elements on the plate shuffle around with it to keep the background realistic from the camera's POV. Meanwhile, the actors get more of a sense of working in an environment, rather than against a screen. On top of that, the director can sit at a laptop with virtual viewfinders, exploring the look of any kind of lens from anywhere in the shooting area. And the art director can move individual elements, such as shifting a car to the other side of the street if it looks better... As I understand it - and I'm not a vfx guy - the system can respond to only one camera position at a time. (Shades of the "tech snafu" pinch in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.) So the director can't use two cameras. And, hopefully, you can get a boom in there. Prediction: this will get cheaper, stop being a 'special effect', and because of lower cost will replace a lot of location work. Other prediction: they'll come up with some way to code multiple images for two or three cameras - maybe using polarization - and we'll be back where we started with tight and wide.
  9. It's old hat, but might bail you out: pack a couple of dynamic mics as backup. In my experience, externally polarized caps (like the 6080) can be very sensitive to humidity and condensation; the electret elements in most modern lavs, less so. But even an SM58 might be what bails you out, if there's a problem.
  10. What's the room like? Does it have acoustics worth saving? -- FWIW, I've had very good luck in this kind of situation with a kind of pseudo m/s. Cardioid or hyper pointing at the choir (from whatever distance is appropriate for the room and grouping), co-located omni or even a PZM on the floor. Treat the omni like an s channel. Biggest advantages: 1) Absolutely mono compatible - the omni disappears - which may be handy if people are listening to the company server on their desktop computers. 2) Width (in the stereo decoded version) without firm L/R locations. So any MOS cutaway against it still seems right.
  11. ...maybe a mandatory plug for Nuendo as well...? -- Anyway, OP, the biggest issue is that roomtone edits (or any really clean dialog or music editing) seldom falls on frame lines. 1/24th of a second is long enough to totally miss some common phonemes such as /d/ or /t/, which can be as short as 1/100 second. Ditto, you can miss a 16th note in music at a moderate 120 bpm tempo. Audio programs, from the incredibly powerful ProTools and Nuendo to the simplest free open source Audacity, let you edit with much more precision. There's a lot more about this in my book (which Jim was kind enough to mention) and the tutorials on my website.
  12. I haven't used it. Based on their website, however, I'd have a couple of concerns: 1) If you attempt to "flatten" a speaker/room combination that isn't very flat to begin with, it'll have to add some fairly heavy eq. This can introduce two problems: 1a) Sharp eq in realtime - like to tame a room mode - introduces phase distortion. 2b) Extreme boost eq - which can be necessary in the mids, as well as the extremes, of mediocre speakers - can drive distortion. So you end up with something flat, but not the track viewers will hear in a theater. 2) Depending on the room size and your practices, you might want to apply a standard or modified curve to make your monitors sound more like a theater. I don't know if Sonarworks lets you modify the eq curve it measures. 3) It appears to be a stereo solution. What do you do with the other speakers? As I said, this is just from the website. It might address all these issues and just not publicize the fact.
  13. Article in today's New York Times about projection levels, reporting on a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (Journal is paywalled, so I'm going by the Times reporter's summary.) Apparently, research found that someone appears more confident and persuasive when they project louder, which is certainly intuitive. But it went further to show that you're even more persuasive when you break things up with softer-than-normal volumes, as well. Trained actors probably know this -- think Richard Burton -- and know how to modify it to keep the variety while filling a theater or filming a line. The great film actors of the past could vary their projection a lot, even while respecting the requirements of a boom and optical recorder. Not-so-trained actors might know it as well. But might not have learned to seem loud and soft while keeping levels good for the track. There's a wonderful spoof somewhere on YouTube of a Richard Burrton-wannabe constantly blowing out the mic and then dipping into the mud during a speech. To emphasize the point, his on-camera boom is constantly swinging up and down. Any experiences to share?
  14. +1 John. Mixers work in production. They have the headaches of getting a usable sound under less than ideal circumstances, and the tools to help them do that job. They don't have the calibrated monitors, precision eq tools, and UNDO buttons we have in post.
  15. I missed the 😄. Of course, there are also lots of folks who read this forum and might not have a good technical background. (You don't need a computer background to be a good production mixer... or at least, you didn't when I started... and that's not quite a joke.)
  • Create New...