ptalsky Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Hi all, I just finished watching "San Francisco" from 1936 and I just have to say WOW. Amazing special effects for the day, and the sound was really good. Makes me wonder how they could do so well in 1936 without multi-track recorders, analog or digital mixers, wireless mics, etc. etc. etc. Do you ever think that maybe we spend way too much time thinking about our "toys"? ;-) If you haven't seen this (or haven't seen it in a while) I highly recommend it. Check out the earthquake scenes and the scenes where they are dynamiting the city to stop the fire. Sounds pretty darn good to my ears. (Okay, yes, I missed having the deep bass rumbling during the earthquake, but still really good). Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 I have enjoyed the soundtracks of many older movies (I don't think I have seen "San Francisco" that you mention here) and even have gone so far as to state the possibly heretical notion that the sound in modern motion pictures has actually been getting worse. Even with all the technology advancements and measurable and definable improvements, many older films actuallty do sound better, particualrly the dialog. There are many reasons for this. If you analyze some of the fundamental reasons and try to apply them to current work with current technology, the results can be stellar. The problem is, the very advancements in technology and procedures in production are the very things that have caused us to lose sight of the things that played a major factor in the good soundtracks in the past. One simple example: in older films where there usually was only one way to record sound properly, with a state of the art microphone on a boom positioned nicely over an actor's head, this is the way the sound was recorded. Having only one camera, and with a director and a director of photography knowing that they must compose things properly so they will cut together, natural perspective recording was the norm (rather than a beneficial circumstantial accident as it is today --- "the 'B' camera is down so we will have to use just the one..." There are other more elusive reasons: actors were expected to have voice training, diction and clarity were valued, so when actors' voices were recorded, even if with arguably "inferior" technology, they actually sounded better than today's crop of actors who seem to be afraid of their own performances and producers and directors who are unwilling to direct the vocal part of a performance. The list could go on and on but I think the lesson is that most of the problems we needsolve require real world and often painfully human solutions, and there is not a piece of hi-tech gear we can bring on the set that will produce the good sounding films of the past. Regards, Jeff Wexler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim apter Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 one thing ive noticed, and please correct me here, i wasnt alive when these films were being made, but its almost like the reduced mic sensitivity allowed dialogue to be captured in a "bubble", sort of the mic not being "good enough" to record further away sounds. This, even to me sounds ridiculous, but im just curious - thats what it sounds like when i watch those old films. How did they pull it off? I watched "singing in the rain" the other day ,and there is a great scene where they are trying to work with sound for the first time - did the new technology maybe get a higher priority back then than it does now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 one thing ive noticed, and please correct me here, i wasnt alive when these films were being made, but its almost like the reduced mic sensitivity allowed dialogue to be captured in a "bubble", sort of the mic not being "good enough" to record further away sounds. This, even to me sounds ridiculous, but im just curious - thats what it sounds like when i watch those old films. How did they pull it off? I watched "singing in the rain" the other day ,and there is a great scene where they are trying to work with sound for the first time - did the new technology maybe get a higher priority back then than it does now? I think virtually all of that film was looped or done to playback. Philip Perkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim apter Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 thats ironic, the film is basically ABOUT looping... ha ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest repete86 Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Check out Fritz Lang's M if you haven't. The sound in that really blew me away since there was no such thing as sound design or sound editing at the time. That was actually the film that made me start looking a little closer at film audio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.