Re: Dogs would rather eat your turkey than fix your computer
- From: "\"R&B\"" <NoneOfYourBusiness@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:57:31 -0500
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
Tell ya what. I'll answer the questions you raised here. But in the
interest of showing some respect for the readers of RSG who object to these
threads drifting so far off topic, let me offer to you that if you want to
continue this discussion, feel free to e-me at
randb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fair?
>
> I'm not in love with my software but I wonder how AVID could do a lot
> more than what I can do. And when you say sweeten the audio, what do
> you mean exactly? That's really interesting to me.
Video editors, or NLEs (non-linear editors, for those who don't know) are
notoriously lacking in their audio support. The only one I know of that has
EXCELLENT support for audio is a product called Vegas Video. However, it is
so lacking in areas relating to video, it's not really a choice of video
professionals other than the "prosumer" guys like wedding videographers.
Audio sweetening is a term that's been used for many years in
post-production relating to tweaking the audio to make it as good as
possible. Just as Avid has been, for many years, the industry standard for
video, Pro Tools is the industry standard for audio. That Avid owns
Digidesign, makers of Pro Tools, means that you can export your video
sequence from Avid and bring the clips into a timeline in Pro Tools, then
tweak each clip (or each track) individually. It's the best way, and offers
the most flexibility.
> I use Cool Edit for audio. As you probably know, they sold
> to Adobe and it's called "Audition" or something like that.
I'm quite familiar with the product. I used Cool Edit Pro for many years,
and I teach it at a broadcasting school here in Atlanta. I'm also working
on a tutorial video for the software that I intend to bring to market next
year, geared not for musicians, but for broadcasters and videographers. I
know the program pretty much inside-out.
> If you've got a good mic in a noise free environment
> and can remove background noise if there is any and
> (well, do you stretch a segment a few seconds ... )
> I just can't imagine what anyone would do to
> audio on a voice over.
Well, you have to understand the world I come from. My core business is
voiceovers, and I still do a fair amount of radio production, mostly
"station imaging" work. If you listen to the radio much at all, you hear
those little promos -- commercials for the radio station you're tuned to.
That's what I do. If you listen closely, you'll hear all kinds of effects
applied to the voiceover there. Flanges, stereo separation, delays,
choruses, etc., etc., etc. If there's an effect out there, I've probably
applied it to voiceover at some time or another FOR EFFECT.
Now obviously, similar treatment would never be given to the voiceover on,
say, a news documentary or a commercial for some institutional product or
service. But when producing something a bit more creative -- a short film
perhaps, or a commercial for, say, a video game or night club -- all kinds
of tricks might be used, depending on the circumstance and the creative
intent.
For cleaning up a basic voiceover, there are numerous things that can be
done, and often are done. For example, unless you're recording in a
perfectly soundproof room (like a Whisper Room, perhaps), you're going to
get some level of ambient noise from the air conditioning or the computer
fans or cars driving by outside the window, or what have you. Certainly you
can remove this with Cool Edit's awesome Noise Reduction effect. But I find
that effect to often leave digital artifacts (especially if the noise floor
is objectionably loud), which give the voiceover an artificial, almost
robot-like sound. Better to use a gate to clip out the noise. When I do
voiceovers for radio, I'll always put some EQ on the track, as well as
compress the ever-lovin' sh*t out of it so that the voice track will
penetrate most anything that's laid under it, affording the producer more
latitude to mix whatever's under the voice much louder without drowning out
the voiceover.
Music producers have, for many years, referred to "carving out" a place in
the mix for the lead vocal. The principle is similar in voiceover
production. It's not enough to simply mix the music under the voice low
enough to allow the voice to ride over it without distraction. Doing a mix
this way often takes the energy right out of it. Better to "carve out" a
place in the track to make room to allow the voice to sit comfortably within
it, so that it can still be easily heard while everything else is mixed
pretty hot. The net effect is a much more energetic mix.
Listen to any commercially-released music CD -- rock and roll, hip-hop,
anything. You'll notice that the lead vocal doesn't dominate the mix. It's
down "in" the mix, yet it is always apparent. This is how they do it. It's
done essentially the same way when mixing voiceover. There are some tricks
to it. But if I told you what they all were, I'd have to kill you. :-)
> Maybe you're mixing with background music and
> adding effects but I can do that. Maybe it's just a matter
> of quality that isn't apparent to amateurs.
Yes.
One of the mistakes a lot of people -- even radio professionals -- make is
in mixing voiceover. First, men have this bad tendency to want to add bass
(low-end EQ) to their voice. They think it gives them "balls." What it
really does is make the voice muddy and virtually impossible to penetrate
the mix without ducking the music so low beneath their voice that it loses
all punch and energy. Better to roll off some low end, then compress the
doggie out of it so you can mix the music hot under the voice as the voice
will penetrate much better.
Simply adjusting the volume to mix voice over music CAN work, but it's the
simplest, and sometimes least effective way of doing it. Really, it's only
part of the equation for all the reasons I listed above (and a few more).
Voiceover is especially hard to mix over brass horns and electric guitar
(the screeching kind). It's because the frequencies present in the human
voice (which vary quite a bit between men and women) are in the same range
as these instruments. Or at least the parts of speech that make it
decipherable are. Therefore, to mix voice over horns or screaming guitars,
you'd have to duck the music so low, it would almost be gone. Kind of
defeats the whole purpose of having the music there in the first place, see?
One other thing that often separates amateurs and pros is the sound card
used in capturing the audio into the computer. Quite often, amateurs will
even use the sound that's built into the computer (the motherboard sound,
for which most OEM computers have little pink, blue and green 1/8-inch mini
plugs on the back of the computer. Motherboard sound is almost always
horrible. When you record into Cool Edit Pro, notice how much audio is
showing up on your VU meter in CEP when you're recording silence. Consumer
sound cards, such as those made by Audigy/Soundblaster, are, as far as I'm
concerned, nothing more than boat anchors. They're awful. To get a
professional sound card, you're looking at spending at least $300 or more.
It's understandable that some won't do it, but that's the entry point for
professional audio. And believe me, once you hear the difference, you'll
never look back.
> Next month I'm joining the union, whatever one it is, that does the sound
> and other things for the shows
> here in Vegas ... if it's like the description I was
> given by a friend of a friend. That whole sound thing
> is fascinating to me. So here's a crazy question ...
>
> I'm doing computer slide shows for people with lots of
> family pictures and I started with my own family about
> a year ago. It would be great to record their reaction,
> their voice when they saw the slide show for the first time but
> I'm not sure how to get a mic close enought to get good sound
> without them seeing it and what kind of mic. It's got to be kind
> of omnidirectional so it will pick up my voice to so that the
> conversation makes sense.
Two fundamental problems you're facing in this scenario:
1. You want the subject's mic "hidden" so they don't know it's on. (I
would assume the camera will be hidden, too.)
2. You want to capture their voice AND YOURS, and presumably, you won't be
seated right next to them on the couch when they watch.
Let's take these problems one at a time...
1. Your best bet is a wireless lavalier mic. They're not cheap, but you
can find 'em for a few hundred bucks. Google wireless microphones. You
want the kind that pins on to a man's tie (although in this case, you won't
be pinning it, you'll be hiding it -- maybe between the cusions of a couch,
or on top of some books on the bookshelf or whatever). Lavalier mics are
the little tiny ones, like what the news anchors wear when doing the evening
news. You can hide one of those things fairly easily, but you'll also have
to hide the "transmitter" (and there is a wire that leads from the mic to
the transmitter). The transmitter is usually a little larger than a deck of
cards. Still, that's fairly small and you ought to be able to hide it in the
proximity of your subject (preferably within about 4 or 5 feet of their
mouth -- the closer the better -- lavaliers are not like shotgun mics that
are designed to capture audio from farther away -- at 3-4 feet, your subject
will still sound "off mic" somewhat).
2. You'll also need to be mic'd separately, especially if you're not seated
right next to your subject. This poses two problems: First, you, too, will
have to wear a mic, which means you'll need two of these things. They can
be hidden under your shirt (be careful not to let them see the antennae from
the transmitter sticking out of your hip pocket or off your belt). Second,
with two mics transmitting on two different frequencies (and two different
receivers), unless you're using one of those prosumer 3-CCD cameras with
professional inputs for two mics, you're probably using a consumer camcorder
with only one mic input. That means you'll need to have the two wireless
mic receivers plugged into a mixer and send the mixer's output into the
camera's one input. On consumer camcorders, you'll probably have an
impedence issue, too, although that can be resolved fairly easily with a
converter that you can buy at Radio Shack. I've done all this, so I know
it's a hassle.
Now, if you want to talk about this further, I'll be happy to share whatever
information I can provide, but let's do RSG a favor and do it in e-mail. Or
over a round of golf somewhere, OK?
Randy
> This is way ot and I'm asking for free professional advice but what the
> heck.
> : -)
>
>
>> Avid, as you may know, is quite finicky about system specs. They list
>> only about six video cards that are "supported" for use with their
>> software (all of them nVidia cards). Others may work, but it would be a
>> crap shoot buying them. So I stick with what I know works. Sometime in
>> the next 6-12 months, I'll probably build a whole new system, and when I
>> do, I'll go with a PCI-Express video card. But for now, the nVidia
>> Quadro 4 1100 AGP 8X card is the biggest and fastest one they support
>> short of the PCI Express cards. Open GL support (for 3D motion graphics,
>> etc.). But mostly it's because this particular card is supported by
>> Avid, and I don't like spending money on stuff if I'm not sure it'll work
>> with what I'm using.
>>
>>
>>> Why does your dog have a cage?
>>
>> She's had it since I first brought her home from the rescue center. At
>> first I figured I'd use it to housebreak her, but she was already
>> housebroken when I got her (lucky). Still, I don't entirely trust her
>> when I'm not at home (she likes to get into stuff), so I usually put her
>> in it when I have to be gone for a few hours. On short trips, she either
>> rides with me, or I'll leave her out here at home. But if I have to be
>> gone for more than an hour or so, I'll usually cage her (or as some
>> prefer to call it, "kennel" her). She doesn't mind it. I went out of my
>> way to train her to like going in there. Whenever she goes into her
>> "room," she gets a treat (except last night and today, since we're
>> fighting a stomach ailment). Usually all I have to do is say, "Go to your
>> room," and she'll walk right in. Or I just point to it and she goes in.
>> Sometimes when I go through my usual routine of getting showered and
>> dressed in the morning, she just knows and she walks right in and waits
>> for me to shut the door. She's cool with it. Dogs like having their own
>> "den." But most of the time, she has free run of the place. I wouldn't
>> have it any other way.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Golfers will buy anything
- Next by Date: Re: Dogs would rather eat your turkey than fix your computer
- Previous by thread: Re: Dogs would rather eat your turkey than fix your computer
- Next by thread: Re: Dogs would rather eat your turkey than fix your computer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
