In my previous post I talked about the overriding philosophies I employ when doing gear shootouts. In this post I'd like to address microphone shootouts specifically.
Not all mics are the same and not all mic shootouts should be the same, but what I'm going to do here is outline some specific guidelines that I'll employ in a future shootout and that others can use to do their own shootout and listening tests.
------
I'd like to lead off by offering what is probably going to be the most controversial recommendation I'll make here - to prefer the exact same performance over the exact same signal path.
What I mean by this is that if you have multiple channels on a mixer that are all rated within tight tolerances of one another (as in a sound devices 442 or 552) then the difference between cables and preamps will not add up to a greater difference than if you run multiple performances in front of the mics through the exact same cable and pre. This is especially true with tests that involve the human voice, and less true with mechanical or speaker produced sounds.
So given that I'm going to recommend (and use) a methodology that uses multiple cables and preamps simultaneously in order to capture the exact same performance in front of the mics.
The other possibly controversial thing I'm going to advocate is calibration of the mics based on output level and not input level. This would have the effect of not measuring mic sensitivity against one another for the purposes of better evaluation of tone. As most audio people know, the way we hear tonality varies pretty dramatically depending on the spl we're listening to, so the question is this: is it more important to hear the differences in tone or sensitivity between mics? My answer is tone, and that's how I'm setting up my tests.
My evaluations will look to pit mics against one another in the following areas:
- price
- features
- self noise
- transient response
- off axis respnose
- on axis human voice
- on axis sfx
----------
Lets begin with setup:
Whether you're testing one mic or several, you'll want to keep the signal path as short and stable as possible. This will be my setup for some upcoming tests:
- bypass all switches in the mics. Highpasses and pads specifically should be disengaged
- place the mics as close to each other as possible, and at the point of an equilateral triangle relating to the speakers in your room.
- run the shortest reasonable cables to consecutive channels on a sound devices mixer
- bypass all signal changes on the mixer. Highpasses, pads,limiters, stereo links, etc all disengaged
- set faders to unity
- run direct out prefader to the recorder (a 744t or 788t)
- bypass all signal changers on the recorder. Again, highpasses, pads, eqs, limiters, all disengaged.
- set recorder to 24 bits 96kHz
In some cases I may skip the mixer entirely and just run straight into the recorder. The 788t has 4 xlr inputs, so if I'm testing 4 or fewer mics and have that recorder available to me at the time I'll run the tests directly to it. In all other cases I'll be using the mixer almost purely as a preamp and nothing else.
This is pretty similar to most industry standard setups for field recording and production recording, so I think the end results should translate very cleanly into the real world.
-----------
On to calibration of the mics:
The most simplistic way to calibrate a mic input is to simply mark a level on a preamp and roll with that. I prefer to to with a slightly more complex route - pink noise and dbspl.
When choosing level to calibrate to, one must consider what's going to be tested, and in the case of many microphones you're talking about the human voice, musical instruments, and sfx recordings. The level chosen will dictate both headroom and noise floor, so doing this too wrong can mess up the tests pretty badly.
For my tests I'm going to calibrate to 90db SPL = -12dbfs.
The primary reason for this is to give myself ample headroom for transient response tests (I should be able to get to 102dbspl before clipping the A/D) and to better utilize the full 24bits of headroom.
Steps to calibration should go as follows:
- send pink noise through the speakers
- measure the volume that measures 90dbspl C weighted at the microphone position with an spl meter
- adjust the preamps until the recorder's digital meters show consistent peaks at -12db spl
---------
setting it all up and calibrating it can often take as long or longer than actually running the tests. double checking to make sure it's all perfect is key to not running tests that will be at best misleading and and worst completely useless.
---------
With the mics calibrated and positioned, it's time to run some tests.
First I'll just roll on the calibrated pink noise.
next I'll turn everything off and run very quiet room tone.
third I'll speak into the mics. I'll tend to just describe what I'm doing and what the setup is as a test. This leaves me at a natural speaking voice and cadence. All voice tests will be done about 2 feet from the mics.
The fourth test is to move to 45 degrees off axis and speak again. here I'll just say that I'm speaking 45 degrees off axis.
Next is perpendicular, using the same language and distance.
with voice done I'll move on to transient and harmonic response. I have a set of small tingsha bells that I'll use, but generally you can use any type of ringy metal to do a similar test. First, from about 2 feet away I'll strike the bell on axis and let it ring out.
next I"ll do a rotation where I strike the bell 90 degrees off axis, and while its ringing I'll slowly move it to on axis. Once the bell is on axis I'll strike it again, then slowly move it to 90 degrees off axis on the other side of the mics. Once in position I'll strike it one last time and let it ring out in that position.
Next is a guitar chord (I like G) Guitar chords show off how the mics handle midrage frequencies amongst other things. This one is just done on axis.
last test is to grab a bag and record some foley. Bags are fun because they have a fair amount of complex cloth and clasp sounds that can cover a lot of frequency and dynamic range in a pleasing and complex way.
--------
With the recordings done, I prep the presentation. Presentation consists putting a chart together comparing all of the pertinent info: price, switches, other features. Mics are pretty straightforward, so this chart isn't usually too much of a burden.
I'll then edit all of the audio at native resolution in a way that best pits the mics against one another. 2 to 5 seconds clips of each mic test in a consistent order placed back to back to back in a single file - one file per test. This will yield about 9 files. Spectrograms of the pink noise can also be useful.
That's a pretty thorough test. Even more can be done though, (like testing handling noise and proximity effect) but really too many tests can cause analysis paralysis. This is probably plenty.
Tuesday, April 26
Saturday, April 16
Conducting shootouts-part 1 Philosophy
I’m going to do a couple of posts here about conducting gear shootouts. In this first installment I’ll discuss the purpose and philosophy of shootouts that I personally subscribe to, and in the second I’ll go over doing mic shootouts specifically.
So generally, why do a shootout?
I do these to clearly define the strengths and weaknesses of one piece of gear vs another in order to make buying and session decisions. I personally took a lot of inspiration from the zacuto great dslr shootouts conducted last year, and you’ll see the principles that they applied in those tests echoed in my own.
With that in mind, what are the main things that need to be dealt with when conducting a shootout?
Here’s my list:
- The gear needs to be tested fairly against one another.
- The gear needs to be tested in situations that approximate common and specific real world conditions.
- The gear needs to be stress tested.
So fundamentally here’s how I go about covering those three main points:
Testing fairly:
Testing apples to apples isn’t always possible in the purest sense of the word because manufacturers will do different things with the gear in order to differentiate themselves, but the objective should be to get as close to that reality as you can.
Generally testing fairly means:
- Setting up all devices in a manner that is as close to equal as possible
- this means setting all filters, sample rates, bit depths, and other things to the same settings and otherwise bypassing anything proprietary to a single device if possible.
- calibrating all devices to the same baseline
- I’ll go over calibration in more detail later, but generally you want to lock down a baseline testing level for any signal that’s going to pass through the devices being tested in advance of the tests. Pink noise and db spl meters are your friends here.
- removing or reducing all outside influences on the test
- Outside influences are the things that are required to be in the test in order for the test to happen, but that aren’t being tested themselves. This can be things like the sounds that are being recorded in order to test, the mics, cables and recording devices and preamps and rooms etc that are part of a recording signal chain that are both part of the recrording chain and not part of the equipment being tested.
Testing situations that approximate specific real world situations
Tests are not useful unless they can give information that will illustrate how gear works in the situations you’re most likely to use them. This means that testing an akg D112 as a distant mic on a woodwind section (while potentially interesting) is not particularly useful.
A whole lot of recording gear is tuned up to record the human voice, so generally voice recording is a good baseline for a wide variety of gear. Shootouts can either be wide and shallow or narrow and deep, but not often both wide and deep. Find the appropriate balance there and choose your subject matter accordingly.
As an example, in my handheld recorder shootout I focused on a few handheld recorders that I had available to me. But beyond that I consciously tested their performances using the internal mics only, and I tested them in the context of sound effects recording. I could have tested the preamps separately with external mics, and I could have tested them in other contexts like interviews or musical performance recording, but I wanted my tests to be focused on how these devices perform as impromptu sfx capture devices specifically so I tailored my tests to that specific end.
Think about your scope before doing the tests, then work that scope thoroughly.
Stress Testing
With a scope defined, the next step is to really test the boundaries of what the gear does within that scope. That means if you’re testing a recording device you’ll do things like peg its limiters to see how they react, roll quiet room tone to see what happens down on the bottom end, and otherwise put the gear in a variety of tough recording situations. Microphones can be stress tested similarly, but can also have things like off-axis response, transient response, and proximity effect really run through the ringer.
Stress testing gear is important because a fair amount of what differentiates one piece of gear from another is how it handles extreme situations. The better a piece of gear is designed, the more gracefully it will deal with what you can throw at it. Its often a combination of price and extreme end performance that determines one’s buying and usage decisions.
A note on calibration:
Calibration is a little more complex than just setting everything at the same place. It requires thought into what you’re about to record.
Calibration is usually done by sending tone or pink noise through the devices and setting inputs to a level that is consistent across all devices. In the case of my HH shootout I sent pink noise through at 70db spl and adjusted the pre on each to -12dbfps. This meant that at about 92db I was going to clip, which was a pretty hot setting. That setting was done on purpose because my intent was to both test the limiters on the devices and to test the room tone.
The level at which you calibrate for the test has a big influence on how those tests come out, so choose your calibration (and headroom) level carefully.
Presentation:
One of the things that I really liked about the Zacuto presentation that I tried to incorporate into my own shootout was the presentation.
Specifically, I loved the quick edits from one camera to the next of the exact same footage. I really felt that gave me the best opportunity to make a blink assessment of what I was seeing. In my tests I modeled my edits the same way, and really put the devices right next to each other in the presentation. If I had put each test in its own soundcloud player, the reader (listener) would not really get to make a split-second evaluation, and prejudice with regards to brands and price points would have an opportunity to creep in.
I also did my best to document and describe every step of the test so that the reader could listen to them with a clear sense of what they’re actually hearing. This included descriptions and photos of the setups, tables describing features and functions of the devices, and wraps ups with my own personal impressions and thoughts.
So that’s the philosophy and general theory behind how I run my shootouts. In the future I’ll do a mic shootout and get into some details about how to do mic shootouts specifically.
Wednesday, April 6
On art
On Art:
A while back I stopped thinking of myself as a technician and started thinking of myself as an artist. This came around the point at which I had gotten enough of a handle on my techniques as to feel the overwhelming need to do something personal and creative with them.
As time wore on and I had conversations with my incredibly artistic wife I started to turn over in my mind the question of what exactly art is, and how I can get better at it.
What I came up with was this:
This post will discuss why I define art this way and why it matters to me. All of the content here is my own, and was not copied or borrowed from anyone else. Feel free to read this as my opinion on the matter, but don’t read much more into it than that.
So put simply:
Art is creativity expressed through technical means.
The reason I love this definition so much is because of both what it allows in and what it excludes.
I’ll start at the beginning.
-----------------
Art requires creativity.
Creativity is as it sounds. It is the creation of something new. If there is no creativity then there is only repetition of things before, and rote repetition is not art. A mass manufactured bottle churned out by a machine is as much not art as the original design for the first one is. Plagiarism is also not art unless it required creativity beyond what the original creator did in order to replicate it exactly.
Art requires a medium.
Art requires translation from one individual to others in order to exist. It needs a medium. Without a medium you don’t have art, you only have a dream. Dreams and thoughts are important, but alone they don’t constitute art.
A medium can consist of anything from words to paint to physical movement to sounds to ones and zeroes. The only concrete requirement for a medium is that it be observable by others. Some art exists in multiple mediums simultaneously, but all art requires at least one medium in order to exist as an actual work.
Manipulation of mediums requires technique.
There is a craft that comes before the art can arise. Whether in sounds or images or piles of dirt or pencil and paper, the prospective artist begins the artistic journey as a technician. The more refined the artists technique in manipulating the medium, the more fully and truly the creative ideas can be expressed through that medium to others. The less refined the technique, the more frustrated the artist.
-------------------
So what?
Well, if I now consider myself an artist I need to be able to evaluate the art of those around me as well as to do the things that will make me a better artist tomorrow than I am today.
Now that I have in my head what I believe to be the building blocks of art, I can begin to pursue some specific things that will make the art that I do better and at a faster rate than those who don’t think about these things.
I naturally gravitate towards the technique side of the artistic equation, and by recognizing that in myself I can do things like force some creative endeavors here and there, and also measure myself objectively against the technical achievements of my peers.
I also just enjoy art generally, so now that I have it defined more clearly in my head I feel like I’m able to look at things like computer programs and paintings and guitar performances and every part of a film (acting, makeup, dialogue, set dressing, lighting, cinematography, foley, sound design, mix, location, coloring, etc) and say “Man, that’s really great art” and know what I really mean by it.
So there it is, my definition of art. I like it and I’m sticking by it. In the future I may discuss the way I measure high art vs low art.
A while back I stopped thinking of myself as a technician and started thinking of myself as an artist. This came around the point at which I had gotten enough of a handle on my techniques as to feel the overwhelming need to do something personal and creative with them.
As time wore on and I had conversations with my incredibly artistic wife I started to turn over in my mind the question of what exactly art is, and how I can get better at it.
What I came up with was this:
This post will discuss why I define art this way and why it matters to me. All of the content here is my own, and was not copied or borrowed from anyone else. Feel free to read this as my opinion on the matter, but don’t read much more into it than that.
So put simply:
Art is creativity expressed through technical means.
The reason I love this definition so much is because of both what it allows in and what it excludes.
I’ll start at the beginning.
-----------------
Art requires creativity.
Creativity is as it sounds. It is the creation of something new. If there is no creativity then there is only repetition of things before, and rote repetition is not art. A mass manufactured bottle churned out by a machine is as much not art as the original design for the first one is. Plagiarism is also not art unless it required creativity beyond what the original creator did in order to replicate it exactly.
Art requires a medium.
Art requires translation from one individual to others in order to exist. It needs a medium. Without a medium you don’t have art, you only have a dream. Dreams and thoughts are important, but alone they don’t constitute art.
A medium can consist of anything from words to paint to physical movement to sounds to ones and zeroes. The only concrete requirement for a medium is that it be observable by others. Some art exists in multiple mediums simultaneously, but all art requires at least one medium in order to exist as an actual work.
Manipulation of mediums requires technique.
There is a craft that comes before the art can arise. Whether in sounds or images or piles of dirt or pencil and paper, the prospective artist begins the artistic journey as a technician. The more refined the artists technique in manipulating the medium, the more fully and truly the creative ideas can be expressed through that medium to others. The less refined the technique, the more frustrated the artist.
-------------------
So what?
Well, if I now consider myself an artist I need to be able to evaluate the art of those around me as well as to do the things that will make me a better artist tomorrow than I am today.
Now that I have in my head what I believe to be the building blocks of art, I can begin to pursue some specific things that will make the art that I do better and at a faster rate than those who don’t think about these things.
I naturally gravitate towards the technique side of the artistic equation, and by recognizing that in myself I can do things like force some creative endeavors here and there, and also measure myself objectively against the technical achievements of my peers.
I also just enjoy art generally, so now that I have it defined more clearly in my head I feel like I’m able to look at things like computer programs and paintings and guitar performances and every part of a film (acting, makeup, dialogue, set dressing, lighting, cinematography, foley, sound design, mix, location, coloring, etc) and say “Man, that’s really great art” and know what I really mean by it.
So there it is, my definition of art. I like it and I’m sticking by it. In the future I may discuss the way I measure high art vs low art.
Monday, March 14
quickie shootout-744t vs PCM D50 with phantom power
Last week I sold my Tascam DR-100. While its a good recorder, it wasn't meeting my needs with regards to ergonomics and battery power.
This left my portable rig a little short handed since my PCM D50 is now my only capture device and it doesn't have XLR inputs or phantom power.
After some reflection I decided to forgo grabbing another handheld recorder and instead to just roll with the D50 plus a phantom power unit for now. The question became, which one?
The market is pretty broad. Phantom power units run from ARTs $70 Phantom II on up to Sony's $450 XLR1 with just about no change in feature set.
My initial thought was "hey, it's phantom power. what's it going to do to the sound? probably nothing." Then I found this website. Whoops. Eyes opened. ART, Juicedlink and Beachtek entirely out of the question now. Only a video guy could love those things.
The rolls was serviceable, but I'm not really looking for a serviceable rig. I want the D50 to give me all its got, and I don't want anything in the way. I decided to grit my teeth and get the XLR1, so I started price shopping. Along that route I found this page, which showed the lengths an XLR1 owner had to go to in order to get the thing ergonomically workable with his D50. He extended the factory mounting plate and still wasn't exactly in love.
F.
Then I remembered a little box that we have in the office. The Denecke PS-2. $135, stereo, smaller than the XLR1, solid brand name, made of metal but still incredibly light, and I'd have to mod a mounting plate anyway. Seems pretty straighforward, but how does it sound?
Time to test it out.
I ran this test similarly to how I did my handheld shootout test, though more low key and less extensively.
To set up I ran an AT 4050 through a whirlwind splitter. One side went to the Denecke and into the D50. The other went into a sound devices 744t.
I rolled pink noise through the studio speakers and calibrated 75dbspl to equal -12 dbfs on both devices. Then I did a little speaking into the mic and struck a noah bell. The results speak for themselves.
sample 1 by Rcoronado
sample 2 by Rcoronado
So this kind of turned into a D50 vs 744t shootout as well, and I think its pretty interesting. There's a little diff in the midrange, which is at least interesting. Its visible in izotope and and most pronounced in the pink noise test.
Outside of that its pretty darn close. The D50s pre's are as clean as the 744t, and seem to handle transients and the human voice similarly.
The final verdict for me is that the Denecke has the same feature set and sonic quality as the sony XLR1 but $300 cheaper. Both units would take some modification to any mounting plates, so I call that a clear win for the Denecke.
Secondarily, the Sony performed very well sonically vs the much more expensive 744t. The ergonomics of a Sony D50/Denecke rig are not close to what you'll get with the 744t, but once the recordings are done you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.
In the end I'll be very proud to roll on anything with that little rig when it's all put together and buttoned up.
Monday, February 28
communicating in creative contexts-pt 2
In part 1 of this series I laid out a few factors that can cause problems when clients communicate with audio people about their needs. Here in part 2 I'd like to address a specific example:
When the client asks for something that you belive he or she will not like.
I'll begin here by saying that most of what I'll be talking about is less listening to what your client is telling you and more interpreting what your client is telling you.
My baseline premise here is that your client is going to be more tuned-in to the overall creative context of the thing that you are working on, and that you're being brought into the process at some point after it has already been set in motion. This premise can fit whether you're doing sound design for a film or VO recording for a radio spot, but it's an important starting point because it forces us to realize a simple thing - the client knows what he wants better than we do - especially initially.
Now, even though the client knows what he wants and we know what we think he wants there are times when communication requires interpretation.
This is because clients will at times use certain vocabulary and concepts that can lead you astray if you're not seeking out the meanings that motivate the words. Also not all clients use confusing vocabulary, and some clients only confuse certain things so working knowledge of the relationships is very important. In addition, some clients like to manage creative concepts tightly, while others will trust us to make the best creative decisions we can, so interpreting direction can get very tricky very quickly depending on the context of the relationship.
----------
An example - I recently did a sound design project for a major convention that had a fair amount of thick low end impacts among other things that were going on. It was pretty dense, but I was happy with where I was at.
After review the client asked for more low end throughout.
Now, many clients ask for "low end" or "bass" when they really mean they want other things. "More low end" can mean some or all of the following:
- more low end
- less low end
- more midrange
- more high end
- more compression
- more distortion
- fewer elements
- I'm listening on laptop speakers
- I'm listening on my iphone speaker
- I don't know what I want to hear yet
That specific request almost always invites follow up questions from me, not only because I like low end and sometimes have to restrain myself anyway, but also because of how often that request is a red flag for something else being the problem that the client is hearing.
In this case my response was "there's already quite a bit of low end in there. We have to be careful not to lose impact on the big moments by oversaturating the low end."
My client then repsoned "well, what I really need is a big long drone for about 30 seconds before the big reveal. Don't mess with the rest if you think it'll hurt it."
With one simple prod my client was able to focus his request and I was able to give him exactly what he wanted on the next iteration. If I had just rolled my eyes and said "OK" we would have gotten nowhere.
---------------------
So with a good outcome fresh in our minds, lets look at strategy for dealing with troublesome requests:
1 - Ask followup questions
sometimes clients will give specific direction that can be interpreted in a number of different ways, or that on its face sounds like it will do more harm than good. Dont shrug your shoulders and do it, get further inside of the client's head.
2 - continue to talk specifics
If your client's request doesn't exactly add up, start offering specific alternatives. Talking in generalities is really only useful if you're completely lost. Discuss your opinion of the specific options that can help the client get to where he wants to go, and offer things that you think will get you moving in the right direction. If you start veering out into the wilderness your client will let you know pretty quickly and you can adjust course. Remeber that your client is more tuned in to the context of the project than you are. They have been living with it for a longer period of time.
3 - Don't correct language without a specific reason.
If your client is says he's hearing a "tempo change" when the tempo is constant but the instrumentation changed, then just make whatever adjustment she's asking for and leave it at that. You know what they're asking for, so don't bother spending time and brainspace discussing language - just do what they're asking.
4 - communicate technical things with simple language
I'm a big fan of simplifying language in general. Jargon is for keeping people out, common speech is for letting them in. Don't fear letting your clients into your thought processes and techniques. They're smart enough to get it, and they appreciate knowing what you're thinking. There are simple ways to describe every single thing we do, so just speak in English and not AudioJargonEese and you'll be fine. Discussing technique and methodology has often moved me quickly into where my client needs me to be or otherwise moved clients towards something that can be accomplished within their timeline and budget.
5 - prepare alt versions
If time permits, go ahead and prepare alt versions to present to the client. Always include what you believe to be the best alternative, but also allow yourself to fully indulge the client's musings as well. Sometimes they'll recognize pretty quickly that the idea isn't working, sometimes it will work and you can be the hero while hiding your surprise, and sometimes it will just move the both of you in a more productive direction. Gauge your client's imagination before going down this path. Some clients understand when they're not hearing the big picture which allows you to mockup several options quickly. Others don't have this perspective and need to be presented to in full context, which limits the number of alts you'll be able to do.
-----------
So there's a couple of nuggets from me to you. Our clients know what they want, we just have to figure out how to get inside of their heads and pull that knowledge out.
When the client asks for something that you belive he or she will not like.
I'll begin here by saying that most of what I'll be talking about is less listening to what your client is telling you and more interpreting what your client is telling you.
My baseline premise here is that your client is going to be more tuned-in to the overall creative context of the thing that you are working on, and that you're being brought into the process at some point after it has already been set in motion. This premise can fit whether you're doing sound design for a film or VO recording for a radio spot, but it's an important starting point because it forces us to realize a simple thing - the client knows what he wants better than we do - especially initially.
Now, even though the client knows what he wants and we know what we think he wants there are times when communication requires interpretation.
This is because clients will at times use certain vocabulary and concepts that can lead you astray if you're not seeking out the meanings that motivate the words. Also not all clients use confusing vocabulary, and some clients only confuse certain things so working knowledge of the relationships is very important. In addition, some clients like to manage creative concepts tightly, while others will trust us to make the best creative decisions we can, so interpreting direction can get very tricky very quickly depending on the context of the relationship.
----------
An example - I recently did a sound design project for a major convention that had a fair amount of thick low end impacts among other things that were going on. It was pretty dense, but I was happy with where I was at.
After review the client asked for more low end throughout.
Now, many clients ask for "low end" or "bass" when they really mean they want other things. "More low end" can mean some or all of the following:
- more low end
- less low end
- more midrange
- more high end
- more compression
- more distortion
- fewer elements
- I'm listening on laptop speakers
- I'm listening on my iphone speaker
- I don't know what I want to hear yet
That specific request almost always invites follow up questions from me, not only because I like low end and sometimes have to restrain myself anyway, but also because of how often that request is a red flag for something else being the problem that the client is hearing.
In this case my response was "there's already quite a bit of low end in there. We have to be careful not to lose impact on the big moments by oversaturating the low end."
My client then repsoned "well, what I really need is a big long drone for about 30 seconds before the big reveal. Don't mess with the rest if you think it'll hurt it."
With one simple prod my client was able to focus his request and I was able to give him exactly what he wanted on the next iteration. If I had just rolled my eyes and said "OK" we would have gotten nowhere.
---------------------
So with a good outcome fresh in our minds, lets look at strategy for dealing with troublesome requests:
1 - Ask followup questions
sometimes clients will give specific direction that can be interpreted in a number of different ways, or that on its face sounds like it will do more harm than good. Dont shrug your shoulders and do it, get further inside of the client's head.
2 - continue to talk specifics
If your client's request doesn't exactly add up, start offering specific alternatives. Talking in generalities is really only useful if you're completely lost. Discuss your opinion of the specific options that can help the client get to where he wants to go, and offer things that you think will get you moving in the right direction. If you start veering out into the wilderness your client will let you know pretty quickly and you can adjust course. Remeber that your client is more tuned in to the context of the project than you are. They have been living with it for a longer period of time.
3 - Don't correct language without a specific reason.
If your client is says he's hearing a "tempo change" when the tempo is constant but the instrumentation changed, then just make whatever adjustment she's asking for and leave it at that. You know what they're asking for, so don't bother spending time and brainspace discussing language - just do what they're asking.
4 - communicate technical things with simple language
I'm a big fan of simplifying language in general. Jargon is for keeping people out, common speech is for letting them in. Don't fear letting your clients into your thought processes and techniques. They're smart enough to get it, and they appreciate knowing what you're thinking. There are simple ways to describe every single thing we do, so just speak in English and not AudioJargonEese and you'll be fine. Discussing technique and methodology has often moved me quickly into where my client needs me to be or otherwise moved clients towards something that can be accomplished within their timeline and budget.
5 - prepare alt versions
If time permits, go ahead and prepare alt versions to present to the client. Always include what you believe to be the best alternative, but also allow yourself to fully indulge the client's musings as well. Sometimes they'll recognize pretty quickly that the idea isn't working, sometimes it will work and you can be the hero while hiding your surprise, and sometimes it will just move the both of you in a more productive direction. Gauge your client's imagination before going down this path. Some clients understand when they're not hearing the big picture which allows you to mockup several options quickly. Others don't have this perspective and need to be presented to in full context, which limits the number of alts you'll be able to do.
-----------
So there's a couple of nuggets from me to you. Our clients know what they want, we just have to figure out how to get inside of their heads and pull that knowledge out.
Wednesday, February 23
communicating in creative contexts-pt 1
Q: You are an audio person who was hired by someone that wants you to produce some form of sonic composition for a project. During the course of this project, the person who hired you starts making requests of your art that you feel are bad ideas. How do you handle this?
A few recent happenings at work along some recent internet threads have had me pondering this recently, and I'd like to share my thoughts.
Here in part one I want to get into some of what I believe to be the root causes of these types of communication problems. Understanding the causes can help us navigate to the solutions.
First and foremost, people's ears are very highly tuned in comparison to their eyes. It takes tens of thousands of audio samples per second to convince the ears that something real is happening around them. By contrast it only takes about 20 or so video samples per second to achieve the same effect. This is why film standards have 48,000 audio samples playing back every second and only 24 frames of video in that same second.
Our ears also far outpace out eyes in terms of dynamic range.
That last 10db of dynamic range perception that ears have over eyes is at the far end of a logarithmic scale, which means that the difference = a LOT.
Then there is the general function of sound in creative contexts, which is to create emotion. The visuals set the stage and to some degree tell the story, but it is the sounds that get the pulse racing or tug at the heart strings or otherwise cause the audience to feel what the directors wants them to feel. This means that sound decisions are fundamentally gut-level decisions that require technical means to execute.
Finally there is the unique relationship to time that sound has. Visuals can move fast or slow without changing intelligibility to a degree that sound cannot. Big sonic moments have to be set up with space in order to achieve full impact. Low frequency things played at high rates of speed (you know, frequencies) cease to be low frequency things. These things are part of the physics of sound and have no real correlation in the visual side of things. Also, you cannot pause a sound and examine it the way you can a moving picture. You can't just point to something and say "change that."
What all of this means is that it really takes a deep understanding of how sound works and can be manipulated for clients and directors to communicate with their audio personnel, and it truly takes years of work and study and thought to develop that level of understanding.
The end result is that in the sound world the vocabulary tends to be under-developed - especially in comparison to the visual arts. Directors have an easy time saying "brighter, darker, redder, grittier" but have an incredibly difficult time expressing parallel concepts in sound because of the degree to which sound is an abstract concept to people that don't spend all of their waking hours manipulating it. Things like dynamic range, frequency content, imaging, tempo, melody, and the effect of blank space are difficult concepts to pull out of thin air, and if your client isn't incredibly skilled in this form of communication then they are very likely to request things that are bad ideas, or to have good ideas and be unable to articulate them clearly. They're also used to being able to do things visually (like cut many things quickly for visual impact) that can have unintended and unpleasing consequences if attempted sonically.
In the next few posts I'll do my best to break down the few stereotypical "bad" requests that we sound people get, and lay out some ways to decode the client's meaning and deliver what they're looking for.
A few recent happenings at work along some recent internet threads have had me pondering this recently, and I'd like to share my thoughts.
Here in part one I want to get into some of what I believe to be the root causes of these types of communication problems. Understanding the causes can help us navigate to the solutions.
First and foremost, people's ears are very highly tuned in comparison to their eyes. It takes tens of thousands of audio samples per second to convince the ears that something real is happening around them. By contrast it only takes about 20 or so video samples per second to achieve the same effect. This is why film standards have 48,000 audio samples playing back every second and only 24 frames of video in that same second.
Our ears also far outpace out eyes in terms of dynamic range.
A human is capable of hearing (and usefully discerning) anything from a quiet murmur in a soundproofed room to the sound of the loudest heavy metal concert. Such a difference can exceed 100 dB which represents a factor of 10,000,000,000 in power. A human can see objects in starlight (although colour differentiation is reduced at low light levels) or in bright sunlight, even though on a moonless night objects receive 1/1,000,000,000 of the illumination they would on a bright sunny day: that is a dynamic range of 90 dB*wikipedia
That last 10db of dynamic range perception that ears have over eyes is at the far end of a logarithmic scale, which means that the difference = a LOT.
Then there is the general function of sound in creative contexts, which is to create emotion. The visuals set the stage and to some degree tell the story, but it is the sounds that get the pulse racing or tug at the heart strings or otherwise cause the audience to feel what the directors wants them to feel. This means that sound decisions are fundamentally gut-level decisions that require technical means to execute.
Finally there is the unique relationship to time that sound has. Visuals can move fast or slow without changing intelligibility to a degree that sound cannot. Big sonic moments have to be set up with space in order to achieve full impact. Low frequency things played at high rates of speed (you know, frequencies) cease to be low frequency things. These things are part of the physics of sound and have no real correlation in the visual side of things. Also, you cannot pause a sound and examine it the way you can a moving picture. You can't just point to something and say "change that."
What all of this means is that it really takes a deep understanding of how sound works and can be manipulated for clients and directors to communicate with their audio personnel, and it truly takes years of work and study and thought to develop that level of understanding.
The end result is that in the sound world the vocabulary tends to be under-developed - especially in comparison to the visual arts. Directors have an easy time saying "brighter, darker, redder, grittier" but have an incredibly difficult time expressing parallel concepts in sound because of the degree to which sound is an abstract concept to people that don't spend all of their waking hours manipulating it. Things like dynamic range, frequency content, imaging, tempo, melody, and the effect of blank space are difficult concepts to pull out of thin air, and if your client isn't incredibly skilled in this form of communication then they are very likely to request things that are bad ideas, or to have good ideas and be unable to articulate them clearly. They're also used to being able to do things visually (like cut many things quickly for visual impact) that can have unintended and unpleasing consequences if attempted sonically.
In the next few posts I'll do my best to break down the few stereotypical "bad" requests that we sound people get, and lay out some ways to decode the client's meaning and deliver what they're looking for.
Wednesday, February 16
Truck record-part 4:cataloging and databasing
In part 1 of my truck record retrospective I talked about the prep work required to get ready for a full on vehicle record. Part 2 covered the actual recording date, part 3 went into the editing process, and now we'll put the whole thing to bed by cataloging and databasing.
-----------
I usually set a certain number of hours aside each week to deal with the ongoing task of cataloging and databasing the various sounds that I record and collect day in and day out. In the case of the trucks recorded for Benavides Born this process didn't really start until after the film sound was edited, which meant that there was a few week lag between recording and databasing.
Sometimes this kind of a lag can be detrimental to the process, but for a straightforward soundset like this the process went pretty smoothly (though still pretty time-consuming).
As a side note here, even though I work in a facility with 5 total engineers I do all of the sound effects databasing myself if I can. By doing the databasing I get to hear, varispeed and otherwise become familiar with all of the sounds as they go into the library. I also get to pick the metadata and can input it in a way that is both relatively standardized and as thorough as I need it to be. Filtering all of the facility's recordings through my databasing process plugs me in to everything going on with regards to the library, which makes me a more creative and efficient sound designer.
In the case of the truck recordings my labeling system is pretty straighforward and thorough. In soundminer I list the word "auto" then include make, model, type of move and fill in the mic used. Then I tag the files with the appropriate photo.
On this specific vehicle the whole process produced about 2.5 gigs of data, 66 unique files, and about 20 photos that got tagged to various moves. Here's a screenshot of my general output:
Once all of the metadata is in place I use soundminer to embed it and the photos into the wav files themselves.
The final step is to move them to their final resting place on the main sfx server, scan the embedded files into the main sfx database, and redistribute the database to the facility.
-------------
After much planning, work and editing we now as a facility have immediate access to pretty full coverage of something that was needed for and recorded in context with one of the many projects that run through here. This process is incredibly important to keep up with during the course of a project so that your internal bank of sounds grows and becomes more unique with each passing project.
Failing to edit, catalog and database unique recordings like this is just not an option for me.
--------------------
That was the whole process. Benavides Born was a true pleasure to work on, and I'm always grateful when I get to work on interesting projects with creative and interesting people. We have pretty cool jobs in the sound industry. :)
-----------
I usually set a certain number of hours aside each week to deal with the ongoing task of cataloging and databasing the various sounds that I record and collect day in and day out. In the case of the trucks recorded for Benavides Born this process didn't really start until after the film sound was edited, which meant that there was a few week lag between recording and databasing.
Sometimes this kind of a lag can be detrimental to the process, but for a straightforward soundset like this the process went pretty smoothly (though still pretty time-consuming).
As a side note here, even though I work in a facility with 5 total engineers I do all of the sound effects databasing myself if I can. By doing the databasing I get to hear, varispeed and otherwise become familiar with all of the sounds as they go into the library. I also get to pick the metadata and can input it in a way that is both relatively standardized and as thorough as I need it to be. Filtering all of the facility's recordings through my databasing process plugs me in to everything going on with regards to the library, which makes me a more creative and efficient sound designer.
In the case of the truck recordings my labeling system is pretty straighforward and thorough. In soundminer I list the word "auto" then include make, model, type of move and fill in the mic used. Then I tag the files with the appropriate photo.
On this specific vehicle the whole process produced about 2.5 gigs of data, 66 unique files, and about 20 photos that got tagged to various moves. Here's a screenshot of my general output:
Once all of the metadata is in place I use soundminer to embed it and the photos into the wav files themselves.
The final step is to move them to their final resting place on the main sfx server, scan the embedded files into the main sfx database, and redistribute the database to the facility.
-------------
After much planning, work and editing we now as a facility have immediate access to pretty full coverage of something that was needed for and recorded in context with one of the many projects that run through here. This process is incredibly important to keep up with during the course of a project so that your internal bank of sounds grows and becomes more unique with each passing project.
Failing to edit, catalog and database unique recordings like this is just not an option for me.
--------------------
That was the whole process. Benavides Born was a true pleasure to work on, and I'm always grateful when I get to work on interesting projects with creative and interesting people. We have pretty cool jobs in the sound industry. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)