[Carey Carlan]

After my first recent experience providing audio for video, I have received
cudos for the quality of the sound.

I thanked them politely, but knew inside that it was just average content
compared to my usual work for audio only (making CD's).

Is the standard for audio for video really as low as that?

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message...

Is the standard for audio for video really as low as that?



;-)

[Richard Crowley]

"Carey Carlan" wrote ...
After my first recent experience providing audio for
video, I have received cudos for the quality of the sound.

I thanked them politely, but knew inside that it was just
average content compared to my usual work for audio
only (making CD's).

Is the standard for audio for video really as low as that?

Typically, but there are some islands of quality.
I got involved in video specifically because of the
appalling quality of the audio.

[Scott Dorsey]

Carey Carlan wrote:
After my first recent experience providing audio for video, I have received
cudos for the quality of the sound.

I thanked them politely, but knew inside that it was just average content
compared to my usual work for audio only (making CD's).

Is the standard for audio for video really as low as that?

Just turn on a TV and listen some time. For a really good time, watch
the halftime show at the Super Bowl, the Grammies, or some other event
with live music. Five will get you ten you'll hear hum.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Carey Carlan]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

Carey Carlan wrote:
After my first recent experience providing audio for video, I have
received cudos for the quality of the sound.

I thanked them politely, but knew inside that it was just average
content compared to my usual work for audio only (making CD's).

Is the standard for audio for video really as low as that?

Just turn on a TV and listen some time. For a really good time, watch
the halftime show at the Super Bowl, the Grammies, or some other event
with live music. Five will get you ten you'll hear hum.
--scott

I can see how working live might have some limitations, but this was a
concert with in-place dress rehearsal and plenty of time to edit and tweak
after.

I'm guessing it's more of an economic "get it out there now, cheap"
question more than a "make it sound good" question.

[Richard Kuschel]

Carey Carlan wrote:
After my first recent experience providing audio for video, I have received
cudos for the quality of the sound.

I thanked them politely, but knew inside that it was just average content
compared to my usual work for audio only (making CD's).

Is the standard for audio for video really as low as that?

Pretty much.

Video people think that the important part of the video is the moving
pictures and don't learn much if anything about audio.

They have no concept that a shotgun microphone isn't like a telephoto
lens. For them what isn't in the picture doesn't exist, unlike audio
which bleeds into everything.

Those few who actually listen will seek out someone who knows how to
record and hire that person. In this case--YOU!

I get jobs all the time from videographers who have learned (usually
the hard way) that they can't concentrate on both the video and audio
at the same time.

[Scott Dorsey]

Carey Carlan wrote:

I can see how working live might have some limitations, but this was a
concert with in-place dress rehearsal and plenty of time to edit and tweak
after.

I'm guessing it's more of an economic "get it out there now, cheap"
question more than a "make it sound good" question.

I think it's more of a cultural problem than anything else. Video guys
don't seem to consider sound to be important as long as people can understand
the dialogue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 12, 5:20 pm, Carey Carlan wrote:

I can see how working live might have some limitations, but this was a
concert with in-place dress rehearsal and plenty of time to edit and tweak
after.

I'm guessing it's more of an economic "get it out there now, cheap"
question more than a "make it sound good" question.

Video gear and production is so expensive, they just don't budget for
good audio. Shows that have a fixed setup and do it week after week
like Austin City Limits do a pretty good job.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Carey Carlan wrote:
After my first recent experience providing audio for video, I have
received cudos for the quality of the sound.

I thanked them politely, but knew inside that it was just average content
compared to my usual work for audio only (making CD's).

Is the standard for audio for video really as low as that?

"When movies added sound, a department was created to nurture it. That
department sitll exists today. When radio added pictures, sound already
was perfect and needed no further attention!" ;-)

Long ago, a senior TV mixer-engineer used to say "strive for mediocrity"
;-)

Of course, that's not at all really true. I learned early on that TV audio
folks get kudos for good, mediocre and sometimes, even bad work. We know
the difference and learn to measure others by their "compliments".

Sometimes video sound is quite good. Austin City Limits does a
consistently good job. In the end, it comes down to money. I mixed a show
that was re-mixed from 24-track as needed in post-production. They could
take their time in a facility that cost a few hundred dollars per hour. At
my end, the production cost $3000 per hour! My job was to get it right
every time and not delay the process.

Always try to give 'em the best you can, under the circumstances. Stay at
least one step ahead of the problems, be ready when it's "time", and never
have to be told what to do. These are the marks of a real professional.

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Carey Carlan wrote:

I can see how working live might have some limitations, but this was a
concert with in-place dress rehearsal and plenty of time to edit and
tweak after.

I'm guessing it's more of an economic "get it out there now, cheap"
question more than a "make it sound good" question.

I think it's more of a cultural problem than anything else. Video guys
don't seem to consider sound to be important as long as people can
understand the dialogue.
--scott

"Video guys" are responsible for a lot of problems. Boom shadows are
*their* fault! We never have boom shadows in radio. If you kill the
lights, there are no shadows. So, who says "turn 'em back on"? Video
guys! ;-)

TV Directors worry about a mic cable in the corner of a shot. If the
viewers are looking in the corners, the Director has a bigger problem than
that!

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Carey Carlan]

Roy W. Rising wrote in
:

Always try to give 'em the best you can, under the circumstances.
Stay at least one step ahead of the problems, be ready when it's
"time", and never have to be told what to do. These are the marks of
a real professional.

All excellent advice.

[[email protected]]

Obviously no video pros in this group. You have no idea.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Obviously no video pros in this group. You have no idea.

Explain further?
--scott
(definitely not a video pro at all)
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
Obviously no video pros in this group. You have no idea.

This random thought brought to you by WillieTV63 who is
apparently refering to himself.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 13, 1:05*pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
wrote ...

Obviously no video pros in this group. You have no idea.

This random thought brought to you by WillieTV63 who is
apparently refering to himself.

Video takes precedent over audio on most shoots for many reasons. one
of them being due to the fact that video or film cannot be as easily
(or inexpensively) manipulated after acquisition. It is true many
amateur and pro videographers know little about sound, This is why
every pro shoot has a minimum two person sound team. What they dont
get on location can be foleyed and ADR'd. Now when your talking about
recording live musical performance, You obviously use audio
professionals that understand things like phantom power, tube/ribbon/
condenser mics, mic patterns, pre-amps, compresssion, de-essers,
limiters, EQ's, Bit-rate, and thats just a start. I am not an audio
pro, but I am a film/video pro. Carey, so you are an audio pro
(engineer ?). You might be interested in some of the work my friends
are doing, High Definition Audio for video over at DTS. Go to the web
site and see some of the projects coming out in 5.1 and 7.1 surround.
(7.1 96k /24bit on Blu-ray + HD-DVD). Seems quality almost always come
down to budget (which brings talent), I think your ready for some
higher end projects and clients. Good luck, S.E.

[Carey Carlan]

wrote in news:a2d50c25-f67d-4ab2-b473-
:
I am not an audio
pro, but I am a film/video pro. Carey, so you are an audio pro
(engineer ?). You might be interested in some of the work my friends
are doing, High Definition Audio for video over at DTS. Go to the web
site and see some of the projects coming out in 5.1 and 7.1 surround.
(7.1 96k /24bit on Blu-ray + HD-DVD). Seems quality almost always come
down to budget (which brings talent), I think your ready for some
higher end projects and clients. Good luck, S.E.

I don't think I'm equipped to head that direction. Video is a world of
portable and hidden. My gear is neither.

[Steve House[_2_]]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:41:24 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
wrote:

On Jan 12, 5:20 pm, Carey Carlan wrote:

I can see how working live might have some limitations, but this was a
concert with in-place dress rehearsal and plenty of time to edit and tweak
after.

I'm guessing it's more of an economic "get it out there now, cheap"
question more than a "make it sound good" question.

Video gear and production is so expensive, they just don't budget for
good audio. Shows that have a fixed setup and do it week after week
like Austin City Limits do a pretty good job.


Also the various concerts on HDNet and PBS "Soundstage" do a pretty
good job.