FORUMS: list search recent posts

Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Jim Giberti
Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:36:17 am

So I've been into X for about a week or so.
Today I decided to prepare my audio strategy for the series of spots I've started in it.

Quick background - I'm also a musician and audio producer. I've built several studios during my career starting with big tape machines and 48 track consoles to all MOTU digital facilities, sound rooms, great monitoring, bla, bla.

So if anyone was leery of changing from a track based, sit behind the console and mix paradigm, It was me.

But I was also waiting to move beyond the OMF export, mix and master in DP and return to FCP, at this point in creative production. I've been waiting for a FCP that would allow me to finish audio internally, and grading too, so I was a prime candidate for this.

Obviously the lack of tracks à la 7 and the lack of bussing à la all DAWs perplexed me but I figured I'd get a rough cut together as I usually would, and figure out the audio strategy once I had film and graphics roughly mapped out.

It's all in the Compound Clip strategy, and Story Lines and combining those into other Compound Clips. If that sounds complex, it's not at all, it's really intuitive and once I got comfortable with the concept, I put a great mix together way faster than I could in 7 (and at a whole other sonic level) and faster than in Digital Performer (and I'm fast with that).

I was initially frustrated over the lack of a mixer - the mixer in 7 is mostly useless, but with the great stuff from Logic, X really had the potential for complete audio post. But if I can pull together a great sounding mix after one evening of experimentation, I'm pretty much giving the X team a big nod here. Forget about STP.

So, this particular spot has three actors, a VO, stereo music track, stereo ambient track, and 6 stereo SFX. In a traditional post situation I'd set up my studio mixer for 4 mono voice tracks and 8 stereo tracks. In mix I'd add parametric EQ, an LA2A, etc. as needed to each track and then buss and sub buss everything as needed to a Master Out where I'd finish with multiband compression and limiting.

I was able to set up X to do all of that and with everything in discrete tracks. It's killer once you get it. I came up with a simple way to have all three actors synced with their clips so that they could be moved using the benefit of the magnetic timeline, while locking the stereo tracks I wanted fixed to a 30sec timeline.

As you refine the mix, you group the elements just as you would on a big console but faster and with the ability to pop back out as necessary. In the end I had 12 discrete audio tracks under the primary storyline named, Tara, Izzy, Jackie, VO, Music Bed, Wind, Water, etc. Many of these were composite tracks (the actors takes) where applying master EQ and FX is a one step process, faster than bussing on a physical or GUI console. They stay connected to their primary clips until it's time to buss everything to the master and then they go into their own discrete tracks for FX and bussing to the Master Out

From an external DAW perspective this eliminates the process of setting up FX busses - in X they exist as part of the Compound Clip.

So lastly I created a group/buss called Master Out by selecting my 12 discrete tracks (Tara etc.) Option/G and naming it. I then had an instant stereo Master Out with discrete volume, pan and, really nice Logic mastering tools.

And all of it can be stepped back quickly, tweaked as necessary and all the mastering remains in effect. At first I didn't get that function in the timeline but once you work like this, you realize this was really well thought out. It's different, but it's good different.

In one of my studio incarnations we ran Logic for music production so I know how great the sound quality of the plugins are, and it is just that in X. The EQ , Convolution Reverb...I'm just getting around in it but it's top shelf stuff.

The Compound Clip concept, at least as far as audio goes, blows away the track concept in 7. Anyone with audio chops could post in X much faster and with every bit of the quality of going OMF out to a dedicated DAW. Also using this approach with Roles and Audio Stems, if you need to send to post, will be super efficient.

You simply can't do in 7 what you can do in X with audio, the meters are great, you can even select the audio "destination tracks" the way I worked it so that it's much quicker than in 7 - and I hated the selecting tracks process in FCP 7

The audio in X is next generation stuff for an NLE.


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 10:56:45 am

Great informative post Jim.

FCPX really does work well when you start using the tools - such as compound clips - to in many ways subvert the conventional workflows.

And as you say it's easy to undo and step back.

The logic filter I use the most is Channel EQ. It's vastly superior to the Legacy FCP EQ filters. It has an analysis function which can quickly highlight problems such as background noise or hums.

I hope that in future updates that visual and audio effects are given separate dropdowns to make it easier to access specific effects / plugins.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 4:12:19 pm

Awesome post. It's fun isn't it?

I should add, a mentor of mine told me something long ago that sticks with me about learning new systems and techniques.

First, there's a lot of "I don't get it, I don't get it, I don't get it" then all of a sudden it's, "I get it".

You should post a pic of your timeline if you are up for it.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 4:17:10 pm

Yes, very interesting Jim. I'd also love to see a screen grab of your setup. I'm skeptical of Compound Clips because I don't like how they hide information, so I'm curious to see how you're using them.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 7:13:02 pm

David,

I'm not sure I understand your idea that they "hide" information in any sense different than a toolbox hiding the tools within. For the outside observer, yes, the full array is hidden. But for the single mechanic, AND the shop team as a whole, tool chests, bins, and even smaller sub units like the "socket set" stored inside the larger rolling box seems to be an accepted way to go as opposed to hanging every separate element on a wide array of individual exposed pegs.

All NLE software that I'm aware of does both discrete and grouping functions. (nested clips, et al.) but I do think X puts grouping into a bit of new territory with more possible connections reaching both in to and out of the essential building block of the clip.

As video programs increase in complexity, having the "connected clip" as an optional packetized chunk of prior decisions that can be manipulated as a whole seems one of the most useful concepts in X to me.

For what its worth.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 7:37:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "As video programs increase in complexity, having the "connected clip" as an optional packetized chunk of prior decisions that can be manipulated as a whole seems one of the most useful concepts in X to me.

For what its worth."


As David has mentioned in other posts (and using your tool box analogy), it would be nice to "open the drawer" and manipulate what you need in context, then close the drawer back up with everything inside. Also, the detach function is great, but there's no reattach. Basically, it would be nice to be able to edit what's in the compound clip in greater context of the over arching timeline rather than having to "step in" and open the compound in it's own timeline. You lose the relationship to your timeline (the elements outside the compound clip) a little bit the way it is currently setup.


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 8:25:06 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "it would be nice to "open the drawer" and manipulate what you need in context, then close the drawer back up with everything inside. Also, the detach function is great, but there's no reattach. Basically, it would be nice to be able to edit what's in the compound clip in greater context of the over arching timeline rather than having to "step in" and open the compound in it's own timeline. You lose the relationship to your timeline (the elements outside the compound clip) a little bit the way it is currently setup."

Exactly. Thanks Jeremy!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 8:34:19 pm

[David Lawrence] "Exactly. Thanks Jeremy!"

Yeah, sorry to "step in" but I know we have talked about this a bunch. :)

As I side note, I know in those discussions someone mentioned that Avid does this. I can't find anything explaining it, though. From what I have found, it looks like regular nesting to me. If you want to edit inside the nest, you have to open the nest in a new window, losing the context. You can of course, collapse a bunch of tracks, but you can do that with compounds as well. As far as I have been able to see, Avid works "no differently" than a compound in terms of contextual editing.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:23:47 pm

There is no real nesting in Avid like FCP does - you collapse tracks which applies a submaster effect. You can step into the submaster to see all the collapsed tracks, or you can go into effect mode or segment mode (both are a keystroke) and double click the submaster effect. This open the "nest" in your timeline so you can see everything inside of it in relation to your entire timeline, and you can make adjustments inside the submaster and see how they affect everything outside of it to.

So you have a choice - step in and lose context or expand and maintain context. Note this is with video only - there is no collapsing audio. You do a mixdown for that, which creates new media that has no relationship to the original audio tracks.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 28, 2011 at 1:19:22 pm

[Michael Hancock] "So you have a choice - step in and lose context or expand and maintain context. Note this is with video only - there is no collapsing audio. You do a mixdown for that, which creates new media that has no relationship to the original audio tracks."

Thanks so much for the clarification, Michael.

I couldn't find a web movie that shows the "expand" feature, plenty show stepping in. Is that a relatively new feature with recent releases or has it always been that way?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:21:56 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Jeremy Garchow] "it would be nice to "open the drawer" and manipulate what you need in context, then close the drawer back up with everything inside. Also, the detach function is great, but there's no reattach. Basically, it would be nice to be able to edit what's in the compound clip in greater context of the over arching timeline rather than having to "step in" and open the compound in it's own timeline. You lose the relationship to your timeline (the elements outside the compound clip) a little bit the way it is currently setup.""

I'm having no problem doing this with Break Apart jeremy.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:34:49 pm

[Jim Giberti] "I'm having no problem doing this with Break Apart jeremy."

A picture would help, even if the picture are blurred out. Set the timkieline to view names as roles. We won't tell anyone! :)


Return to posts index


Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:10:10 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "A picture would help, even if the picture are blurred out. Set the timkieline to view names as roles. We won't tell anyone! :)"


Here's a short portion from the top to give a sense.

I'll post a close up of the top next.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:14:51 am

OK , so that didn't work - bear with me, I've never included an image here.
Gee, I should have read the directions.



Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:25:43 am

Here's a close up of the top.


0_xclose.png


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:31:47 am

[Jim Giberti] "Here's a close up of the top."

Thanks Jim, Makes sense and from your description was what I was expecting.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:47:08 am

And it's worth a thousand words. Thanks so much.

I think there's a flaw here, and it's why I needed to see a picture, but it's possible I'm missing something.

If your video edit changes, all of the clips in the secondary won't ripple.

If you need to change the timing of video in the primary, the "scream", f16, etc and so forth won't move along with the rest of the timeline. I wrote about it here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/18165#18236

Of course I am assuming that those SFX are timed to video, but maybe they aren't.

Also, your voice roles ("Tara", etc) will get lost of if you compound them as clips inside compounds take on the role of the compound.

I think role based effects (apply effects to the entire role) and patch panel actions (like bussing) would do well as it would keep all the magnetism in place, but allow global controls of selected elements...without tracks. The only effects you can add globally here are to the "music bed" and "ambience", unless I'm missing something?

We also talked about having "zones" in the timeline that would simulate dynamic tracks, but keep all the benefits of the magnetic timeline here: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/18676

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:21:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Basically, it would be nice to be able to edit what's in the compound clip in greater context of the over arching timeline rather than having to "step in" and open the compound in it's own timeline. You lose the relationship to your timeline (the elements outside the compound clip) a little bit the way it is currently setup."

Not if you "Break Apart" rather than "Open in Timeline" Jeremy. The first moves you into it's own unreferenced timeline (to the Primary) and you need to step back. Break Apart shows the individual elements in context and a quick Option/G closes them up. So you can tweak any edit, either way.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:26:51 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Not if you "Break Apart" rather than "Open in Timeline" Jeremy. The first moves you into it's own unreferenced timeline (to the Primary) and you need to step back. Break Apart shows the individual elements in context and a quick Option/G closes them up. So you can tweak any edit, either way."

Yes, but if you "Break Apart", doesn't that remove any transitions? What if you use crossfades between clip elements?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:52:20 pm

[David Lawrence] "Yes, but if you "Break Apart", doesn't that remove any transitions? What if you use crossfades between clip elements?"

This is why I wanted you to weigh in David, I'm doing this in real time so I can check it as I go.

No, any fade you make to the clip (using the cross fade handles) stay with the clips inside the CC that is inside the Secondary if you "Break Apart" the clip elements.

I think more importantly, the way I'm doing it, there's absolutely no issue if you break apart the clip to edit it in reference with the Primary or other audio tracks/Secondaries above and below. Those clips remain hilighted even as you adjust the volume level of a single clip, so you don't even have to reselect, just hit Option/G after adjusting a level and it closes to a CC again .

And you continue to see all waveform info in the Secondaries - just not the lines that break the CC into separate clips within it.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 10:00:34 pm

[Jim Giberti] "No, any fade you make to the clip (using the cross fade handles) stay with the clips inside the CC that is inside the Secondary if you "Break Apart" the clip elements."

True if you use handles or keyframes, I'm talking about something different - using dissolve transitions between clips. I do this with audio for various reasons pretty regularly. You can get the same effect by using handles/keyframes and stacking clips but I find it's often faster and more direct to just drop a crossfade between clips. In FCP7 it's a single-click operation.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 10:15:46 pm

[David Lawrence] "In FCP7 it's a single-click operation."

Well, David, actually two clicks (Command T) without keyboard re-mapping - but the point is well taken since that kind of thing certainly starts to feel like a single action after the first few hundred times you use it.

But isn't the larger view that Jim is editing like he edited as an AUDIO editor - where audio fades via keyframe manipulation is the norm. And you're editing like a video editor where transitions via drag and drop presets are the norm?

The issue I have with "drag and drop" is that as a preset, you have to accept whatever you've set up as the preset behavior, where Jim's keyframe fades are always purpose built to the nature of the track being modified.

If we're going to ask every new NLE implementation, not "can it do the job efficiently" but "can it always do the job in the way I've become accustomed to doing it" then this discussion is going to go on for a LONG time and be very frustrating.

Jim, I personally LOVE your "1-frame timing gap clip" concept. It's something that I never considered and I can see it as a kinda "tent peg" technique that gives me back some of the "fixed track" behavior in the world of the magnetic timeline.

I'm going to try it in my next project. Thanks for posting the idea.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 10:47:25 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well, David, actually two clicks (Command T) without keyboard re-mapping - but the point is well taken since that kind of thing certainly starts to feel like a single action after the first few hundred times you use it."

You can right-click and apply a crossfade transition between clips in a single action. If you set the default length to your most common preference, then most of the time the job can be done in one click. Also, a single click on the crossfade lets you set the crossfade to the transition start, center, or end. Very fast and handy. Good luck doing that right now in FCPX. Definitely a feature request.

[Bill Davis] "But isn't the larger view that Jim is editing like he edited as an AUDIO editor - where audio fades via keyframe manipulation is the norm. And you're editing like a video editor where transitions via drag and drop presets are the norm?"

I don't think so. I started a couple long threads on audio-centric and spatial workflows a few weeks ago. If anything, I think I edit video like an audio editor.

I use whatever tools are available. If I can drop in a crossfade and it works, cool. If I want to work in layers, I'll use volume keyframes. Whatever tool does the particular job fastest is what I pick.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:20:53 pm

[David Lawrence] "True if you use handles or keyframes, I'm talking about something different - using dissolve transitions between clips. I do this with audio for various reasons pretty regularly. You can get the same effect by using handles/keyframes and stacking clips but I find it's often faster and more direct to just drop a crossfade between clips. In FCP7 it's a single-click operation.
"


I use that technique at times too David and yes the fades stay with the CC if you Break Apart or Open in Timeline


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:37:35 pm

[Jim Giberti] "I use that technique at times too David and yes the fades stay with the CC if you Break Apart or Open in Timeline"

But only if you keep your CC in a secondary storyline. If you break apart a connected CC with transitions you get this warning:



So I'm assuming you have everything in a secondary, yes?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:44:36 pm

[David Lawrence] "So I'm assuming you have everything in a secondary, yes?"


In this context yes, the Secondary/CC combination is what's working.
It's the only way to create a "container" to edit into unmagnetically and get the benefit of bussing.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:05:26 am

Try detach, David. I'm just curious and haven't been in front of fcpx today.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:18:05 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Try detach, David. I'm just curious and haven't been in front of fcpx today."

Detach is grayed out. Break apart is the only option. Probably because the audio in this CC is already detached from the A/V source.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:22:41 am

Or detach doesn't work with compound clips? I was messing with detach the other day, and when I broke apart, I lost all my adjustments, when detaching, all the adjustments came with the clips.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:41:12 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Or detach doesn't work with compound clips? I was messing with detach the other day, and when I broke apart, I lost all my adjustments, when detaching, all the adjustments came with the clips."

Hmmm, yeah maybe. I'll have to experiment. A compound clip could be anything, so what does "detach" mean in that context? And what happens when you start compounding other compound clips? Inception!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:29:43 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Not if you "Break Apart" rather than "Open in Timeline" Jeremy. The first moves you into it's own unreferenced timeline (to the Primary) and you need to step back. Break Apart shows the individual elements in context and a quick Option/G closes them up. So you can tweak any edit, either way."

I understand, but without sync markers, this process can be a bit tenuous if you accidentally slip an audio track out of line. I prefer "Detach" as it keeps any audio adjustments that are already made. A Reattach audio would fix this, too.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 7:38:15 pm

Jim,

I'd be interested in more info too - specifically how FCPX deals with real-time volume graphing without a mixer (I assume you can keep several volume controls available?)

Also how you might speculate control surfaces might be integrated in future.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 8:20:14 pm

Sorry - I've ready your post a few times - but am not understanding how you are "mixing" on the fly - I'm assuming you are rubber banding and then grouping tracks as sub-mixes --

You also say you didn't see the value of the mixer in FCP 7 - when in fact we use it every hour every day as a real time "lets listen - did we get this balance right?...let me bring the music up and down for dramatic impact at this point" mixes. In real time.

I can't imagine you've found a way to do that in FCP X - or have you?

A video tutorial would be a tremendous help to all of us shying away from X for exactly that reason - no more real time mixes.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:40:49 pm

[Andy Field] "Sorry - I've ready your post a few times - but am not understanding how you are "mixing" on the fly - I'm assuming you are rubber banding and then grouping tracks as sub-mixes -- "

Andy, let me start by how I'd handle the mix after exporting it to Digital Performer in the audio suite. First I'd open each individual voice clip that comprised an actor's track and level each of those visually by dragging the level line of each (same as FCP) to get a a balanced track to begin with.

After doing this with any tracks with multiple levels, I'd switch into my mixer, Zero everything out and start assigning my choice EQ and FX plugs to each tracks sends and begin and automated mix (depending on the complexity). I'll usually bounce in and out of Mixer to Sequence (fcp timelineish) to adjust specific audio with the fine control of keying.

Using the R (Range Selector) is the way to make immediate 4 point keyframe audio changes to the tracks. I don't think rubber band but key framing from a continuity standpoint.

If you followed me, I've already created Tracks/CCs that I drop the clips I want fixed in time into.
They're already grouped and have audio controls attached.

In other words, Compound Clips are busses, and they're easier busses than in any traditional DAW I work with.

[Andy Field] "You also say you didn't see the value of the mixer in FCP 7 - when in fact we use it every hour every day as a real time "lets listen - did we get this balance right?...let me bring the music up and down for dramatic impact at this point" mixes. In real time.

I can't imagine you've found a way to do that in FCP X - or have you?
"


Sure I have .
First I say the mixer in 7 is pretty useless because you can't apply master FX to the tracks in 7, they're not like tracks in a DAW. In X, bussing with CCs is actually better than a DAW for this.

If you want to "bring the music up and down for dramatic impact at this point" mixes. In real time. ", you don't need to open a mixer - just select the Secondary labeled "Music Bed" and right there in the Inspector there's a master volume and pan control for that buss.

Done.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:40:52 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'd be interested in more info too - specifically how FCPX deals with real-time volume graphing without a mixer (I assume you can keep several volume controls available?)

Also how you might speculate control surfaces might be integrated in future.
"


I'm looking at it this way Franz (being open minded about learning a new way mix great audio even if it's completely different from my life experience) - At any given time during a complex music mix on a 48 track console (my day to day audio room) I can only focus on one track at a time.

I began to meld my thinking in regard to mixing once I went to a dedicated DAW as my recorder. After a while of doing that, I'm just as comfortable grabbing the track and adjusting it with keyframes and drawing curves (next please Apple) as I am riding faders with automation.

So, in that sense, yes you always have your basic fader/pan strip available in the inspector the moment you click the clip/CC that you want to work on.

There's no field of faders and knobs to see as an overview, but that can also be very cluttered and one of the reasons that I keep the track list open beside the timeline in DP so I can shut off all those distracting channels when I'm working track by track.

When I begin to create master drum groups, Backing vocal groups etc. I still have to use grouping in DP and then work with the groups as sub mixes and then buss to the master.

So far, I'm doing all of that and it's faster and more organized and immediately available to me than DP or Logic.

It's very different, but not bad different. And it's easy to adopt.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:05:03 am

Jim,


... well, you certainly do seem enthusiastic.

I have to disagree with you about hardware faders, though. I find they allow and enable the user to manipulate more than one track at at time (where in most software you are pretty much restricted to one track at a time) as well as allowing quickly changing focus while you're listening. Further they provide a record that can be adjusted manually with keyframes etc.

If I'm not misunderstanding you, it seems that FCPX requires a sort of listen / stop and adjust / listen work-flow in terms of volume graphing.

When I get to a certain point with material, I prefer to be listening while I re-actively mix (the "live" mix)(thus the question about real-time volume balancing). I use the FCP 7 mixer for single track work and sometimes a Mackie or Behringer controller.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:42:54 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "... well, you certainly do seem enthusiastic."

I'm always enthusiastic about creative. I'm really liking all the new and nice stuff in X and this was the time in the learning curve that I had to see if I could really do it all "in house".



[Franz Bieberkopf] "I have to disagree with you about hardware faders, though. I find they allow and enable the user to manipulate more than one track at at time (where in most software you are pretty much restricted to one track at a time) as well as allowing quickly changing focus while you're listening. Further they provide a record that can be adjusted manually with keyframes etc."

There's always some compromise early into adopting. I'm just trying to see if it can do really quality audio post and it can. Honestly though, I've got a new song in mix now that's well over 48 tracks with vocals, real instrument tracks and virtual instruments. I absolutely want to see them all layed out and grab faders in real time to work the mix hour after hour.
I'm a tweak junkie.

But not audio post. If it's got music, I've already done what we described in that mix.
I'm not riding faders in a mix for TV or film, I'm sculpting the sounds I have and laying them into cues.


[Franz Bieberkopf] "If I'm not misunderstanding you, it seems that FCPX requires a sort of listen / stop and adjust / listen work-flow in terms of volume graphing.
"


Well it's not a mixer, but no, you don't have to stop and listen. You play the project, select the track and adjust the fader in the inspector in real time while hearing it.
I think it works great for film post.
So far, early on.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:05:10 pm

[David Lawrence] "Yes, very interesting Jim. I'd also love to see a screen grab of your setup. I'm skeptical of Compound Clips because I don't like how they hide information, so I'm curious to see how you're using them."

Hey David, I was hoping to hear from some of the big brains in the debate to test my thinking. It's all new and I'm in the thick of it now.

This particular project isn't a national spot, but it's for a national manufacturer for their dealers to air as well as a short promo film for their website. It's the only thing I've worked with regarding this and while I can't show it, I think I can explain it easily enough and would love to answer any questions.

After reading a lot of your thoughts and examples I was thinking of you when I "disabled" the magnetic timeline as part of my approach to the first mix.

I can give you the short hand on that which I'm sure you'll get:

After I got a rough cut together (the clips were shot with on camera sound to synch the external audio )
I had all the actors and attached audio in the Primary.

Before I added the audio to be synched, music tracks etc. I inserted a one frame gap at the head of the Primary. Then I took a random slice of audio and Qed it to connect it to that 1st frame then I did the same at the end of the project.

Of course these are now aligned horizontally directly under the Primary. I selected both and Option/G to make a CC/ "track" that ran the length of the project and I named the CC "Music Bed". Option drag this to create as many tracks as you want, all fixed to the frame at the top of the Primary.

With a simple Command/G these all become Secondaries, but really they are now tracks that you can D/Overwrite any content into and keep locked.

Then I added the voice clips that needed to be synched to the Primary, Shift dragged the first to be directly under the Primary and all the "locked tracks slide down one and now I had an open lane to fill in the clips I wanted "magnetized".

So now go about your edit, auditioning and moving clips, leveling audio individually (as I'd always in FCP or DP) etc.

Once you've got your edit and you want to do your audio mix and master, quickly select the "Tara" clips in the Timeline or Index and Option/G and now that CC is a buss for Tara ready for one step EQ, leveling etc. Step and repeat for each individual group you want to buss and as you Option/G , they are automatically bussed with master fader, pan and any effects - the beauty of the inspector and filters being right there, always active.

And everything appears neatly and in hierarchy under the Primary. If you need to tweak, Open in TImeline, tweak, step back in the Timeline and everything is as you left it but with the tweak.

When you're ready to master, grab all the CCs and Secondaries, Option/G and name it Master Out and you've got a master buss with volume pan and all the finishing tools right there. Everything is neatly in a single master audio track but can be opened and closed in real time.

Now go back and delete the one frame gap inserted before the edit, select the Master Out audio and hit "," and everything is lined up from the top.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:40:25 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Before I added the audio to be synched, music tracks etc. I inserted a one frame gap at the head of the Primary. Then I took a random slice of audio and Qed it to connect it to that 1st frame then I did the same at the end of the project."

Jim, if I understand correctly, it sounds like you're using the 1 frame gap at the head of the show as the connection/sync point, then connecting compounds to that?

That makes sense, although wouldn't using secondarys give you a bit more flexibility as far as access without stepping in? I don't know what the implications would be for audio FX.

Not sure what you mean about attaching to the end of the piece since I'd think this would constantly be slipping sync as you edit. But maybe you're already locked at this point?

A picture sure would make it easier get what you're doing, but if you have client restrictions, I totally understand.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:55:00 pm

[David Lawrence] "
Jim, if I understand correctly, it sounds like you're using the 1 frame gap at the head of the show as the connection/sync point, then connecting compounds to that?

That makes sense, although wouldn't using secondarys give you a bit more flexibility as far as access without stepping in? I don't know what the implications would be for audio FX.

Not sure what you mean about attaching to the end of the piece since I'd think this would constantly be slipping sync as you edit. But maybe you're already locked at this point?"


Exactly David, I'm using both CCs and 2ndries.
In places, specifically the actors ADR, that I want magnetized I leave them and CC them when the edit is done and ready for final mix.

They can stay as CCs because I want them *(likewise the SFX tracks) to reference the Primary, but anything fixed , like a music track I'm cutting to starts out in a secondary connected to the "anchor frame" at the top.

I mentioned the "clip at the back" as the way to start building a visual series of tracks below the primary - an empty frame at the top and end of the edit that you select and Option/G.
This creates an empty container and eliminates the wandering clip issue. If you want to edit clips into is vs say a full length bed - you need to make it a storyline.

So, in my scenario, you use both CCs and Secondaries.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:08:46 am

[Jim Giberti] "So, in my scenario, you use both CCs and Secondaries."

Got it. So Secondary Storylines anchored to a gap at the head of the piece used as virtual tracks, and enclosed CCs when ready to mix. This is similar to something I remember seeing in a video here a while ago. The idea was that secondarys with long gaps could be stacked vertically and connected to a gap frame at the program head creating a set of tracks. In the video they used the position tool to move clips to further simulate track-like behavior. It's an interesting work-around, though I'm still partial to regular tracks.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:05:55 pm

The one thing I wanted to mention too David, having the CCs laid out as traditional horizontal tracks removes the "hidden" aspect of media. In vertical stacks of compositing, collapsing segments into CCs is nice and easily opened and closed. Together it's the best of both worlds sort of locked and magnetic, visible and uncluttered depending on the edit and what you're focused on at the time.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 8:41:24 pm

That sounds very cool. I get the gist of what you are doing, but not quite the particulars. Maybe when I get a breath, I need to try to duplicate, but I would love to see some screen shots if you are client-authorized to do so.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 10:16:28 pm

[Chris Harlan] "That sounds very cool. I get the gist of what you are doing, but not quite the particulars. Maybe when I get a breath, I need to try to duplicate, but I would love to see some screen shots if you are client-authorized to do so.
"


Hey Chris, the client has even seen a rough yet so I can't put anything up, but I could rough out a dummy easily enough. Conceptually once I broke away from my existing "faders and busses" paradigm that I knew I would have to (sort of dreaded) it became pretty obvious how they designed this to work.

I already have a list of, please do this fast" things. The biggest so far is a silly bug/oversight that when you are working in real time with, say, a parametric EQ and adjust Q and frequency for instance. In any system I use I select the range I need to hear as I sculpt it and hit (in X) the "/" bar and Command/L to loop the selection until I get it.

In X, as soon as you make an adjustment to the FX it goes out of Loop mode and you have to keep bringing it back. I'll work around it with a marker for now, but that's one they've got to patch quickly so that this is as fast as what it should be.

Anyway, ask away.
I'm getting more comfortable with the concept by the hour.


Return to posts index

jon smitherton
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 8:47:37 pm

In Protools this is my config:

EQ + Compression on each track
then tracks are bussed to stems (VO, Dialogue, Music, Effects)
then compression are applied to the stems
then over the Master Bus - Compression and a Limiter to keep in broadcast specs.
Then I start keyframing levels either on the clip or bus.

As you can see there are varying degrees of Compression - usually light on each one - 2 to 1 to 4 to 1 compression ratios to keep the mix under control.

With your technique the problem for me is that because of my degrees of compression - is going backward into stems or tracks. For Instance, I need to hear the master bus output when I adjust the one of stems. With compounding it doesn't allow this.

However (!) if there was a roles mixer where I could put EQ + Compression on each role or stem and the same over the master bus it would be problem solved!

Jon



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 8:52:44 pm

[jon smitherton] "However (!) if there was a roles mixer where I could put EQ + Compression on each role or stem and the same over the master bus it would be problem solved!"

+1,000

Roles could most definitely serve as a virtual audio bus, without tracks.


Return to posts index

jon smitherton
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:47:22 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Roles could most definitely serve as a virtual audio bus, without tracks."

Of course with say 4 inserts on each bus.

Do the Waves plugs show up in FCPX ok? I really need the L2 or L3 ultramaximizer limiter to keep in broadcast specs...and DINR for noise reduction and pitch'n'time for quality time stretching...

Then it'd be BYE BYE PROTOOLS!

PLEASE NOTE APPLE!

Jon :)



Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 9:58:18 pm

[jon smitherton] "EQ + Compression on each track
then tracks are bussed to stems (VO, Dialogue, Music, Effects)
then compression are applied to the stems
then over the Master Bus - Compression and a Limiter to keep in broadcast specs.
Then I start keyframing levels either on the clip or bus.

As you can see there are varying degrees of Compression - usually light on each one - 2 to 1 to 4 to 1 compression ratios to keep the mix under control.

With your technique the problem for me is that because of my degrees of compression - is going backward into stems or tracks. For Instance, I need to hear the master bus output when I adjust the one of stems. With compounding it doesn't allow this."


Jon, I'm doing exactly what you describe in PT right in the X timeline.
Even easier than you can do it in PT or DP or Logic while mixing to picture.
Use "Break Apart Clip Items" not "Open in Timeline" and see how nice it works.


Return to posts index

jon smitherton
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 10:08:51 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Use "Break Apart Clip Items" not "Open in Timeline" and see how nice it works."

So if you made a compound clip of say the dialogue stem, added a compressor...then 'broke apart' the compound clip then added another compressor to a single clip...you would hear both compressors when broken apart?

If so, this is great. Maybe a tutorial is in order!

Cheers,
Jon



Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 26, 2011 at 10:55:23 pm

[jon smitherton] "So if you made a compound clip of say the dialogue stem, added a compressor...then 'broke apart' the compound clip then added another compressor to a single clip...you would hear both compressors when broken apart?"

No Jon, if you break it apart or Open it it will lose the "master buss" relationship.

The difference being, if you break it apart it will be gone for good because you need to recreate the CC.
If you Open in Timeline then you won't hear it in context as you add the other compressor but it will be there when you step back in time.

I'm still working this out, but I don't see that as a problem yet in my workflow style.
In my "track" scenario only similar audio clips are in any track. I've already "normalized" any audio differences between clips that make up that audio take. I would never add an effect to one that I wouldn't wan't across the range and that's where they CC/buss thing works so well.

Any other tracks, say a single SFX would exist in a Secondary and have only the EQ, level and FX that I want for that moment in time. The next SFX down the line stays in the SFX Secondary but gets treated similarly. This group isn't a CC in a Secondary but a series of clips edited (D) into it but horizontally grouped as a track.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 1:48:35 am

Hi Jim

You write:

"you don't need to open a mixer - just select the Secondary labeled "Music Bed" and right there in the Inspector there's a master volume and pan control for that buss."

So are you saying that in the master volume for your SECONDARY Story Line -- you can control this volume in real time while the track is playing and it records keyframes on the fly so you can "duck" music under narration etc and then bring it back just like the mixer in FCP 7?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 2:44:58 am

[Andy Field] "So are you saying that in the master volume for your SECONDARY Story Line -- you can control this volume in real time while the track is playing and it records keyframes on the fly so you can "duck" music under narration etc and then bring it back just like the mixer in FCP 7?"

No Andy, can't record the moves that I'm aware of (and the fader's way to inaccurate for any reasonable move anyway.)

But, FWIW, before automated consoles we use to have a couple of engineers rehearsing complex moves like that when going to master.

Then we got automated consoles that would record those moves and play them back with motorized faders.

As soon as we got DAWs and virtual mixers where I could run my faders from an SSL Nucleus or Mackie type controller I immediately began to do less and less because it's much less accurate for critical work than just drawing a curve in a sequence window.

I would never use a fader to duck music under a VO especially now in X because I can see the waveform and hear the track instantly mark my fade points, use the R tool to select the range and in one step create a four point keyframe fade up and down. Option click for a minute and you've got it perfect.

If I'm ducking something for film or broadcast I could rough it out with a fader move but there's no way I'm not going to refine it with a curve. With this technique you go right to the fade and smoothing with a simple drag and pull.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 3:11:22 am

Thanks - get what you are doing -- but I do a lot of broadcast news and doc work and I am pretty sure most editors would love the mixing console back - it's too much stop and start work to get a rough or even finished mix for broadcast doing it the way you've described. I haven't rubberbanded or played with individual tracks but to smooth out an edit pop - or do CMD OPTION L to globally set a level on a clip in quite some time. We use the mixer all the time to automate mixes as we go along in an edit. Have an outboard control surface that makes it a breeze.

Final Cut X needs some of the tools (IE Mixer -- copy and paste selected effects - not all or nothing) that it's older sibling had to make it a tool we can use every day.

Thanks for sharing your techniques.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 4:25:40 am

[Andy Field] "Thanks for sharing your techniques.
"


You bet Andy,

It's hardly a one size fits all editor. We're a creative shop that handles the concept, production and post and distributes to networks and clients without their presence ( I just realized how strange that sounds after I typed it). We were talking about it the other day here - Our studios are on a mountain top in VT and I haven't had client sit in on a project...well, ever really.


Return to posts index

gary Tompkins
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 6:21:25 pm

thanks Jim for posting this. As someone with FCS looking at the field of replacements with a background in audio myself, the way FCPX deals with audio is a concern for me. I'm still looking at how FCPX might be useful so I appreciate your insight.

--gary


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 27, 2011 at 7:21:52 pm

[gary Tompkins] "thanks Jim for posting this. As someone with FCS looking at the field of replacements with a background in audio myself, the way FCPX deals with audio is a concern for me. I'm still looking at how FCPX might be useful so I appreciate your insight."

Hey, anything for a guy in a paper hat.

The thing I want to make sure doesn't get lost in my post - I don't know of any NLE that's handled audio post well enough to replace a DAW. Regarding Andy's point above - I've never even opened the mixer in FCP, but I don't do any real time work, it's all narrative, doc and spot work where we've got the time to do a real audio mix.

Given how good I found the Logic integration in X, I was determined to see if I could use the new paradigm to replace round tripping, and I was delighted to find that Compound Clips are not just very different from tracks and sequences but are a brilliant way to manage audio and easily mix sources with quality EQ, verbs and dynamic control.

The fact that all audio can be quickly organized and manipulated sonically at the clip level, group level and master out was a real eye opener for me.

I think the people who can step away from the mixer metaphor will get a real advantage if they want to post directly in fcp X.
Given what I've learned so far, if they put a mixer into the next version, I can't see why I'd use it.

Put it this way.
If I could open a complex mix in Digital Performer right now and just grab random tracks with my mouse and instantly group them with a single click and apply whatever processing I wanted.
If in the process I now had easily identifiable subs of all relevant material that I could see at a glance, open and close instantly and master just as easily - I don't think I'd spend much time at my 48 track mixer.

I'm just getting going with this, but I think audio people should shake off their existing conceptual prejudice and spend some time working with some audio in X, they might come away with the same sense.

I can think of a bunch of shortfalls already that would be easily improved, but the compromise so far seems inconsequential given the fact that I can do a mix faster than in DP or Logic and with the same sonic quality.

I think they're onto something good enough that it should get incorporated into DAWs.


Return to posts index

Fredy Schwerdtner
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 28, 2011 at 9:46:19 pm

Maybe a nice video tutorial about sound mixing in FCPX ?

iMac 2.7 GHz Intel 4 Core i5
16 GB memory

MacBook Pro 17"
2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
6GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

OWC RAID 5 with 3TB
(2) External HD LaCieMac (400/800 FW and USB)with 500GB -(2) USB External HD Western Digital (in cases) with 750GB
OS X 10.6.5
Final Cut Studio "3"


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 28, 2011 at 11:35:31 pm

[Fredy Schwerdtner] "Maybe a nice video tutorial about sound mixing in FCPX ?"

If it was worthwhile to people I could do something on my approach, after I get these projects out. Plus it will give me some more time to work with it.

For starters, if you haven't already - make sure you get a copy of Apple's Logic Effects Reference pdf. It's a great overview, and for people that have never used Convolution reverb before, understanding that is worth it in itself - the Logic Space Designer is a world class reverb.

The Channel EQ is great too as is it's counterpart for mastering, the Linear Phase EQ. Having the Analyze and FFT features right there on a Master Out CC is really nice.

The bottom line is that Compound Clips are the way to make use of the Logic element of FCP X.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 29, 2011 at 12:00:57 am

Hey guys.

Just FYI, AutoDuck's now free. That means OM/AAF Export from FCPX. Free.

http://www.automaticduck.com/products/download/index.html

Pro Import AE as well.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Fredy Schwerdtner
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Oct 29, 2011 at 12:14:20 am

Jim Giberti "If it was worthwhile to people I could do something on my approach, after I get these projects out. Plus it will give me some more time to work with it."

that would be nice !!!

iMac 2.7 GHz Intel 4 Core i5
16 GB memory

MacBook Pro 17"
2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
6GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

OWC RAID 5 with 3TB
(2) External HD LaCieMac (400/800 FW and USB)with 500GB -(2) USB External HD Western Digital (in cases) with 750GB
OS X 10.6.5
Final Cut Studio "3"


Return to posts index

peter dunphy
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Nov 17, 2011 at 11:09:55 pm

Has this latest update improved the audio editing?

Peter Dunphy

2 x 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 8 GB 1066 MHz DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4870, ATTO ExpressSAS R380, Sonnet D800 Raid 5


Return to posts index

peter dunphy
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Jan 17, 2012 at 11:17:24 pm

Hope the next 'big update' improves the ease of audio mixing.

Peter Dunphy

2 x 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 8 GB 1066 MHz DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4870, ATTO ExpressSAS R380, Sonnet D800 Raid 5


Return to posts index

peter dunphy
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Jan 19, 2012 at 2:31:05 pm

Hi Jim

Couldn't find a way to PM you. How are you finding Audio Mixing in FCPX now? Has been a few months since your original post. Interested to know if you're still using it. The bugginess in STP is just too much for me!

Warm regards


Peter

Peter Dunphy

2 x 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 8 GB 1066 MHz DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4870, ATTO ExpressSAS R380, Sonnet D800 Raid 5


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Jan 19, 2012 at 7:52:17 pm

Hey Peter,

First, despite the things about this first generation program that I really hope are addressed in the next update - I really love that I can mix and edit together in real time (as opposed to mixing to a QT with exported audio.)

I'm digging the Logic plug-ins and the ability to cut audio live in the timelineOther nice things are quick fades and levels adjustments with the main bar, handles, the Range tool, option click and directly in the Inspector - pretty wide and fast options.

I also really like the ability to quickly group audio sources into CCs and effecting them universally. There seems to have been some confusion in the original discussion about individual clips maintaining their FX when they were CCed then double clicked to access the individual clips again. The fact that they do retain their FX is what makes mixing in X so smooth so far.

Here's a quick example of a TV spot and a web film that I'm Mixing/Editing right now. It's pretty simple audio - 3 characters and a music bed and an added VO on the film.

First I just tweaked all the individual audio clips for each character to set a manual level, most of it with the main bar and some with a little more option clicking for trouble spots. Once each character's level was set I grouped the clips and Option/G each character and then applied a Logic channel EQ to each CC.

The fourth voice on the film version was done in the studio and already compressed and leveled so I just added a channel EQ.

Now I'll group all the voice tracks with another Option/G and apply a Logic Multipressor to the master voice mix.

Last I add that CC together with the music track (that I didn't want the Multipressor on) and put a final limiter on that Master Bus/CC.

It's really fast, and it's not like a music mix where I'm always going back and tweaking 20 or 30 tracks individually as the mix progresses. With the average project I get my audio tracks together pretty quickly and if I do have to adjust individual CCs or clips within a CC it's very fast and because you can do it right in the timeline, very easy.

Hope that helps some.
Ask any particular question and I'll be glad to answer it if I can.

Jim


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Jan 19, 2012 at 8:00:03 pm

[Jim Giberti] "It's really fast, and it's not like a music mix where I'm always going back and tweaking 20 or 30 tracks individually as the mix progresses. With the average project I get my audio tracks together pretty quickly and if I do have to adjust individual CCs or clips within a CC it's very fast and because you can do it right in the timeline, very easy.
"


Even the fact that the waveforms move in real time is a big help, In drama scenes I can do a rough first pass for levels without even playing the edit!

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Jan 19, 2012 at 8:28:47 pm

I agree Steve, that's one of many little things that make this more advanced and facile than it's predecessor and that get overlooked in the bigger discussion.

I'm unashamedly pleased with the simplified, comprehensive approach to organization, editing, audio and finishing in one program. FCPX may or may not be a future solution for dedicated editing facilities, but I like it more everyday for our studio.

Looking forward to seeing how they refine it in the new upgrade.

Jim


Return to posts index

peter dunphy
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:50:53 am

Hi Jim, and Steve,

Thanks so much for your feedback about the audio capabilities of FCPX. If the trial's still available I will give it a go.

The sooner the new update comes around the better. I have high hopes that Apple will get their act together and try to make amends in FCPX.

Warm regards

Peter

Peter Dunphy

2 x 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 8 GB 1066 MHz DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4870, ATTO ExpressSAS R380, Sonnet D800 Raid 5


Return to posts index

peter dunphy
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Feb 1, 2012 at 6:55:38 pm

Do you think the new update has improved the audio capabilities in any way?

Peter Dunphy

2 x 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 8 GB 1066 MHz DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4870, ATTO ExpressSAS R380, Sonnet D800 Raid 5


Return to posts index

Carlos Huanes
Re: Audio Mixing is Actually Brilliant
on Jun 21, 2013 at 7:03:26 pm

This is a fascinating discussion. I was just getting my feet wet w Protools before switching from 7 to X. Could anyone point me to a good audio tutorial on what is being discussed here? I'm totally sold on metadata and convinced that Avid and Premiere will eventually look more like fcpx. However, with larger more complex projects I worry that I'm gonna run into organizational problems with audio (or even exporting audio to Protools) that visually are just easier to deal with with rigid tracks and a standard mixer. It sounds like that's not the case. If there's a better way I would love to learn it. When I look it up I see only very elementary lessons on the audio portion of FCPX. Insightful post. Thanks!


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]