FORUMS: list search recent posts

audio in FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Franz Jaeger
audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 5:26:05 am

I just started editing picture, mostly doing sound before. I feel sorry for anyone wanting to do serious audio work in FCPX.. the magnetic timeline is truly a drag here.. clips flying around on different tracks, out of control.. the plugins are good quality, and the same as the ones in Logic.. so I would hope that the future would bring extended capabilities in regards to exchanging files between these apps.. would be great to be able to turn off the magnetic timeline in FCPX for a start..


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 6:08:57 am

You would probably find Vegas to be one of the most audio friendly NLEs. Personally switching between Fairlight for audio and Final Cut for picture online, I find FCP7 terrible for audio.

There have been many lively discussions here about the magnetic timeline compared to DAWs track based clip stacking.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 1:05:05 pm

Audio editing/mixing is one of worst aspects of FCP X. Fine for simple stuff. Impossible for complex tracks, especially when using sources that have multiple channels of separate audio. The lack of sync indicators is a real deal breaker for many projects. Another gotcha is that there's no respect in the software for the boundaries of audio versus video. You can move an audio clip on top of a video clip, which results in overwriting the video clip. When clips are broken apart instead of interleaved, the magnetic timeline makes it almost impossible NOT to throw clips out of sync.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 6:23:39 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Audio editing/mixing is one of worst aspects of FCP X. Fine for simple stuff. Impossible for complex tracks, especially when using sources that have multiple channels of separate audio."

I understand the argument here, but want to make it perfectly clear that this opinion only has weight for those who are coming to X from a very particular mindset - that of the professional video editor working in a high-volume, complex workflow professional practice who is accustomed to having access to specific tools that address common problems faced at the highest level of "sound for picture" practice.

If that does NOT describe you - please don't read this as "absolutely fact."

For most editors doing the most common editing tasks - FCP-X has robust - and in many cases "state of the art" sound editing tools built in.

Brining in work in ENG, EFP, Event, Basic Documentary, Corporate, and many other "general" styles - will likely result in your being perfectly able to do the work you need to do right in the program. You'll be able to delivery outstanding sonic output quality that is totally consistent with your source quality. It might even be superior, since X effectively addresses a nice range of "common" problems involving basic audio like ground loop hum, track assignment, and "shortcut" equalizing of speaking voices to bring them into more prominence in a typical mix.

FCP-X is NOT a perfect audio for video tool. It's also not a "perfect" video editing tool.

It's a new approach to editing that has "re-written" many of the traditional assumptions on how it might be effective to create video and other motion-based content for a new generation of editors.

In doing so, it's focused first on the most common tasks faced by the largest group of editors - and yes, it hasn't yet implemented many of the "top end pro" features that Legacy had developed over it's 10+ year history in the market.

But I believe that in saying "Audio Mixing is one of the worst aspects of FCP-X" Oliver is being accurate from his particular perspective, but misleading many who's needs are more general.

Do not come away from this thinking "FCP-X can't do quality audio." Because it most certainly can.

In fact, a lot of us who's needs are more general are finding that it's BETTER at basic audio than Legacy.

I offer in evidence X's ability to let you "pre edit" some or all of a long audio recording session down to e "select" takes - "bake" those into sound bytes (all in the Event Browser") and then, by dragging them as a group to a Storyline - auto assemble a nearly finished audio soundtrack in a drag and drop action.

Impossible in Legacy - trivial in X.

Since I do a lot of VO work and have to do precisely this so often, it's been a HUGE timesaver for me - and I wouldn't trade it for all the "high end" movie sound department friendly features on the planet!

Point is that sweeping statements about what X is "bad at" should always be taken with a grain of salt.

It may in fact be bad at what's being discussed. But often, what's being discussed is "common" only to a very narrow range of practice with very specific needs.

For what it's 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

Steve Connor
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 7:09:52 pm

[Bill Davis] "But I believe that in saying "Audio Mixing is one of the worst aspects of FCP-X" Oliver is being accurate from his particular perspective, but misleading many who's needs are more general.

Do not come away from this thinking "FCP-X can't do quality audio." Because it most certainly can.

In fact, a lot of us who's needs are more general are finding that it's BETTER at basic audio than Legacy.
"


I would agree, FCPX is fine for a little more than just simple stuff.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Lemur Hayop
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 7:19:25 pm

'Just waiting for X2Pro to be "available end of February" (aren't we here already?). Then can export AAF to Logic, Pro Tools, etc. (A.Duck is dead!) FCS/FCPX that I use are not good for audio. The only NLE I found decent at audio was Vegas. Why? It's the only NLE AFAIK that was a multitrack audio sequencer first, then added video later to become an NLE. I'm not PC-based, so I don't use Vegas.

http://www.k9sound.com


Return to posts index


Phil Hoppes
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 7:22:19 pm

It would be nice to be able to mute audio without having to resort to hardware muting. Muting by clip is a major PITA especially if the audio is ganged to the video.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:18:19 pm

Really?

You find it difficult to one-click grab the audio level line and drag it down to "-96db"?

I just do it reflexively all the time, never even have to think about it.

Unless you're making videos for bats, result's essentially the same.

FWIW.

"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

Paul Figgiani
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:44:22 pm

For Audio Muting you can also select a clip and use the Volume Slider in the Audio Inspector/Volume and Pan setting group.. This comes in handy if your Clip Appearance setting does not display the Audio Level line.

-paul.


Return to posts index


Michael Aranyshev
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:54:08 pm

[Bill Davis] "You find it difficult to one-click grab the audio level line and drag it down to "-96db"?"

I do find any click-hold-drag difficult. I find Ctrl-B easy.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:54:37 pm

Subframe audio editing is a MAJOR step forward in FCPX at least compared to FCP7.

Being able to range select and adjust the levels in a portion of a clip without having to do the keyframes first.

While not quite the same as submix/aux, one can compound clip to apply to a group of clips.

Roles aren't tracks but it certainly makes it easy to find groups of clips with a common function such as music, fx, dialog.



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 21, 2012 at 11:21:05 pm

I'd like to know what the equivalent is to cmd+option+L in FCP 7. Adjusting levels clip by clip is ludicrous. Muting by changing a level is pretty bizarre too. How do you remember the previous level?

I like just about everything in X except editing at this point. They need to lose this magnetic timeline thing, or at least make it a mode, like the beginner modes in DVDSP.


Return to posts index


Trevor Asquerthian
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:00:57 am

[Bret Williams] "I like just about everything in X except editing at this point."

Wow!



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:31:39 am

Ok, it's missing features obviously. I mean, i think its the first NLE of all time without a drop shadow effect. But I like the key wording/favorites, background stuff, handling h264, and where that is all headed. But it's just a horrible editor for me.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 1:05:47 am

As to your quote: "I mean, i think its the first NLE of all time without a drop shadow effect."

I've got to say Huh?

You realize that the titler in X is a subset of the code in Motion, right? If you consider FCP-X to be the sum of the interoperating parts (exactly as we were expected to view the Legacy "suite at barely 1/3 the price, the X "suite" has more (and superior) shadowing available (drop, cast, transparent, 2D, interpolated 3D, etc. etc.) than any program I've used prior.

I honestly think you're just stuck in a mental space where you desperately want X to be "just like" Legacy, so you don't have to re-learn and change too much.

And sorry, Bret, but that's not going to happen.

It's a new program. And for everything you're stuck seeing as "missing' there is so much you're simply not noticing because you haven't spent the time to uncover how the new process works.

Honestly, until someone stops concentrating on what FCP-X is not. - and starts focusing on what it IS. I don't think they'll ever really fully "get it."

FWIW.

"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


Bret Williams
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 3:53:11 am

Excuse me Bill. Did I mention a titler? I'm just looking for the drop shadow. I have a bug, an alpha channeled graphic, a cropped image, anything BUT a title that needs a drop shadow.

And I do know that there are free drop shadow filters out there you can add. But really?

As I said, I like a lot of the concepts, where it's headed. Except for the screwed up timeline. Great, magnetic. Where do I turn it off? Great no tracks. Where do I turn them on?

Nuthin you haven't heard before. Give me a viewer too. They might stick with the magnetic thing, but they're gonna have to give on the audio tracks at least. It's true you don't really need video tracks. Oh, wait, except when I do all the lower 3rds on say track 5 so I can turn them off, etc. But I could live with that issue.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:12:09 am

If the audio is detached "V" disables it.
Otherwise in the Inspector Audio tab clicking on the Check Box next to the channel disables it. One box for stereo or if dual mono (etc) disable the channel of your choice.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:52:57 am

[Bret Williams] "I like just about everything in X except editing at this point. They need to lose this magnetic timeline thing, or at least make it a mode, like the beginner modes in DVDSP.
"


Take away my magnetic timeline over my dead body.

It's literally one of my FAVORITE things about X.

One of the things I do a lot is voiceovers (I've done more than 300 paid ones) pre-editing my recorded tracks in the event browser and using the magnetic timeline to assemble rough cuts - especially in chapterized and multipart programs - rocks.

Yes, I'd learned to to do similar and work fast in my 10 years editing in Legacy, but it's far easier IMO to rough cut in the Event Browser, and magnetically drop those constructs in X - instead of having only a single space (the timeline) where every element defaults to arriving disconnected and therefore has to be purpose-positioned every time.

In X, timing of each part of my VO is trivial, precisely because I have access to trimming in BOTH directions via the trackless and magnetic timeline and nothing I do in one edit, messes up anything else, up- or downstream of where I'm working.

Plus, the way X is designed, every second you spend in the event browser editing, compounding, and pre-editing gets leveraged across wall uses from that point on.

I find that to be a very superior design construct.

And it's in this context that, magnetism makes HUGE sense. Once you do your "pre work" in the Event Browser - and then import those prepared "modules" to the timeline they can be handled as semi-finished units which "attach" to each other in a semi-persistent fashion.

I think the people who have the most problem with magnetism in X, are folks who haven't come to understand the deeper changes in the workflows that X allows.

Until you understand this - and certainly if you try to operate X as you operated in Legacy - expecting to do EVERYTHING in the timeline, the hidden power of magnetism will likely remain a distractive hassle rather than one element of a new system that encourages pre-editing in the Event Browser - rather than seeing "editing" as something exclusively done in the Timeline.


FWIW.

"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

Jim Giberti
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 3:22:44 am

I work regularly in one of the more sophisticated DAWs, Digital Performer, loaded with a lot of great Plugins and VIs and primarily use Focusrite gear on the front end.

I also do a lot of our audio in FCP X.

I won't waste anyone's time with obvious benefits of a full blown recording and mixing environment like DP. The point I would make is that I edit and mix some audio in FCP X because it's simply faster to do with a lot of projects.

Faster than Digital Performer, for instance, for quickly editing dialogue and VO work, ducking music to voice in realtime, and even grouping audio for "track wide" EQ and compression.

Now for a complex mix, like when I need to to see all my tracks and faders and levels in front of me across 48 channels, there's no comparison to the control and vision of a big league DAW.

But you need to understand how to mix audio in X to appreciate how facile it can be for less demanding audio post.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 5:56:54 pm

[Jim Giberti] "for instance, for quickly editing dialogue and VO work, ducking music to voice in realtime, and even grouping audio for "track wide" EQ and compression"

This has been my experience too. I'm not understanding what the original poster meant by "serious audio work."

I've always worked like the following, in this order (since 2003, in Avid, M100, Vegas, Premiere Pro, and FCP&X)

-- Edit an assemble
-- Rough cut
-- Picture lock

-- Audio (Music, Dialogue, ADR, FX, Foley) It's here where Legacy was a bit of a pain and where STP could have been cool if it worked for longer pieces, so I exported audio channels with a 2-pop and a rough video for ProTools work.

-- Visual Effects

-- Mastering

Here's my actual question: In what order are other folks working? Am I too old school? Is there a more efficient way?


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 7:19:35 pm

[Richard Herd] "Here's my actual question: In what order are other folks working? Am I too old school? Is there a more efficient way?"

You are really lucky to still be able to leave the audio to the end of the process once you've got "picture lock". Clients now almost universally expect the audio to be "perfect" from the very first cut, and I believe a lot of editors are now finding this to be the case.

There's no "rough cut" anymore and that applies almost as much to the pictures.

This means that it's increasingly important to have a workflow that allows for "polished" temp mixes that can be done relatively quickly. STP used to be pretty good for this (a lot quicker in most cases than going to ProTools) but it had its limitations, especially for longer form.

FCPX with its Logic/STP audio tools and the ability to compound clips to make "virtual" tracks does seem to be quite a good way forward in some ways.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 2:58:10 am

[Bill Davis] " this opinion only has weight for those who are coming to X from a very particular mindset - that of the professional video editor working in a high-volume, complex workflow professional practice who is accustomed to having access to specific tools that address common problems faced at the highest level of "sound for picture" practice."

Splitting your audio over multiple sources is hardly the provenance of high end video. I've done it for years back when I was making corporate videos. You may not use that technique, but it's very common, no matter the budget, and any NLE that can't handle it is seriously lacking.

PPro version 1 was very clumsy dealing with this back in 2005 which is why I chose FCP over it 7 years ago. I was shocked that PPro couldn't deal with this properly then, I'm more shocked that 7 years later it's a problem for FCPX. This is very basic stuff, even if it means nothing to you.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 3:52:14 am

[Herb Sevush] "Splitting your audio over multiple sources is hardly the provenance of high end video. I've done it for years back when I was making corporate videos. You may not use that technique, but it's very common, no matter the budget, and any NLE that can't handle it is seriously lacking. "

Absolutely agree and that was my point. It's really a very simple issue that I and most other editors routinely deal with on the lowliest of productions. You shoot an interview and feed two mics to two different channels of the same camera. Or in the 5D/7D era, two channels of a Zoom or Sound Devices recorder. Dual-mono, split-channel audio. These are sync and married to the picture in FCP X. I want to independently edit and mix each track. I do not want to detach the audio, because FCP X too easily lets these get pushed out of sync. I don't want to pre-edit these in the source by "open in timeline". I don't want to create a compound clip for these, as I need to do the mix in context, within the timeline. Please explain how I do that in FCP X.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 6:34:09 am

I do not understand this argument. The only missing in X are the 'out of sync' indicators.
Audio clips in 7 are kept in sync by their first frame in relation to the video they belong too (if they are linked to video). Kind of exactly like in X.
The whole idea of the ,'magnetic' timeline I think is the premise to avoid the problem of throwing things out of sync because in 7 all tracks need to be adjusted together to avoid sync issues. That's by the way the reason why asymmetric trimming was invented in the first place. Take the tracks away and link individual audio clips to single video clips makes it impossible to throw anything out of sync. Yes sync indicators would be nice but strictly speaking they are not necessary.
So nothing is taken away, it just works differently and common editing task need a different approach.
If you like the different approach is up to the individual, but it is very often just not true that X has made certain task impossible or really complicated.
For the record I disagree with Bill that the strength of the magnetic timeline lies in the pre-assembly of building blocks. I see the strength in the timeline that I can edit e.g. interviews where they are in the timeline rather than throwing them to the back of a timeline so I can avoid making gabs or jump through hoops not to throw anything else out of sync. Add to this the ability of subframe audio editing and modern high end audio plugin support makes X much better for audio editing for me. Mixing is another issue, but I leave that to the pros in that field.
my 2 cents
Carsten


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 7:00:28 am

[Carsten Orlt] "Yes sync indicators would be nice but strictly speaking they are not necessary."

There's a flaw.

Let's say you have a clip in the primary, above that you have a connected clip with 6 channels of audio. You need to adjust the mix of the six channels of the connected clip's audio.

The only way to do this is to break apart as fcpx does not allow access to all channels in the context of the timeline unless you break apart.

Now, your video and your audio from that clip are connected, separately, to the primary timeline with their own connection points.

Now slip/roll/move the video only of the connected clip. The corresponding audio is now out of sync, with no indicator and no easy way to get in back in to sync without manually putting the clip back in sync, and then compounding the result.


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 8:44:35 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Now slip/roll/move the video only of the connected clip. The corresponding audio is now out of sync, with no indicator and no easy way to get in back in to sync without manually putting the clip back in sync, and then compounding the result."

2 solutions I see:

A. Compound the connected clip even if it is just a single connected clip. Break apart audio in the new compound, adjust levels, jump out of compound, which now still stays connected to the primary and behaves as a single connected clip. I know that that doesn't give you level adjustment in context, but you can now adjust, than check in context. But honestly how likely is it that you want to do adjust in context? Most likely the audio has main tracks and additional which you want to fade out/down if they disturb the main audio. But ok I accept that this might hinder you.

B. After breaking apart in main project, adjusting the levels, compound the result again before you adjust the video (slip/slide etc) Again there is a a step that wasn't there before in 7, but I do to see this as a deal breaker, just a workflow adjustment.

Might be for you though?

Cheers
Carsten


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 5:16:18 pm

[Carsten Orlt] "2 solutions I see:"

Yes. There are "workarounds" not really solutions. Another is to open the clip "in timeline", but then again, you lose the greater timeline context.

For example, I am cutting spots in FCP7 right now that have 6 channels of audio.

1 mono mix
1 Boom
4 separate Lavs for four separate actors.

I usually don't use the mono, so I am really working with 5 channels at once. I need all of those in context for the edit, and in FCPX, I'd need some of those as primary and some as secondary.

I also need the relationship of all of the audio channels to each other so that I can properly mix the levels, or turn off what I don't need, keep on what I do need, or some combination therein.

With X, this process is rather convoluted. I have to be very careful when breaking apart a secondary to NOT MOVE ANYTHING while I adjust the audio levels and then recommend the clip.

Let's face it, sometimes things happen, a clip gets moved, and I didn't see that I made a mistake. FCPX gives me zero feedback that this mistake happened. In FCP7, I get immediate feedback with sync markers, and then I have simple right clickable tools to fix the sync if I want to.

FCPX needs this functionality. I am not perfect.

A "good" solution would be to allow me to keep the six channels of audio broken apart, but attached to their parent video/secondary clip, so if I moved the parent video, the broken apart audio stays attached. Or, if I could simply expand the audio (like you can now in FCPX with control-s) but it showed me ALL of the separate audio channels instead of a mix down of all of them, I'd be happy as well.

Giveth the options, don't taketh away. Or whatever.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 5:23:35 pm

Do you sync them first, like mutticam? re:

[Jeremy Garchow] "For example, I am cutting spots in FCP7 right now that have 6 channels of audio.

1 mono mix
1 Boom
4 separate Lavs for four separate actors."


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 6:09:34 pm

[Richard Herd] "Do you sync them first, like mutticam? re: "

If doing this in X, there was no audio guide track sent to the camera, so it's a manual sync. Match Scene/take on slate to scene/take of 788T Audio recordings.

The audio guy completely boned us on this shoot.

He did not send audio to the camera as the "camera department didn't bring the right cable".

Audio is responsible for sending tc sync, and supposedly the "camera department had the tc set to internal for half the day".

It's like saying a grip can't power this light as electric forgot the extension cord.

Sorry to say this, but this audio guy completely mailed in this project, and it's a shame.

So, for this particular shoot (the last of a three spot series, the other two shot in a different location with different crew, which went swimmingly), we have no audio guide track at all, and for half the day the camera and audio tc don't match. For half of this shoot, I could not set this up easily using FCPX mutlicam, or Plural eyes or anything as there's no audio guide track to sync to. Once there was tc sync, I could use multicam and sync using tc.

In 7, I simply setup a timeline, laid out all the video clips, laid out all the audio clips and matched the slate audio and video with the appropriate scene/take. About half way through the shoot, I could start matching by timecode. Once all the clips were in sync, I dragged them back to a bin and used those as the master clips.

In X, I probably would have set all of this up in the Event with compound clips as editing multichannel audio with multiclips is even worse than regular Project editing.

I would have then broken apart the audio as needed, then re-compunded before touching anything. Not ideal, and it causes a lot of unnecessary bouncing around.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: audio in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 8:49:42 pm

[Carsten Orlt] "For the record I disagree with Bill that the strength of the magnetic timeline lies in the pre-assembly of building blocks. I see the strength in the timeline that I can edit e.g. interviews where they are in the timeline rather than throwing them to the back of a timeline so I can avoid making gabs or jump through hoops not to throw anything else out of sync. Add to this the ability of subframe audio editing and modern high end audio plugin support makes X much better for audio editing for me. Mixing is another issue, but I leave that to the pros in that field.
my 2 cents
Carsten"


Excellent. First off, thank you for disagreeing with me. I say this because having ideas tested through disagreement lets only the best survive and half the time I'm arguing here, it's because I get a whiff of an alternate way of approaching something, but don't have time to investigate it fully.

I would agree that if you ONLY see a single-directonal flow - even the one I've written about - call it the metadata inheritance trail, if you like - then the "workspace" model I'm promoting is limited.

But new folks coming to X after traditional NLE experience have to understand that if they EXCLUSIVELY work in the timeline, they aren't getting the entire value of the software.

You can make a compound clip in the timeline, marrying a piece of video and a title (as a simple example) - but that makes it available ONLY in that timeline. However, in X, you can also opt to mary the same piece of video with a title in the Event Browse - and the compound is available for ALL timelines you want to use it in. Same with all sorts of other clip manipulations.

It's exactly this kind of subtle difference that hides much of the power of X from someone who just opens it up with a head full of legacy expectations and judges it against their existing experience.

Some stuff works better - but you have to understand how to work it.

Again, thanks for the push back - it's of great value to me.

"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 in FCPX
on Feb 22, 2012 at 4:23:18 am

[Michael Gissing] ", I find FCP7 terrible for audio."

Here, here. Audio in fcp7 is tough. Workable and somewhat controllable, but tough.

Fcpx's multichannel audio mixing is pretty bad to non existent, as you can't attach audio to anything but the primary, so if you need something else, you need to make gregarious arrangements to do so. You can lose sync really easily in a timeline where "sync is king".

Fcpx also has some really powerful and welcome audio features. If you only have two audio source channels on a piece of video, and all you need to do is choose one, fcpx is pretty cool.

When you have something like 6+ channels of audio that you constantly need to juggle, fcpx is pretty goofy. A few interface updates are needed, expanding audio in to multiple channels would be a good start, and an easy to use loop function for fx. I haven't checked 10.0.3, but the loop function didn't work very easily.

I feel like some capabilities in X are playing a big game of hide and go seek.


Return to posts index

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