Still no surround in LE?

[sidereal-studios]

The way this thread has gone makes me think of a question I've always wondered about but never had the opportunity to ask. Could it be that the audio post industry is overvalued? I'm not asking because I actually believe this myself, but rather that perhaps most filmmakers and audiences don't care. When compared to things like cinematography, story, performances, directing, does the 10% extra that you get with quality sound made that much difference to the majority of films made?

The reason this came to mind again is the McDonalds analogy. The reason people go there is because it's cheap, quick, available, predictable, and convenient. What element of filmmaking is most prone to satisfying these conditions? In many people's minds, it's the sound.

So I wonder if a "correction" is coming, if not here already. If smaller, cheaper places can do 90% of what they need - namely, clean, clear dialogue and proper level balance among mix elements - what does it mean to the business?

Sorry to be depressing. I'm just trying to be Socratic.

[froyo]

By Noiz2

I think we just plain disagree and that's fine

Hello. I do agree that it's OK to disagree. However I don't agree when you misquote me, misinterpret me or otherwise distort what I am saying. For example you say after one of my comments

And doing surround in a room that was not properly set up at very low cost would do this how?

I never once advocated that. Tell me where I said that. I advocated at most, building a 'D' room but I always made the point of it being a proper room. A smaller room with a smaller screen, a smaller acoustic space and less gear with a professional that is not as experinced as the 'A' room guy is, but is a professional nonetheless. I never once advocated it not being set up properly. We can maybe disagree that such a room can be done or done well, that's fine. But don't put words in my mouth or misquote me. I never advocated what you said. My point was that we need to educate the clients in what is a good room and what is not, with the top gear and the top professionals. A 'D' room can illustrate the differences because they can literally A/B/C/D and see what's involved.

Well, yes you are costing jobs. I'm not luddite enough to argue that one should never do anything to reduce job's but I'm also not delusional enough to argue that it's for artistic reasons.

Well I know that money can sometimes be the main driving factor of these decisions, however not always. I think this is one where we can disagree also. Because I believe there can indeed be artistic reasons for doing things faster and more efficient. I think professionals can use tools to make things better and more efficient and still maintain the highest quality. And if sometimes that means what used to take 2 hours and three people to do can be done by one person in 45 minutes then so be it. No loss in quality or standards. And if in the long run that means people lose their jobs, then that is in fact an outcome of progress. I agree that you have a point that doing things faster by less people and cheaper can result in a negative outcome all around. I just think that is not always the case and it was never anything I said in my examples in the least.

Visa-vi surround I fail to see the situation where you have the money for a proper surround room and don't have the money for a Mix system. I'm not trying to be elitist, I don't have the money for a proper surround room, though I do have a mix system. To rehash the kitchen/cook/restaurant metaphor do you really think MacDonalds has been good for the restaurant industry?

I think this is one where we can just disagree. I think one could make a proper 'D' room if LE had surround. You don't, that's OK. However I never equated LE to McDonalds, I think my analogy would be more of a quality restaurant offering take out with the 'D' room being take out.

Well BD has actually mentioned that his set up is in his bedroom. And the music industry is not a good thing to hold up as a standard. Yes everyone and their mother can now produce a CD but the quality of recordings has dropped through the floor. A low sample rate MP3 is now the gold standard. I exaggerated but not that much.

Well I never once advocated bedroom. I always said professionals in professional settings.

Some bean counter who knows nothing about any of what we do is going to do a white sheet that says we can make $XXX if we put out the M-Box surround model and pay Joe Blow to say it's the greatest thing since autotune and it will be a done deal. But I don't have to like it.

I agree with that. But I have to ask you where I ever advocated doing anything by anyone in a bedroom anywhere. I agree that there is a problem. My point is that it is up to us to be proactive and teach those bean counters why they need to spend the money to do it right. And again, LE is ultimately a tool which can be used by professionals in professional settings. Adding surround functionality to it can only add to that.

[bluedemon]

Phil,

I did do the intern thing for 7 months, but since they weren't paying me, I couldn't do it for longer than that. I was working security from 3 am to 11 am, and then interning from noon to 6 pm. I could only do that for so long before I just hit the wall. I never saw my family. I started freelancing about a year and a half ago, and the work has been getting more steady, and higher quality since I've started. I understand that it's going to take time to get to where many people reading this are at. I hope that within the next 5 years I work on a feature with a budget of 2 to 3 million dollars.

-Dave

[Richard Fairbanks]

I think time will tell about sound being "over valued". In my heart of hearts, I believe firmly it is undervalued. It is under-appreciated because it is not always considered a "creative" craft. We do very little to determine the storyline and for that reason are pretty well excluded from the early stages of story development. Sound and sound folks is/are an absolutely essential part of our storytelling culture and tradition. With the possible exception of flesh films.

Socrates can take a hike, whoever the heck he was.

I believe we are being undervalued because producers are ABLE to undervalue our contributions. They often get what they pay for, I'm afraid. I think the "market correction" you speak of has already begun, but I do not think it is because there is a tradition of fat cats being overpaid. I think it is because there is very fierce competition from the seaswell of new people with cheaper tools. THAT is what devalues our craft. I believe this new direction has begun but not bottomed out yet. Things are going to hurt a while longer until the numbers of people decline. Which will happen because the money will not be good and the work will remain as it is now, long hours often with low appreciation factors.

[sidereal-studios]

I agree 100%, Richard.

I believe we are being undervalued because producers are ABLE to undervalue our contributions.

The craft is absolutely way undervalued. But I think there's a perception that the business, or the industry, might be overvalued. There's a massive, distinct, easily definable difference in *cost* between a basement mixer and a high-priced facility. There's not as obvious a difference to most ears between the quality that comes out of one versus the other. Most people simply do not have very good ears, whether it's a producer or the public.

So to many ears I think the obvious question to them is 'why spend the money'?

[froyo]

Hello. I agree guys but I also think it's nothing new. That's where the phrase 'red headed bastard step child of post' came from. Audio has always gotten the short end of the stick. We also discussed it at length in the Video Editors thread a few months back. The focus then was up and coming editors and producers that have these attitudes and how we go about correcting those attitudes.

In my opinion the most obvious answer is one at a time. The same way any 'ism' is overcome (racism, sexism, etc). If I do my best to show these people why what we do is important and what the differences are then I have done what I can. If every single one of us does this also, we can make some headway towards reversing this trend. In my experience, most of the people with the attitudes shown here actually appreciate it when I show them the difference. In the long run the end product is better and they end up looking better. Which benefits them also.

I rememeber a few years back trying to convince people PC's were a viable option for professional work. It took showing people one at a time how they could and did, for attitudes to change. People today still discount my workflow of using a laptop and Pro Tools for field audio and location audio. Until I show them the end product.

One at a time.

Or we could become the ones holding the money and calling the shots.

[philper]

Phil,

I did do the intern thing for 7 months, but since they weren't paying me, I couldn't do it for longer than that. I was working security from 3 am to 11 am, and then interning from noon to 6 pm. I could only do that for so long before I just hit the wall. I never saw my family. I started freelancing about a year and a half ago, and the work has been getting more steady, and higher quality since I've started. I understand that it's going to take time to get to where many people reading this are at. I hope that within the next 5 years I work on a feature with a budget of 2 to 3 million dollars.

-Dave

I think your internship was plenty long enough. Now you are out there doing it. If you can't get someone to hire you under terms that will work for the life and responsibities you have, then you have two obvious choices.
You've made the same one I did, ie working on your own on what you can get, and building a reputation brick by brick. Good for you, I say.

Philip Perkins CAS

[Noiz2]

OK looking back I will admit that my response to your post had some commingled comments that were really in response to BD, I apologize. You never mentioned bedrooms. However I did not at any point misquote you. All quotes are verbatim from your post. In my opinion you have a naive attitude toward the work environment, of course maybe I'm just overly jaded.
Better tools make more efficient use of your time, I agree. And in the hands of talented people will show good results, I agree. Where we split is what happens next. In your view (as I read it) we all get to do better work. As I see it (and as it has been true so far) what happens is that the time line shrinks so what was supposed to give you a little breathing room to be creative instead cuts down on your time and income forcing you to do more work with less time to be creative. As an example post audio in the 80 took months, some times many months. When I first did features mid 90's 13 weeks was pretty standard, Titanic was supposed to be in that range. By the end of the 90's 5 to 6 weeks was not unheard of. Having not done many med/large films lately I'm not sure what the standard is now.

Factory's are all about efficiency, ART takes time.

I agree artists can put good tools to a good use. We are talking about the film industry and VERY few artists have any control over the money, and VERY few of the money folks have any artistic intentions.

In essence I think that our basic difference of opinion comes down to an old axiom I believe in "you want it fast, good, and cheap? - pick two" .
You seem to think that you should get all three.

It's just an opinion and only mine at that. I'm open to the possibility that I am completely wrong. And in ten years if that turns out to be the case and I'm still breathing, point it out to me and I will publicly own up to it and buy you a beer.

We have probably beaten this horse to death. So I'll leave the last word to you.

By Noiz2

Hello. I do agree that it's OK to disagree. However I don't agree when you misquote me, misinterpret me or otherwise distort what I am saying. For example you say after one of my comments

I never once advocated that. Tell me where I said that. I advocated at most, building a 'D' room but I always made the point of it being a proper room. A smaller room with a smaller screen, a smaller acoustic space and less gear with a professional that is not as experinced as the 'A' room guy is, but is a professional nonetheless. I never once advocated it not being set up properly. We can maybe disagree that such a room can be done or done well, that's fine. But don't put words in my mouth or misquote me. I never advocated what you said. My point was that we need to educate the clients in what is a good room and what is not, with the top gear and the top professionals. A 'D' room can illustrate the differences because they can literally A/B/C/D and see what's involved.

Well I know that money can sometimes be the main driving factor of these decisions, however not always. I think this is one where we can disagree also. Because I believe there can indeed be artistic reasons for doing things faster and more efficient. I think professionals can use tools to make things better and more efficient and still maintain the highest quality. And if sometimes that means what used to take 2 hours and three people to do can be done by one person in 45 minutes then so be it. No loss in quality or standards. And if in the long run that means people lose their jobs, then that is in fact an outcome of progress. I agree that you have a point that doing things faster by less people and cheaper can result in a negative outcome all around. I just think that is not always the case and it was never anything I said in my examples in the least.

I think this is one where we can just disagree. I think one could make a proper 'D' room if LE had surround. You don't, that's OK. However I never equated LE to McDonalds, I think my analogy would be more of a quality restaurant offering take out with the 'D' room being take out.

Well I never once advocated bedroom. I always said professionals in professional settings.

I agree with that. But I have to ask you where I ever advocated doing anything by anyone in a bedroom anywhere. I agree that there is a problem. My point is that it is up to us to be proactive and teach those bean counters why they need to spend the money to do it right. And again, LE is ultimately a tool which can be used by professionals in professional settings. Adding surround functionality to it can only add to that.

[Noiz2]

I think I may have implied something I didn't mean to. 7 months isn't a lot of experience but it plenty long to be working for free. Probably 90% of the people who work post are freelance. The only real difference is the budget of shows you work on. Work has been very tight the last few years and it looks like things might finally be picking up so maybe that film is not too distant. And I do wish you luck.

I think your internship was plenty long enough. Now you are out there doing it. If you can't get someone to hire you under terms that will work for the life and responsibities you have, then you have two obvious choices.
You've made the same one I did, ie working on your own on what you can get, and building a reputation brick by brick. Good for you, I say.

Philip Perkins CAS

[Richard Fairbanks]

I want to add one more thought. Many of my words, and some of others, imply a disposition against people new to our industry. That is NOT what we mean! There is always room for new people, new talent, new approaches, otherwise we'd all be dead! I guess my frustrations center around facts that are not anyone's fault. Nearly everyone can afford a highly capable DAW, which has encouraged a lot of people to try out music, and now post production. Those people often view post as a way to pay bills while they pursue interests. Their desperation to pay their bills contributes to the general undervaluation of our industry. I am not angry at them as individuals but I hope they reconsider their goals. For anyone who truly LOVES audio post, as I think everyone reading this must, there is no better way to feel creatively satisfied. I think everyone can agree that we need MORE of them.