Can this be? Only 16 stereo inputs in PT9?

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by BaileyBass

While in principle you have some points, your timeline is off by at least 10 years. Tape was alive and well in the early 90's and non-destructive editing and multi-track HDisk recording was later on that decade. And 100k was a VERY lowbudget Rock record in the late 80's, early 90's. Even contemporary Jazz had bigger budgets (than 100k) way back then. It is true that times have changed.... just later than you thought. SB

Oh MY! You're SO right. It just goes to show you how 'in denial' I am about my age and how time FLIES. You're right I was JUST outfitting the studio I worked for in '96 with 6 DA38's and 6 ADATs and getting them all to sync with each other and WITH our 2" - which Lynx had an amazing little piece for in those day to make a '2"" slave to MTC. You're right it was late, late 90's before Hard disk recording would yet again lower budgets. Budgets did start to drop when MDM's came in too -- but the plunge was when we went all computer. Good (hard) trip down memory lane, SB! Thanks!

[getz76]

Originally Posted by Keybeeetsss

How long can people seriously talk about & say the same thing when after u get done, it is what it is

Originally Posted by getz76

I would guess another 20-30 posts.

Yup.

[supersoul]

I find the habit of asking for stems very annoying. My experience is that they screw up the music if they have too much choice in terms of levels. They get all creative with your composition and feel entitled to 'tweak' your individual sections. But that's a different story. But regardless of that giving them more than 8 stereo stems is creative harakiri imho. You might as well give them the open session and let them mix your music hoping they'll get it right.

I have yet to hear a huge hollywood score that sounded good in the mix. Mushy mushmush is the usual result. By record mixing standards movies sound [bleep][bleep][bleep][bleep]ty. Real [bleep][bleep][bleep][bleep]ty. Usually the source music that is licensed and available only in stereo sounds best. See Tarantino films, he only licenses and the sound and effect of the music is always impeccable. Kubrick did that a lot too. These mutated scores with gigantic orchestras and additional electronics and one million tracks end up sounding like crap in 98% of the cases.

I am exagerating on purpose here... What I am trying to say is that you should rethink and resize what you give them because it sounds like counterproductive choice overkill to me. 16 stereo inputs is plenty by all means.

[HD2]

Originally Posted by supersoul

I find the habit of asking for stems very annoying. My experience is that they screw up the music if they have too much choice in terms of levels. They get all creative with your composition and feel entitled to 'tweak' your individual sections. But that's a different story. But regardless of that giving them more than 8 stereo stems is creative harakiri imho. You might as well give them the open session and let them mix your music hoping they'll get it right.

I have yet to hear a huge hollywood score that sounded good in the mix. Mushy mushmush is the usual result. By record mixing standards movies sound [bleep][bleep][bleep][bleep]ty. Real [bleep][bleep][bleep][bleep]ty. Usually the source music that is licensed and available only in stereo sounds best. See Tarantino films, he only licenses and the sound and effect of the music is always impeccable. Kubrick did that a lot too. These mutated scores with gigantic orchestras and additional electronics and one million tracks end up sounding like crap in 98% of the cases.

I am exagerating on purpose here... What I am trying to say is that you should rethink and resize what you give them because it sounds like counterproductive choice overkill to me. 16 stereo inputs is plenty by all means.

First off I think the OP was talking about delivering stems to the orchestra conductor. But regardless of that, delivering a stereo mix the way YOU want it to the dubbing stage while in theory it sounds good, it doesn't always work that way. Composers are usually working to a guide track of just production dialog and a lot of times they even turn that off and just compose to the visuals. This can be a real problem on the dub stage if there are no stems to adjust. There may be a violin piece over a percussion bed with a string bed as well, that is just fighting with the dialog. If it is stereo the whole score has to be lowered or EQ'd is such a way that it detracts from the piece, where as if there are percussion stems, string stems etc. then the violin piece can be EQ'd separately and lowered slightly if needed. Then there is also all the sound FX that the composer isn't aware of while doing the score. Sometimes elements of the score fight with the sound FX and visa versa. In the end it is the director and or producers who work in collaboration with the re-recording mixer to get to something that is as close as possible to what the composer was trying to achieve but as I said the composer isn't always thinking about or hearing the "BIG" picture while doing the score.

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by HD2

First off I think the OP was talking about delivering stems to the orchestra conductor. But regardless of that, delivering a stereo mix the way YOU want it to the dubbing stage while in theory it sounds good, it doesn't always work that way. Composers are usually working to a guide track of just production dialog and a lot of times they even turn that off and just compose to the visuals. This can be a real problem on the dub stage if there are no stems to adjust. There may be a violin piece over a percussion bed with a string bed as well, that is just fighting with the dialog. If it is stereo the whole score has to be lowered or EQ'd is such a way that it detracts from the piece, where as if there are percussion stems, string stems etc. then the violin piece can be EQ'd separately and lowered slightly if needed. Then there is also all the sound FX that the composer isn't aware of while doing the score. Sometimes elements of the score fight with the sound FX and visa versa. In the end it is the director and or producers who work in collaboration with the re-recording mixer to get to something that is as close as possible to what the composer was trying to achieve but as I said the composer isn't always thinking about or hearing the "BIG" picture while doing the score.

I learned this the hard way by almost losing a commercial account that needed to put voice over material on top of my music bed.. They said they needed 'more room for the voice'.. I didn't get what they meant.. Until one time I asked THEM to send ME the voice over material. My mixing of the music bed had to change DRASTICALLY to 'make room for', EQ-wise, etc -- the voice.. I imagine with dialogue in a movie the challenge is even greater. What we perceive as 'great mix' of our music -- wouldn't be what translates well to the screen. It would be great if the movie houses sent US, the engineers, their dialogue dubs and let US do their FINAL mixing to surround. What are the chances of THAT happening?

[supersoul]

Originally Posted by HD2

First off I think the OP was talking about delivering stems to the orchestra conductor. But regardless of that, delivering a stereo mix the way YOU want it to the dubbing stage while in theory it sounds good, it doesn't always work that way. Composers are usually working to a guide track of just production dialog and a lot of times they even turn that off and just compose to the visuals. This can be a real problem on the dub stage if there are no stems to adjust. There may be a violin piece over a percussion bed with a string bed as well, that is just fighting with the dialog. If it is stereo the whole score has to be lowered or EQ'd is such a way that it detracts from the piece, where as if there are percussion stems, string stems etc. then the violin piece can be EQ'd separately and lowered slightly if needed. Then there is also all the sound FX that the composer isn't aware of while doing the score. Sometimes elements of the score fight with the sound FX and visa versa. In the end it is the director and or producers who work in collaboration with the re-recording mixer to get to something that is as close as possible to what the composer was trying to achieve but as I said the composer isn't always thinking about or hearing the "BIG" picture while doing the score.

Well, that you shouldn't compete with the dialog with your composition is composers 101. Usually you do receive a rough dialog and efx track with your version to work to. My experience is that there is a proper competition fight between sounddesigners and composers for who gets more room. I have been preaching to directors to use less music but when using it to give it to appropriate room. I remember watching Godzilla in the cinema and thinking: Poor David Arnold, all this work into composing a complex orchestral score and then you get buried underneath tons of collapsing buildings. Why? It seems pointless and a waste of money too... As i mentioned i find Tarantino and Kubrick are masters at using the music. If it's there it's there, don't try to hide it. And if you want your EFX to be loud have the {bleep} to press the mute button...

But that's more of a general discussion and off topic here. Sorry to divert.

[MacPC]

Decided to get an HD system. Thanks to everyone who helped with the discussion; it was not what I wanted to hear but it was certainly candid.

Take care,

MacPC

[BobbyDazzler]

Good for you MacPC, It hurts the wallet, but its a great system.

[TOM@METRO]

Originally Posted by MacPC

Decided to get an HD system. Thanks to everyone who helped with the discussion; it was not what I wanted to hear but it was certainly candid.

Take care,

MacPC

Native or TDM?

And judging form you’re decision, I guess Avids business model does kinda' work for them.