Waverider

[garnoil]

I have several "reality type" programs to mix for local tv. I bought Waverider as it seems to be the perfect tool for producing this type of audio material that has no budget for manual film like dialogue editing and mix. I was hoping that Waverider would balance the dialogue but I am getting far too many volume level errors. I have never used this type of automatic mixing before so I think I am not setting Waverider correctly.

I need to get my dialogue to be: max peaks -11 dbfs, dialnorm -24 (average volume for standard television broadcasting in stereo).

Is Waverider's default film dialogue setting suitable for what I am trying to do? or is there another preset I can download?

[quadraphonics]

I used Waverider very successfully for a reality TV show with a -24 LKFS requirement. I did have to put a limiter on my Dx bus to keep the peaks in spec, and also found that I needed to clean up some of the automation, but it was helpful.

Randall

[cananball]

On a short film I recently mixed, I spent more time trying to get the desired results from waverider than it would have taken me to ride the faders manually.

Hitting it with the proper gain staging is important too. I used it on a In January on PT8 and had to really crank the gain in order to keep the fader movements out of the +6 to +12 range. This past film was PT10 I thought that clip gain would help that , but it didn't. Still had to gain it up alot to hit the silence threshold properly to allow the proper fader headroom. Kind of a PITA. If anyone has any tips I would sure appreciate them.

[TVPostSound]

Ive been trying it all day.
Its reminiscent of a compressor with a slow release, I made a mistake buying it!!

[mgoorevich]

Originally Posted by TVPostSound

Ive been trying it all day.
Its reminiscent of a compressor with a slow release, I made a mistake buying it!!

After reading some very good reports from very respected users on the DUC, I tried it myself a demo.
May be these guys got it for free from the company, so they were trying to "push" it a bit. But I honestly see no advantage or time saving (maybe wasting) benefits. And I prefer a manual volume riding or using compressorsrs even for some super fast project.
I think the dialog editing is more about the editing. A great part of it is gluing back-ground and matching it from different shots and angle. After it done properly I needs no waverider IMHO. I can put a compressor with fast attack and fast/medium release if I am REALLY in rush.
Again above is relevant for very quick TV shows.
For the serious docos projects and features I do all manually - no compressors.
So I see for the Waverider no usage in my workflow. Even for the cleanest narrative and voice overs.
Uh...then again folks will point me I use not the right setting.

[Vedat]

Originally Posted by mgoorevich

After reading some very good reports from very respected users on the DUC, I tried it myself a demo.
May be these guys got it for free from the company, so they were trying to "push" it a bit.

That's an unfortunate accusation. Both to us, and to those respected users.


@garnoil As quadraphonics suggests, you need a limiter to tame those peaks. I tend to set my output level around -21, -22 on Wave Rider and hit the bus with really minor limiting and get -24 consistently.

@cananball You need to understand that WR by default is designed for properly recorded sound levels. By properly, I mean within the 15db of -20dbfs.
If the levels are below this, then you do need extra gain whether you use WR or not. Otherwise, you should lower the output of Wave Rider.
Between output level and silence threshold you should be able to dial it in, and the target ratio will help smooth it out. For instance, a narration track can use a silence threshold of -37 or even higher, production dialog with normal background noise should be good with the default -40 or lower with a looser target ratio.

WR works, and many PAID users can vouch for it (we didn't make people up in the testimonials section on our site). Like many things, it takes some time to learn how to use it properly.

[mgoorevich]

Originally Posted by Mundoz

That's an unfortunate accusation. Both to us, and to those respected users.

OK. I am sorry for that. Seriously.
The reason I was that strict , caused by the fact that it's hard to implement it in my personal workflow. I simply couldn't imagine how others can do it. But possibly others are working in a different way and your plugin is helpful for their workflow. And I mean it when I say "respectful". I learned allot from many of them.
Again I bring my apologies that I judged it not objective.

[mr.armadillo]

Bought it, fiddled around with it for HOURS and couldn't come up with a usuable setting. Maybe i'm stupid? plus, I can't get WR from fluttering heavily, even when there's no signal. Bug?

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by mr.armadillo

Bought it, fiddled around with it for HOURS and couldn't come up with a usuable setting. Maybe i'm stupid? plus, I can't get WR from fluttering heavily, even when there's no signal. Bug?

I've had the fader "flutter" in the past, can't remember why, but I wasn't doing something quite right - I've found V2 much more useable than V1. I've pretty much always needed to use a limiter on it too to keep everything under control, but find the results much more pleasing than just compressing/limiting.

[alyerpal]

To be absolutely clear, we're talking about putting a limiter *before* WR, for better WR output results, and not just using a limiter at the end of the chain, just to hit a delivery spec, is that right?