Avid Giving Protools Post Audio Mixers the FINGER!!!

[V5V]

Originally Posted by Henchman

I'm not worried about editors doing my job.
I know they can't deliver the kind of quality we can on the dubstage.

YOU can hear the difference and I would hear the difference but whether or not the CLIENT can hear the difference is an issue.

I have often been amazed by client reaction. I'll play back an A-B comparison of some major change I've made and they either can't hear the improvement or at least don't consider it significant. With clients like those, the value of a skilled post engineer is diminished.

[EarHole]

I understand that editors are under pressure to make it sound good enough to get cuts approved because most clients have last the imagination and experience to know what the next steps in the process are. The problem that I seem to be having is when editors are rendering audio without saving the clips clean for me to work with. The noise reduce the hell out of it and get artifacts that hinder me down the line.
I've seen this on an increased frequency n the last few years. Rendered reverbs,
Eq, and noise reduction. I'm sure it sounds fine n a noisy edit bay and v a laptop but once we start doing or magic, those introduced novice renders become a real problem.

Then again, I get charge by the hour so if we have to sit for an hour to wait for the editor to find the clean audio and post it... So be it.

[lexaudio]

This may take some smaller work out of the community, but the really low budget stuff you don't really care about anyway.

Maybe reality TV.

For one, no editor is going to spend the time it takes to cut all the elements needed for a feature.
No director is going to keep them on for 6 more months while they wait for the audio to get completed.

It can't even be done in TV. They are too busy working on multiple episodes to deal with the sound aspects.

Are they going to cue foley? ADR? Cut and sync ADR and Group.

How about mixing all those elements together? Nice sounding reverbs and echos and effect?

There is no way a picture editor is going to spend the time building a nice sound scape.

Relax, no producer or director is going to leave ALL the sound to the picture editor to deal with.

If they do, good luck to them. Start shooting 2013, finish movie end 2016.

[peter5992]

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Avid as a company is in trouble financially, and has been for years. The entire market has changed - not just for audio, also for video. Avid is jumping all over the place trying to catch up. Remember what they did to Sibelius - firing Daniel Spreadbury and the key team and trying to outsource it to the Ukraine. Worst business decision in this millennium.

I took a video editing class last Fall on Avid Media Composer. I have very fond memories of that class -- one of those experiences that stay with you. It was a combination of the instructor and the people in the classroom. But I also found out that in terms of audio, Avid Media Composer is still very crude. For example, you cannot automate audio volumes in any finer detail than per frame.

Somebody somewhere in Avid management decided that this might be a good idea to monetize, and they ran with the idea.

Again I wouldn't worry about it.

[minister]

Originally Posted by peter5992

But I also found out that in terms of audio, Avid Media Composer is still very crude. For example, you cannot automate audio volumes in any finer detail than per frame.

That is true of just about every serious video editor -- you can only cut video on the frame. That is not something that keeps anyone from buying a video editing program.

[Brandonx1]

I just don't understand how replacing me with a video editor can be cost effective. I can mix an hour long doc for TV in 3, 8 hour days. How in the hell would a video editor manage that? Even with the exact same tool set, which they don't have, and the time the product would be inferior. Now that's equal money and a worse product. Moving forward to quality and deliverables, it just doesn't matter how long you give a offline editor to cut a show, they all still come to me totally F'ed. No organization, no comprehension of stereo imaging or tonal balance. Even if a plug in could make the total cluster F*** compliant with broadcast standards, who would they hire to make the M and E or Mix - since the audio is just all over the place. Production companies would have to triple the audio budget to replace me with a offline video editor and it still wouldn't sound good.

[peter5992]

Originally Posted by Brandonx1

I just don't understand how replacing me with a video editor can be cost effective. I can mix an hour long doc for TV in 3, 8 hour days. How in the hell would a video editor manage that? Even with the exact same tool set, which they don't have, and the time the product would be inferior. Now that's equal money and a worse product. Moving forward to quality and deliverables, it just doesn't matter how long you give a offline editor to cut a show, they all still come to me totally F'ed. No organization, no comprehension of stereo imaging or tonal balance. Even if a plug in could make the total cluster F*** compliant with broadcast standards, who would they hire to make the M and E or Mix - since the audio is just all over the place. Production companies would have to triple the audio budget to replace me with a offline video editor and it still wouldn't sound good.

It would not be cost effective.

But you have to understand the situation - which is Avid trying to win over those video editors who think they might be able to do the audio as well, on the side, and on the cheap.

Frankly I don't understand why Avid is even trying to get to that place.

Avid Media Composer is an expensive program, nearly $ 2,000. That is a [bleep][bleep][bleep][bleep]e load of money, compared to the alternatives. Final Cut Pro is a couple of hundred bucks if you are on PC. Sony Vegas is a little over $100 for the platinum version which is very easy to use and powerful (have it myself, in addition to Avid Media Composer). Sony Vegas is actually really nice, and very intuitive also in terms of audio, but that is another discussion.

So .... who buys Avid Media Composer? I think people who are working on Hollywood feature films or professional video; or students who may want to get into that business. The student license is super attractive, $300, with years of free upgrades. Got my own Avid Media Composer that way, I am still a graduate student. I have no intention of becoming a video editor, just thought it would be fun and interesting and useful to take an editing class.

To get back to the point ... I don't it makes a lot of sense for Avid to cater to the low end market, they went that way before, with Pro Tools, and then came back, and now they are back again with Media Composer.

Avid is all over the place, trying to find the 'niches' in the market.

Ok - enough talk already. Back to the session.

[nst7]

Just a side note - They've lowered the price of Media Composer, as of v.7, it's now only $995 to buy brand new.

[Bob Olhsson]

Sub-dollar a gigabyte storage is a revolution because previously the cost of film and tape stock defined all budgets and professional sound was a drop in the financial bucket. This changes everything much as MIDI and hard disk recording have in music.

Media Composer is now competing directly with the Adobe Cloud where people get pretty serious sound editing tools as part of their monthly payment. It would be stupid to not both expand and promote Media Composer's sound capabilities because, like it or not, this really is the future.