"This is the problem with the majority of most films today. They rely far too much on the sound, instead of the image."

I would say that most films today rely too much on the image and sound and not the story! (Or maybe to prop up a weak story!)

Buster,
it was a personal opinion ...
Now, if you're going to introduce facts and historical precedence to every issue discussed here, what speculative fun is there left for the rest of us? (just kidding) ...

I agree - reading might form a bell curve, like the rest of life (perhaps) ...
85% in the center variations of reading skill and participation - 7.5% who read voraciously, and probably 7.5% who don't read at all (or can't, ala some professional athletes ... if only they weren't afraid of librarians in their wonder years)...

I also agree with your notion of the importance of Foley is the importance of sound... with the added benefit of control ... which makes a camera like the GL-2 a significant tool because of its ability to record full stereo - one channel of audio for ambient noise and applause, and the other channel for the sound coming in from a controlled source (sound board or wireless mic). Each channel set to its own volume level to be adjusted in post...

Until that time ... Earl J.

"But getting back to your questions, wouldn't many of the answers to the questions--"how close, how far"-- be provided the visual information in the shot? "

Yes, of course.

I should explain a bit more. In the current project I have locked vision. Not even remotely involved in the this movie until long after any of that happened.
I also have 'found' the work of someone from a significant audio post house that does Hollywood mixes. At one stage this movie's soundtrack was in their hands and their foley artist(s) put a lot of effort into building the audio palette. Most of what they've done is at around -60dB or less. At first I thought something was seriously wrong, no one is going to hear any of this.
However going back to my days playing out movies in a cinema it all starts to make sense. Most of us are probably setting dialog at -12 or -20dB. Going off the meters in the cinemas I was having to playout the movies with dialog at around -40dB or less according to their SPL meters or the audience was complaining.
It seems what has happened between the days of Hitchcock and today is the size of the audio canvas on which the soundscape is painted has grown in size and depth much akin to the difference between VHS and 3D IMAX. Back in Hitchcocks day there was less than 5 craftsmen doing the soundtrack, today that number is around 50. Go back to some of the old movies from a few decades ago and as someone above mentioned just the shifts in tape hiss accross cuts is right in your face in a cinema today, it's rather hard to get into the narrative when there's that distraction going on.

Bob.

Live theatre on its last legs? Bob, have you tried buying a ticket to a live theatrical production? Maybe what you say is true of Sydney, but here you need to be a subscriber, take an accommodation package with a hotel, or plan well in advance. And we're not short of live theatres.
A lot of "natural" sound in film is foley. Those BBC nature films are good examples where most of the audio is created in the studio. The thing about "natural" sound is that it is subtle and relevant. I agree that subtlety is one of the missing mixing skills in a lot of current film productions, which I blame on pop music. The pop music scene has, for a couple of generations, has featured singers whose voices you don't actually want to hear (very much). In both recordings and live shows they're mixed so voice is crushed down amongst the instruments. Compare with, say, Ella Fitzgerald, where you hear the voice up front but not without losing the instruments. A lot of film soundtracks are mixed with this rock bias, with the "background" music dragged up, making dialogue less intelligible.
How much "natural" audio do you need to include? The traffic? Yes, but much lower than reality. Door closing? Yes, but subtle. If you drag those background effects up-front they become intrusive and unnatural.
But. Video games are full of spot audio FX and made for impact, not reality. You can go that way if you like that high impact style and you're working to that audience. Just doesn't work for me.

"How much "natural" audio do you need to include? The traffic? Yes, but much lower than reality. Door closing? Yes, but subtle. If you drag those background effects up-front they become intrusive and unnatural."

Yes!

But how quiet should they be?
As I said below (somewhere) the foley artists are working at levels that barely register on my meters that go down to -70dB. I'm having to rethink where everything sits in the mix. I have one explosion and two gunshots. The explosion is distant, the gunshots close. OK the the loudest sound, the up close and personal gunshot that'll lift the audience out of their seats can hit 0dB.
Now where should my dialog sit relative to that, where do the footsteps on a carpeted floor go?

Bob.

There are no absolute answers to those questions; the ears are the meters. It's right if it sounds right; film is re-created reality. The difficulty is that away from the audio mixing suite and the "golden" ears we have to make at least preliminary judgements that are guided by level meters (particularly if our hearing is somewhat time-worn). I might suggest speech somewhere around -10dB and background below -20dB, but you actually want someone with real expertise to step in here. This might be a good question for Vic Milt's "I want to direct a movie" facebook page. I'll see if one of my recording friends would like to put up some numbers.

Sorry to take this OT, since it is a good discussion.

One of my pet peeves, if you hadn't noticed before, is the loud, overcompressed, unnatural, and purposely obnoxious "phoney foleys" that overrun almost all broadcast network advertising. If the content wasn't bad enough, the processing is. To the point of distraction and outrage on the part of these 61 y/o ears.

If irritation isn't the motive, then exactly what is?

Hershey, All car manufacturers, Verizon, Yoplait, Listerine, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and hundreds of others?

The pending legislation in Congress is inadequate. By a light-mile.

Do you really think they're trying to "sell" us something??

EOR (End Of Rant)

Based on what I've seen from how the mix was going before I got lumbered with it I'd say pretty close to real world.
Assume 0dBFS = 100dBA.

Clearly that's only for theatrical.
That's why the Dolby systems can change the dynamic range.

Bob.

"A lot of film soundtracks are mixed with this rock bias, with the "background" music dragged up, making dialogue less intelligible."

Exactly what I was referring to earlier, and it's very annoying! And like you said, "Just doesn't for me."

Ella Fitzgerald... now there was voice that didn't rely on any technical enhancements. Pure and clear!

Ella Fitzgerald... now there was voice that didn't rely on any technical enhancements. Pure and clear!

I was in the audience in Denver the night she suffered her heart attack. It was the most beautiful 40 minute show I have ever heard.

all i can say is most modern movies on dvd are unintelligible when listed to on most standard lcd sound systems.

yes, the same movies can sound quite good on a properly setup home theatre, well, at least i can understand the dialogue.

true i'm 60+ and my hearing isn't what it used to be, but my wife's is as sharp as a tack (she even hears me thinking!).

this obsession with 5.1 whatever audio comes at the expense of appalling stereo / mono mixes....

and i think 'good', discrete foley is a MUST for a realistic setting, but some arty-farty soundscape drowning out the 'asta la vista baby' does nothing for plot, other than to lose it....

Bob, Jay at al,

This is a very interesting discussion going on in this thread - thank you!

My command of English is unfortunately not good enough to express all the subtleties of mind, so I'm afraid I'm unable to bring anything relevant in :( But I do feel your thoughts.

One thing: when listening to the richness of all different kind of sounds in Roger Water's "narrative" music, it's almost filmic to me... A coincidence?

Sorry to not be able to truly participate,

Piotr

Bob, input from an audio guy (to whom I emailed a couple of posts from the thread):

"Your reply was excellent! I forget metering except to check that nothing overloads. Digital overload is far worse than analogue overload. Then, as you rightly suggest, go with the ears, or at least the auditory receptors they hopefully guide the sound to! Even if hearing is down (as you claim yours to be) I would still rely on the ears because most sounds and speech will remain in equal proportion regardless of hearing loss, unless the loss is at one extreme of the spectrum. I recommend mainly working with very high quality headphones set at a comfortable listening level, and a final monitor quality loudspeaker check at average listening level. "

Piotr, your English is better than most "English speakers" I know here in Miami!

In any case, I would still be interested to hear (read) what you have to say on the subject!

Serena, thanks for sharing that reply from your friend. It only substantiates what an old audio engineer taught me when I was starting out years ago.

As I reflect back on everything I've learned from the men and women that me preceded on this path, most of what I took away and most of what I remember about their teachings were more philosophical, rather than technical.

The means for doing change, but the reasons remain the same. (This excludes those bombastic mixes that were briefly discussed earlier).

P.S. If anyone is interested, here is an article about Hitchcock's earliest use of sound in his "originally silent" picture Blackmail. It even quotes Arnheim.

Thanks,
that's pretty much what I'm doing. The ambient noise level in my room is too high so I've got to resort to headphones to really hear the quieter sections.

Just found this for THX:

Cinema Reference Levels
Fronts 105dB at seating position in centre of cinema
Surrounds 102dB
Subs 115dB
Recommended headroom - add 6dB
normally calibrated with pink noise 20dB down ie 85dB fronts

The neighbours are going to love me :)

Bob.

My goodness, that's really loud.

Wow, Bob, that'll jar the nails loose! Doesn't 115dB come dangerously close to the level a jet airliner generates?

Did anyone see (remember) the 1974 hit Earthquake in "Sensurround"? I can still recall the effect that sound made on me at the time. Back then I was 24 and very impressionable. Perhaps that was our introduction to what we're experiencing today.

All those 1,000W amps aren't there for nothing!

These are the amps I've seen used in cinemas, lots of them:
http://www.qscaudio.com/products/amps/cx/cx2/cx2.htm

On top of that the speakers are way more efficient that what most of us can afford or have the space for.

I suspect though those figures are "C" weighted so it's not quite as dramatic as you might think. Most of the energy is down very low, more stuff that you feel rather than hear.

Bob.

"Most of the energy is down very low, more stuff that you feel rather than hear."

Sub-sonic sound... Good point!

Hmmm....

this discussion is MOST interesting... Serena dropped me a line and asked me to join in - thank you for the compliment.

Well - I believe you have lost or ignored the biggest principle in the art of movie-making and story telling.

That is the viewpoint of the artist - and therein lies the issue.

Movies ARE a highly visual medium - and sometimes THAT is all that's necessary.
But whenever I teach, I always ask, "What's the most important part of a successful movie?"
Script! Concept! Actors! Locations!
At that point, (in my own brash style) I drop the mike onto the floor and continue talking while kicking and smooshing the mike around. Of course you can't hear a thing. I stop the noise and say, "Well THAT movie sucks".

Then I pick up the mike and turn out the lights. I continue speaking and then make some sexy moaning sounds and say "what's going on?"
Everyone laughs.

So like EVERYTHING we all do as visual storytellers - there is NO one single quantifiable answer.

I think your question is sort of like, "Should I shoot this with a diffusion filter?"

The first undeniable part of the answer to your question is, "What's the budget?" No money - no foley -end of story.
The second part of the answer is: "What do YOU think?"
As an artist, it's YOUR vision that will make the decisions, at every point.
Sometimes I will KILL to get Just The Right Effect into place.
Other times, it's "can I hear the copy clearly?"

If you are right - you're a genius.
If you are not - well who's judging this stuff anyway?
If it's a paying client - you're gonna make the change, no matter WHAT you think. If it's your own film, I say - the heck with the critics (and often follow with, "Let's see what YOU"VE done lately".

Are tons of dollars wasted on spurious sound effects - fer sure.
Are tons of dollars wasted on expensive car chases - fer sure.
No effect can make up for a crappy script. And a great concept can cover a LOT of crappy - well - everything - from acting to edit.

Are many "clients" assuaged by the bottom line being expensive - yup.

At the height of my career (moneywise) when my daily fee would easily finance a nice European vacaton - I knew that one of the reasons they hired me was because if there was a mishap of any kind, the agency producer could say, "Well - we had VICTOR MILT." ... and that sort of took them off the hook. Well they were right in that I would never accept, "Good enough" (and didn't make many irrecoverable mistakes).

So there it is - from my viewpoint - the deciding factors (like every other step in your production) are - budget - time available - and in the end - your gut reaction, and how much you are willing to fight for it. Plus, of course, intended audience and method of delivery - but that's another story altogether.

Vic, excellent comments. Of course Bob wasn't pushing foley up front in the process of story telling, but rather is confronting that particular aspect of audio mixing and effects as part of the process. I think we agree that "it is right if it sounds right", but confidence in making that decision depends on past success and facilities employed. You are saying: go with your judgement and through that experience build confidence.
"No budget no foley" is probably true of the usual feature production, but it's not hard to create good effects where they are important. In one of my docos I caught two yachts colliding (one slicing into the other) but the only audio I had was wind buffeted and low S/N. Analysing that audio of the collision I created an enhanced version by mixing various home-made effects. Result: effective and sounded real. Actually sailing films need a lot of the location audio replaced by foley .