Mastering Audio For Video

MichaelS wrote on 1/27/2007, 7:58 AM
I'm trying to improve my audio for video.

We all know that mastering is an all important part of the music audio process. An audio engineer buddy of mine suggested piping my video audio through a program called "Auto Audio Mastering System" or AAMS. (http://www.curioza.com)

I provided him with a 48/16 stereo wave file for processing. The program material was primarily speech, music and ambient sound.

Within the program, you can choose from dozens of presets. The program will then process your audio to these prescribed specs. We discussed how this process in "no way" takes the place of a talented mastering engineer. He uses it on audio projects that will probably never make it that far.

The results were surprisingly good. The finished audio had a smooth, professional sound. Not just compression or limiting, but a combination of equalization, compression and balance that I thought greatly improved the audio.

This is a stand alone program, not real time processing, such as a plugin would provide. It took about 4 times the audio length to process.

Does anyone have experience with this program and what are your thoughts?

Comments

blink3times wrote on 1/27/2007, 9:27 AM
I almost NEVER do any kind of audio processing within vegas (or other editor that I have for that matter). I do my video editing in Vegas and export my audio to Adobe Audition2. I get much better results this way, and there are things that I can do in AA2 that I simply can't do (properly anyway) in an editor.
epirb wrote on 1/27/2007, 9:37 AM
Speaking of audio has anybody tried the beta of Adobes Soundbooth?
not even sure if its another version of audition of what just saw it when I D/L the CS3 beta.
blink3times wrote on 1/27/2007, 9:44 AM
I've tried 2 times now to download and install... failed both times. I'm not sure why... maybe a conflict with Audition2??
earthrisers wrote on 1/27/2007, 9:56 AM
I still use good ol' Sony Sound Forge.
When we shoot vocal recitals & kids' concert productions, I always start my editing workflow by cleaning-up the audio a little bit and getting its levels consistent through the various songs, etc. ("Open copy in Sound Forge" is what I select... this option appears because SoundForge is configured as my default audio editor for Vegas.) Then I start working on the video tracks.

My installation of Sound Forge includes a bunch of plug-ins and pre-sets (Waves Ultramaximizer, a couple of audio-cleanup utilities, etc. etc.)

Occasionally I need to edit multitrack audio for a video production -- for that, I use Sonar (from Cakewalk) because it offers more power & flexibility than Vegas' built-in audio-editing tools. I export the finished audio from Sonar into WAV format, and import that back into Vegas.
mikkie wrote on 1/27/2007, 2:31 PM
Practical advice... You've already seen what the software will do, & liked it. It's shareware, so you can install it and use it for the trial period to make sure. It's relatively cheap, at least cheaper than any alternative besides maybe Goldwave, & you're not using anything right now -- I'd say go for it.

And while you are using it, you'll be taking the 1st steps, learning the basics you'll need to know to get the most out of something like Sound Forge anyway.
farss wrote on 1/27/2007, 4:05 PM
Same here, I've yet to feel limited by what Vegas's multitrack mixing and recording has to offer. For real audio microsurgery I use SF.
Once you get your head around how the audio buses work in Vegas (takes a bit of time to fathom it out) there's a huge amount you can do. I've yet to find anything in Audition that can't be done with Vegas and SF, I really wonder why everyone raves about Audtion. Maybe it's because it costs more money and therefore they spend time getting their heads around it. What you get with Vegas comes for free so perhaps not too many spend enough time learning just how powerful it is.
farss wrote on 1/27/2007, 4:14 PM
For those of you who don't bother to read Sony's email this might be of some interest on this very topic:

Bob.
blink3times wrote on 1/27/2007, 5:04 PM
"I've yet to find anything in Audition that can't be done with Vegas and SF, I really wonder why everyone raves about Audtion. "

I take a stereo track and trurn it into dd5.1 (rear track ,center, front...etc). You can use Vegas to pan things in motion.... but you can't pan a stationary object (ie: the camera operator's voice). The operator is behind the cam (voice should come from rear speakers)... The subjects are in front (should be coming from center speaker) and so on and so on

The only way to do this is by physically chopping the voices out of the original track and placing them in their own respective tracks... then mix portions of the original track in with the newly created tracks. It A LOT of work! The audio editing takes me at least twice as long as the video editing.... And it can not be done in Vegas.
Former user wrote on 1/27/2007, 5:14 PM
Blink3times,

I think I understand what you are doing and I don't see any reason why you can't do this in Vegas.

Lay down your stereo track to several tracks in sync.

On track one isolate your camera voice (by deleting all of the track that isn't that voice)

On track two isolate your subjects voices (same way).

Continue for as many as needed.

Then Pan each track where you want it.

Will that work for what you are trying to do?

Dave T2
blink3times wrote on 1/27/2007, 5:25 PM
If it's done that way then it comes out sounding very choppy. Isolating voices although time consuming work... is not that hard. The key to it all is mixing the original track back in with each of the individual tracks just created in proper proportions so that you get an even sound and not a choppy on/off sound... and that's what multi track sound editors do best.

The thing to understand about video editing versus audio editing is that the hunan ear is loads more sensitive than the eye.. You can make lots of video editing mistakes and get away with it. But with the human ear even the smallest flaw sticks out like a sore thumb.
Former user wrote on 1/27/2007, 5:45 PM
But Vegas is a MULTITRACK audio editor.

I guess I don't get what you are doing. Normally if you are planning on creating a 5.1 soundtrack, you shoot it with isolated tracks. You don't take a stereo track and try to split it out.

But I recognize this is not what your situation is, but Vegas can do most anything that any multitrack audio mixer/editor can do.

And I do disagree, the eye is everybit as sensitive to errors as the ears. If this wasn't true, then no one could stand to listen to an MP3.

Dave T2
blink3times wrote on 1/27/2007, 6:09 PM
Well first, You're looking at this as a one-step process and it is not. You have to render out the audio tracks several different times and bring it back in again to continue on with the next mixing phase. You're also looking at each track as an individual one with its own unique sound pattern, and this is not so. The rear track just for example, does not contain ONLY the cam operators voice... it contains very much the same as what the front track does, but in different proportions... the cam operators voice dominates on the rear track but it is not the only thing on that track... so the key to making dd51 work is not so much isolating.. but mixing.

Vegas (or anyother video editor for that matter) does not offer the kind of control that a sound editor does. It's not what they were built for... look at it this way... I can cut a cardboard box with a chain saw but then how sharp and refined will the edges be? To the other extreme, I can fell a tree with a box cutter, but then how long wil it take and how many blades will I chew up doing it?



"You don't take a stereo track and try to split it out."

Who made up this rule??
Former user wrote on 1/27/2007, 6:19 PM
Oh, I completely understand how 5.1 works. I wasn't suggesting that you just cut out what you don't want and let it sound choppy. I understand the mixing of elements to create smooth transitions of sound from side to side and front to rear.

I guess I don't understand your workflow. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I am saying that Vegas can do any amount of rendering out/panning/mixing that any other audio editor/mixer can do.

And I didn't say anything was a "rule". I meant that in an ideal situation, you isolate the tracks when shooting. Obviously, you are not shooting in an ideal situation so you have developed a workflow that works for you.

I would be interested in your whole process, but I have a feeling that it is probably too involved to present in this forum. Vegas was originally developed as an audio editor. The video part of it came much later in its evolution. So I use Vegas almost exclusively as my audio mixer now, even though I have worked with several in my career.

Good luck on your projects.

Dave T2
blink3times wrote on 1/27/2007, 6:34 PM
"Oh, I completely understand how 5.1 works. I wasn't suggesting that you just cut out what you don't want and let it sound choppy. I understand the mixing of elements to create smooth transitions of sound from side to side and front to rear."

Sorry Dave! I did not for one minute mean to make it sound is if you're a dumb guy!

The process goes a lot further than just vegas and audition... I'm using the end result of audtion (audio) with the end result of vegas (video) in conjuntion with yet a third program for a final result... a hybrid HD DVD for playback in the toshiba player. Audition also allows for very flexible output to the input of the third program required.

And yes you're absolutely right recording 5 individual track at the time of the shoot would be more efficient... but it does not suit my wallet! :)
LarryP wrote on 1/27/2007, 6:48 PM
Would duplicating tracks with the right click on the track header save some time and keep things in sync?

Also if you group the original and the 2 duplicats when you split a track all 3 get split automatically.

This may be one of the times where you would want to turn of "Quick Fade Audo Edits" on the options menu.

Still could be better.

Larry
blink3times wrote on 1/27/2007, 6:56 PM
"Would duplicating tracks with the right click on the track header save some time and keep things in sync?"

That's what I did when I first started this dd5.1 stuff... I would duplicate the tracks out then use pan, and volume adjustments along with a kareoke filter to form sort of rough dd5.1 tracks., and it sounded pretty good... but the more I did it, the more I became fascinated with dd5.1 and wanted a more finite, smoother sound... so I kind of grew out of that into my more present workflow.
farss wrote on 1/27/2007, 6:57 PM
Just so we're all clear, here's a bit of a history lesson. Vegas first and foremost was a multitrack recording and mixing application, for several versions before video was added. Vegas is not a traditional audio editor, Sound Forge is. At a pinch you can use Vegas as an audio editor but it's a real PIA which is hardly surprising as it was never designed to be one. Conversely SF is none too flash as a multitracker.

Sorry I can't help with your surround mixing issues, I've got location multitrack recording capabilities but not the gear or enough space for a 5.1 monitoring setup so I've had to pass on the pleasures of plumbing the depths of that one.

All I'd add is that is very unusual to have dialogue anywhere other than the centre channel, even in a cinema mix with an actor on either sides of the screen their voices are kept centre channel. I guess you've got a good reason for doing otherwise so all I can add is make certain you check how it sounds in both a stereo and mono mixdown.

Bob.
blink3times wrote on 1/27/2007, 7:10 PM
"All I'd add is that is very unusual to have dialogue anywhere other than the centre channel, even in a cinema mix with an actor on either sides of the screen their voices are kept centre channel. I guess you've got a good reason for doing otherwise so all I can add is make certain you check how it sounds in both a stereo and mono mixdown."

That's a very correct observation... but then there is no such thing as a cam operator's voice in a cinema mix. ALL the action is in front of the cam.
mikkie wrote on 1/28/2007, 1:08 PM
@blink3times...
If I understand correctly the object is to *not* take a stereo recording and create pseudo 5.1 though filtering like this: http://www.stevethomson.ca/vi/ . Instead you're more or less creating 5.1 after the fact, based on all the basic data being there in the stereo mix.

Based on that, it should be possible to do the same thing in Vegas, but, it might not be optimal, or practical for you compared to your current methods in Audition. Very understandable as Cooledit [basis for Audition] & Vegas started from different roots, progressing along different paths. And it would make little sense for you to change tools or workflows from the sounds of it. Like any tool, understanding the limitations makes for a better job
Bill Ravens wrote on 1/29/2007, 5:34 AM
this whole thread seems somewhat pointless. it's NOT the DAW or sequencer you choose to use, but, rather the sweetening effects you apply. any suitable sequencer will allow you to use 3rd party plugins. whether you use vegas or pro-tools..no diff, really. with all due respect to the xperts here, as usual, this forum gets distracted by ego and personal opinion.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/29/2007, 5:55 AM

with all due respect to the xperts here, as usual, this forum gets distracted by ego and personal opinion.

Bill, your wisdom never ceases to amaze me.


Bill Ravens wrote on 1/29/2007, 6:06 AM
LOL...Jay, u'r too kind. wish I could figure out how to make the alleged wisdom earn me a living.
;o)
Former user wrote on 1/29/2007, 6:24 AM
Isn't opinion part of the forum, particularly the original question? Isn't the idea of a forum to share experiences/opinions? Since we all have some ego (or else we would be another business) that will influence our opinions.

Dave T2
blink3times wrote on 1/29/2007, 6:25 AM
"If I understand correctly the object is to *not* take a stereo recording and create pseudo 5.1 though filtering like this: http://www.stevethomson.ca/vi/ . Instead you're more or less creating 5.1 after the fact, based on all the basic data being there in the stereo mix."

Yes... you about nailed it. I USED to use a couple of filters and a little panning and such to create pseudo (or fake) 5.1, but kind of grew out of that as I wanted more. I now create REAL DD5.1 or at least as real as I can get it by physically placing the appropriate sounds/voices (sigificant ones anyway) in its proper track, then mix the original track back in in proper proportions given the speaker in question, for background effects.

Vegas may have started out as a sound editor, but it is no longer just that... it has advanced as a video editor, and as a result it tends to be a bit of a slow and cumbersome affair. Audition on the other hand has advanced as a sound editor, because of course it is. The result is a lot of precision WITH speed. Notwithstanding, audition also allows me room to manuever with various filters... I can run them in real time AND/OR run them as a process (I will use both ways).


"this whole thread seems somewhat pointless. it's NOT the DAW or sequencer you choose to use, but, rather the sweetening effects you apply. any suitable sequencer will allow you to use 3rd party plugins. whether you use vegas or pro-tools..no diff, really. with all due respect to the xperts here, as usual, this forum gets distracted by ego and personal opinion."

You are certainly entitled to you opinion but personally speaking, I don't think ***ANY*** thread is pointless. They all contain some kind of info.... It all simply depends on weather or not the info is relitive to the reader.