@CubeAce

Hi Ray,

True, there is no way that I can see to modify an effect over time in MEP/VPX, only the amount of the effect that gets applied. Interesting. We can do this with video effects, but not audio effects. But then, these are video programs.

Is there something here that we could put on the wish list?

As for the initial question and one of your answers, it reminded me of the Kuleshov Effect applied to audio in that the perception of the location of the sound by the audience could depend on the visual. So, a shot of an aircraft overhead combined with an appropiate aircraft sound changing over time would give the impression that the sound came from overhead, although the speakers are in front/off to the side of the audience.

Here is a link to an article about the Kuleshov effect.

Now the hard part is to put this into practice.

John CB

@johnebaker

Thanks for mentionning the tutorial. I recalled having seen this but forgot that it was under Tutorials.

I just watched it again. The only problem that I can see is that there is no way to automate the amount of the Sends. Is that correct?

The only way would be to use the Aux1/2 on the object. Thus, would the capability to automate the Sends (to FX) in the Mixer be something that we should ask for?

John CB

Hi

The big problem with using the automation or drawing mode to add KFs is that it is hard too make the curve smooth as CubAce has said, and because you can not set a time interval at which it puts down the nodes, you end up with far too many to practically manually adjust / remove them. I think Vegas or Resolve has a command where you can delete intermediate nodes between 2 points and I suppose you could do something similar in the MEP KFramer by using Shift+Click...... but fiddly! BTW after using the same command to highlight a group of KFs you can drag them along temporally.

Other trick to make adjusting nodes on the effects curve easier, is to click the button to the right of the double headed arrow Optimise button at the bottom right of the arranger and the selected clip's track expands to fill the whole arranger. It can be returned to original size with another click on the same button.

Peter

@browj2

True, there is no way that I can see to modify an effect over time in MEP/VPX, only the amount of the effect that gets applied. Interesting. We can do this with video effects, but not audio effects. But then, these are video programs.

What about Edit Effects Curve = Rt click on the Aux effect in the KFramer?

Peter

@browj2

Hi John.

Like I said earlier, I think it's possibly overkill for most people and anyone wanting this type of editing would use a program with a more sophisticated audio section. Having said that, a dedicated erase tool for nodes would be much quicker considering how many nodes can be laid down when drawing in volume or other control commands and possibly a proper curve tool to produce parabola between selected points, needing less nodes to give smoother responses. While this is simple when working in stereo, it becomes a lot more complicated when working in 5.1 surround or higher. Even if working with binaural content, the mind boggles at the complexity of the task, which is why such recordings are normally done live and altered little afterward.

One of my studio tasks many years ago was producing sound effects which were primarily used in TV and radio commercials. I did on occasion get sent out to do field recordings with a portable Nagra machine which on return turned out to be useless, eventually leading to having to recreate them artificially in a studio environment. One example which sticks out in my memory was getting the effect of a hot air balloons' burner, which ended up with too many background distractions on any one take. We settled on using a blow torch and altering its pitch and speed over multi-layered takes in the studio instead. We never told the client what we did and they never queried its use.

Of course, in those days we had little in the way of automation and going from eight-track recording to 16 or more was really expensive. Patching was done via telephone exchange pannels and all effects had to be patched in manually. We would have loved not having to align tape machines every morning for the tape we were going to use along with head alignment etc. and checking our patch pannels before starting each session.

I can do more at home now than I could then, so most of the time I'm just greatful I can do anything as amazing as I can now at such little cost and with much less effort.

@browj2

Hi John

. . . . no way to automate the amount of the Sends. Is that correct . . . .

Thai is AFAICS correct, Automation is restricted to the volume and pan in the Mixer.

John EB

@browj2

I forgot to mention about the Kuleshov Effect and its proposals about changing perception which is not limited to one aspect of film work.

Where I live there is a lot of outside TV and film production work going on throughout the year. Most of it because we have a lot of areas with differing period buildings and streets. There are a lot of Victorian, Georgian, and even medieval groups of buildings which with little effort can be used for period drama that can span from Dickens onwards. One such use of the Kuleshov Effect I see happen is with filming locations. Typically with shots taken from two opposing angles. One shot would be somewhere I would normally recognise due to knowing it's location, but if the opposing view is of another area located perhaps miles away, my brain often doesn't recognise the first location at all as I'm not used to seeing a background that doesn't exist in the area that the first shot is taken. I still marvel at the power of this and perhaps one reason this is used is to stop fans from tracking down shooting locations so the film companies can come back whenever they need to with little disruption to their schedules. The other reason of course is because the opposite direction may have non-period items or buildings showing that would be too expensive to green screen or disguise out.

What about Edit Effects Curve = Rt click on the Aux effect in the KFramer?

Peter

@Scenestealer

Hi Peter,

As I indicated in one of the posts, AUX1 and 2 under Audio effects are for the object, not the track. They adjust the gain that is sent to the FX strips in the Mixer. In the FX strip, as shown in John EB's tutorial, you give it an effect. However, all that you are sending is the gain to the overall effect, and this can be modified by the AUX1/2 curves in the keyframe area or the curve on the object. What Ray is talking about is being able to keyframe the individual elements of an effect, like adjusting the Reverb characteristics or the levels of the Equalizer sliders on the bands over time, not just the amount of the overall effect. This can't be done, unless I am missing something.

John CB

@browj2

Hi John

Thanks for the explanation, and of course you are not missing something. After I posted that comment I did some more reading of the manual and experimenting and realized what you guys were trying to do....... so I was missing something!

Peter

@CubeAce

Hi Ray,

Just remembered that I wanted to comment on some of this.

In MEP's mixer, you can automate Volume and Panning:

1. Turn on Auto for the track
2. Set the playback marker where you want to start
3. Start playback
4. Move volume slider up and down and/or pan left and right
5. Track Automation curve will show up on the track as per the image below

On an object, go to Effects, Audio Effects, General, and you have Volume, Panorama, Aux1, Aux 2, Sharp filter, Smooth filter and distortion. Place keyframes as normal. Turn on the curve view in the Arranger by clicking on the Eye button beside the effect in the keyframe area.

Object volume curve can also be turned on by right-clicking and selecting Volume Curve.

For Objects, points can be added and modified directly on the curve in the object on the Arranger, but only deleted by using the keyframe tools.

For the Track, points can be moved, but it's a bit difficult, especially if there are a lot of points close together. They cannot be deleted. The best is to start playback and move the volume slider or panning knob to change the curve.

Here is a messy illustration. The colours of the curves can be changed in the keyframe area.

As you can see, controlling audio is fairly well covered in MEP. There are many more possibilities with effects on tracks and objects, including plugins.

John CB

 

What is the difference between the panning knobs in the mixer and the Panorama slider under the Audio Effects tab? Or are they both the same thing?

@FelixDunn

Hi Felix.

Using the Slider control is effectively the same as using the Drawing tool but not the same as using the Rotory control in the mixer. They all do the same job but only the Rotory Control in the mixer will physically appear to move during playback if used. If you need to see the Mixer itself automated and move sliders or controls or buttons being switched in or out during playback then they need to be recorded in use. If on the other hand you are happy to just see the curves in the audio tracks then use either the Panorama slider or the Curve tool to draw in the desired position.

Slider position sets the point from left to right, the same as using the curve tool.

The use of the Curve tool also needs the audio volume track line to be visible in the Audio track.

This is still assuming you are doing a stereo mix. Things get more complicated when you open the surround sound mixer and another set of positioning tools open that have their own set of tools for positioning tracks within the sound field that can be recorded individually live for each track in the mix, assuming you have your 5.1 surround sound audio record and playback on your PC set up.

There is only so far I can guide you from this point onward within MEP as so far I've only worked in stereo within MEP. I have looked at the Mixers capabilities but not used it for 5.1 surround work. I don't know if it will throw up any latency issues affecting sync to picture or other unseen problems or frustrations in use. A lot will depend on your systems ability to cope.

Ray.

@FelixDunn

Hi Felix,

Automation using the Mixer is for the track. If you subsequently move anything on that track, the automation stays where it is, i.e. it does not move with the object. In the image below, there is track automation on track 2 done by using the mixer. The object on track 3/4 was on track 1/2 and I moved it after doing track and object automation. The track automation stayed on track 2.

Automation using the Effects, Audio effects, i.e. curves on the object are at the object level. Move the object and the curves stay with it. In the image below, you can see the object automation in the Media Pool keyframe area and on the object. Object automation stays with the object.

John CB

@browj2

Very good point.

I missed that because I never do a mixdown of audio before I've laid down, and I am happy with, the visual side of things. I often forget other people have different workflow patterns.

@CubeAce @FelixDunn

Just to be clear for Felix in case he doesn't know what a mixdown is, it transforms audio clips and the audio from a video with any effects applied into a wave file.

Below - before. Note 3 AV objects on track 1/2 and 1 audio file on track 5:

All of the audio objects will be replaced by the resulting wave file:

Undo will put it all back. This wave file can now be edited in the external editor.

You can isolate objects for the mixdown by setting a range and muting any audio in that range that you don't want to be mixed down.

Here is the result. Only part of the audio on track 2 was mixed down:

Using track or object automation is independent of mixing down.

Edit: Workflow is an interesting topic as well. Just to start it off and since I use Audio & Music Lab Premium as the external audio editor, sometimes I need to clean up the audio from a video clip and want to use the tools in AML, like the Spectral Cleaner. I would do that to the audio clip before combining it with anything else or before doing a mixdown. I would probably do this before even completing the organization of the clips. Doing a mixdown to edit all or most of the audio, say, narration, I would do much later when everything is set - trimmed, in order etc. Then I would do a mixdown of that and possibly edit it in AML if needed. Then again, I don't always have narration, so I would do something else.

John CB

@FelixDunn

Hi Felix.

Using the Slider control is effectively the same as using the Drawing tool but not the same as using the Rotory control in the mixer. They all do the same job but only the Rotory Control in the mixer will physically appear to move during playback if used. If you need to see the Mixer itself automated and move sliders or controls or buttons being switched in or out during playback then they need to be recorded in use. If on the other hand you are happy to just see the curves in the audio tracks then use either the Panorama slider or the Curve tool to draw in the desired position.

Slider position sets the point from left to right, the same as using the curve tool.

The use of the Curve tool also needs the audio volume track line to be visible in the Audio track.

This is still assuming you are doing a stereo mix. Things get more complicated when you open the surround sound mixer and another set of positioning tools open that have their own set of tools for positioning tracks within the sound field that can be recorded individually live for each track in the mix, assuming you have your 5.1 surround sound audio record and playback on your PC set up.

There is only so far I can guide you from this point onward within MEP as so far I've only worked in stereo within MEP. I have looked at the Mixers capabilities but not used it for 5.1 surround work. I don't know if it will throw up any latency issues affecting sync to picture or other unseen problems or frustrations in use. A lot will depend on your systems ability to cope.

Ray.

Please remind me again, if you have a sound effect clip that was recorded in Stereo, is it best to change it to Mono before doing things to it such as panning? If the answer is yes, then why?

@FelixDunn

Hi Felix.

There is no ultimate best way. Try both and see which works best within that mix. A lot will depend on how the ambient acoustics of the track you wish to place into the soundscape blends with the ambience of the track it's placed into.

It may still not work convincingly either way.

The sound may need further sculpting in a dynamic, changing way, using a shifting and combined use of pitch and tone, with perhaps even a further blended overlay of a second or third element (additional sound/s).

Take something you may be famililiar with as an example. A Star Wars light sabre. Listen to its tonal variations and speed of the changes during one movement as it arcs and the added sounds when it's moving. The additional sounds added when they strike an object or another beam.

Now, what if your generated sound you need is never seen within the scene itself? You have the separate problem of getting the viewer to understand what the sound was within a very short timeframe.

Sound sculpting is as much a science as an art form. It needs imagination as well as understanding, and the two can't really be separated. Because visuals are often the dominant force of our senses, people often forget how much effort goes into the things we let flow over our sub-conscience without noticing until it doesn't work.

@FelixDunn

Hi Felix.

There is no ultimate best way. Try both and see which works best within that mix. A lot will depend on how the ambient acoustics of the track you wish to place into the soundscape blends with the ambience of the track it's placed into.

It may still not work convincingly either way.

The sound may need further sculpting in a dynamic, changing way, using a shifting and combined use of pitch and tone, with perhaps even a further blended overlay of a second or third element (additional sound/s).

Take something you may be famililiar with as an example. A Star Wars light sabre. Listen to its tonal variations and speed of the changes during one movement as it arcs and the added sounds when it's moving. The additional sounds added when they strike an object or another beam.

Now, what if your generated sound you need is never seen within the scene itself? You have the separate problem of getting the viewer to understand what the sound was within a very short timeframe.

Sound sculpting is as much a science as an art form. It needs imagination as well as understanding, and the two can't really be separated. Because visuals are often the dominant force of our senses, people often forget how much effort goes into the things we let flow over our sub-conscience without noticing until it doesn't work.

Hi,

Well a lot of the time I have scenes which need ambient street/city effects coming from outside the window of a building. Like how you get in soap operas. And also other sounds like glasses being put down on a table or bar, water being poured from a kettle, or a character fumbling around in a cupboard or drawer, etc.

Hello Felix

I'm sure you have plenty of information by now. People here are very helpful indeed. Just thought I'd add some simplistic ideas that have been covered more or less ... I've been doing audio since the 60's using analog equipment then moved up to 24 bit digital. Expensive equipment or technical analysis is great but honestly as pointed out its nothing more than trial and error. Depending on the circumstances if its not 'critical close dialogue' you might get away with sound effects? But that may not be your dilemma. Interestingly enough Foley was very popular in the 40's - 50's and now has been perfected. But the biggest mistake was reproducing a sound originally recorded in an exterior environment inside the studio. For an engineer (or even a layperson) the sonic difference eventually became obvious to most ears. It was considered a classic approach. Some producers use strickly ADR, many 50's science fiction movies were made that way. But that's also a lot of work requiring the same actors to come into your studio and recite lines over and over until a reasonable match. Possible but tedious. I've done it. Someone here suggested reproducing as best you can (as it went to print originally). Your samples apparently are a mix of exterior and interior so that could involve some work. But simply 'massaging' the existing audio (as you have been doing) is sure worth a try! It doesn't have to be complicated as I've always found simple solutions: adding a little delay, reverb, echo or just tweaking the EQ until you get something that sounds acceptable? I've also taken it to the extreme and created my own dialogue or sound effects that simply weren't available on 'Sound Dogs' But if its 'close dialogue' that will be more challenging. So yes (as pointed out) how important is this 'fix' for your project? Depending upon your perfection level, you 'could' find all the tools you need within Magix? As CubeAce pointed out: "people often forget how much effort goes into the things we let flow over our sub-conscience without noticing until it doesn't work" Along the same thinking: how many people will actually know you substituted a different sound or a simple tweak to simply satisfy the ear? If you've already found a solution - GREAT. I have some sound stages I created for documentaries but that's probably different than your problem. Hang In - Good Luck

@FelixDunn

Hi Felix.

So at what level are these productions?

Home / one person with friends helping out for fun?

College / school / similar production for exam grades?

Struggling start-up production company hoping to produce broadcast standard videos?

I ask because it's beginning to sound like serious continuous production problems, and solutions could start to become very time consuming or expensive. Solutions could save time or money or both, or need more monetary outlay, become more complex, involve more cost for effective time management.

A lot depends on your schedules and needs.

A very good source of information at a professional level is found at this microphone manufactures website.

https://www.dpamicrophones.com/mic-university

But a lot of their solutions would involve a lot of financial layout for effective production time management.

MEP, as wonderful as it is, is really for relatively simple straightforward use with tools for fast, straightforward but simple solutions for the not-so-precise type of home production and maybe simple production of school/college work.

If serious but simpler production is needed or taking a course in film making, then Vegas or Pro Tools Lite would be a better production tool.

If needs are higher, then full-blown Pro Tools or Nuendo, along with the necessary hardware would, in the long term, save you a lot of time and eventually money. Both can handle complex visual and multichannel audio recording and playback needs but need serious hardware in all chains to be of use.

Other sources of good information are.

The BBC Sound Engineers Handbook and Yamaha's Sound Reinforcement Handbook for basic microphone techniques, use and placement.

Also, it sounds as if you could do with mixing it up between Foley, sound effects, and ADR which are separate dedicated arts within sound production.

What are the differences?

Have a look here for simplified explanations. http://www.marblehead.net/foley/whatisitman.html

There are other sources of information to be found at the BBC website, covering all areas of TV and film production.

@CubeAce  @FelixDunn

I'm sure Ray intended to include Magix own Video Pro X in his list of "serious" video editor packages!! (I hope.)

Jeff

@emmrecs

Unfortunately, I haven't tried that Magix Program whereas I know for production work that Pro Tools and Nuendo can support as many audio input and output channels as the hardware permits. That their ability to route to endless sets of subgroups can be useful in this area of use. I would think Video Pro X fits along the lines of Vegas and Pro Tools lite but that would be a guess on my part. 😉

It was not a deliberate omission but rather one I have no experience of.

@CubeAce

Understood! 😀

However, I think I can very confidently say that VPX does fulfil your criteria for "production work".

Jeff