I got asked to do some judging for the local Emmys

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Yesterday I got to do some judging for the local Emmys. I attended a listening session in my mentor's main studio and we had about 11 entries to listen to an judge on audio quality. I heard some really good audio and I heard some not so good audio. The good audio was well done and was a credit to the engineers who did it. The not so good audio sounded like the person doing it had really not listened to what he or she was doing on a high quality playback system at normal listening levels.

The one that really upset me the most was a documentary where the audio commentary had been edited but you could plainly hear when the audio was chopped. The background sound just disappeared and I was left with hearing a lot of clips that were suppose to be a continuous flow but instead were choppy edits with digital black between them. If the audio engineer had listened to this on a good system he or she would have, I hope, immediately heard the problem and hopefully fixed it.

The other one that really upset me was some audio that was recorded in the field. The lav microphone was not correctly placed on the various talents who were recorded standing in a field (I have to assume a one camera one lav shoot) and then someone in post decided to make them all sound the same by running it through a plug-in to equalize the levels and it sounded really sloppy and you could tell that the original audio was not well done or well recorded. (Why don't location camera people wear good quality headphones so they can judge the quality of the sound as it is being recorded and why would someone in post try and make all the voice sound louder not better?)

Anyway it was an ear opening experience and I have already been asked back for next year.

Just thought you would be interested.

[Jesse Peterson]

curious, these bad examples.. are they nominated for sound emmy's? If so, why do you think that is? politics? or are there other redeeming qualities?

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by Jesse Peterson

curious, these bad examples.. are they nominated for sound emmy's? If so, why do you think that is? politics? or are there other redeeming qualities?

The video was very well done. Either they never listened to the audio on a good system or ????? who knows.

[dr.sound]

Tom,
Having judged over fifty different Audio award panels,
I personally think it is bad taste to put up a description on the web of what you judged and what you thought of the quality of the mixes.
It is quite shocking sometimes what the wide difference in quality can be, but it shouldn't be posted.
Just my thoughts.

[D'Animation]

I wouldn't usually comment on anything like this but having heard similar sentiments here in the last few weeks, it might make sense here.

Namely, you do not know what was happening or what was said in that mix room that may have resulted in the final product...sure you judge them for what they are but bad shows don't automatically mean bad engineers.

Watched a Oscar winning short last week and the foley sounds and general editing was way off to me but maybe that was what they wanted....
my 2c

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by dr.sound

Tom,
Having judged over fifty different Audio award panels,
I personally think it is bad taste to put up a description on the web of what you judged and what you thought of the quality of the mixes.
It is quite shocking sometimes what the wide difference in quality can be, but it shouldn't be posted.
Just my thoughts.

No names were used in my description and I tried very hard to paint with a very broad brush so no would would know it was their effort I was talking about. There was some really bad audio being done and/or the audio engineers who do the recording and assembly are letting their audio be ruined by an over zealous editor/producer. My work is judged by my clients on a daily basis and they certainly let me know about when I make a mistake. Since these audio clips were up for a nomination why is it that they would all not be the best the people could possibly do.

As an after thought it might be a good idea for these types of nominations to be tallied up and sent back to the people who have nominated themselves so they can see why they were not chosen. No names and no hint of who was judging them but just the results.

I really like transparency in government and in judging.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by D'Animation

I wouldn't usually comment on anything like this but having heard similar sentiments here in the last few weeks, it might make sense here.

Namely, you do not know what was happening or what was said in that mix room that may have resulted in the final product...sure you judge them for what they are but bad shows don't automatically mean bad engineers.

Watched a Oscar winning short last week and the foley sounds and general editing was way off to me but maybe that was what they wanted....
my 2c

All I can do is judge what is presented to me and not worry about what went on in the editing room or during the field recording. There has to be someone who says "this is the final result of our effort and it is the best we know how to do" and if that person is worrying more about the video content and not the total show they need to be reminded that IMHO audio makes up more than 50% of the total presentation. Some of what I heard would probably sound fine on a 3.5 inch speaker but when it is listened to on a full range playback system, which many people today have, it needs to be better.

[BeK$]

Originally Posted by dr.sound

Tom,
Having judged over fifty different Audio award panels,
I personally think it is bad taste to put up a description on the web of what you judged and what you thought of the quality of the mixes.
It is quite shocking sometimes what the wide difference in quality can be, but it shouldn't be posted.
Just my thoughts.

Why not? My thoughts are that they should.

[BeK$]

Just in general Ive had my cable box hooked up to my home studio and I watch tv on my jbls. Some of the stuff is just horrible but I tend to watch lots of documentaries and in my opinion its due to having something done in house under budget.

In regards to wondering how this piece could be nominated? Well Im sure we can get into a discussion on how clients really dont have an ear compared to mixers etc... Its all about who is doing the nominating and why. Not everyone thinks along the lines as we do even though they should when it comes to audio. Im sure your already living that life and we can all refer to the thread which I cant remember off the top of my head in the post site on here of funny things clients have said.

[soundfx]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

All I can do is judge what is presented to me and not worry about what went on in the editing room or during the field recording. There has to be someone who says "this is the final result of our effort and it is the best we know how to do" and if that person is worrying more about the video content and not the total show they need to be reminded that IMHO audio makes up more than 50% of the total presentation. Some of what I heard would probably sound fine on a 3.5 inch speaker but when it is listened to on a full range playback system, which many people today have, it needs to be better.

Agreed. There is no excuse for laziness and ineptitude in audio considering the vast wealth of resources and talent available today. I still can't believe there are ANY crappy sounding commercials/docs/Indie films anymore, but they abound because of cheap budgets and idiots at the helm.

[ripple_fx1]

often the entry process isn't merit based, but whether or not a supplier wants to pony up the entry fee in order to win an award for their client in an effort to win future projects. i'm sure some of the best work wasn't entered simply because nobody wanted to buy their own trophy.

[soundfx]

Originally Posted by ripple_fx1

often the entry process isn't merit based, but whether or not a supplier wants to pony up the entry fee in order to win an award for their client in an effort to win future projects. i'm sure some of the best work wasn't entered simply because nobody wanted to buy their own trophy.

This is very true. I won a regional Emmy last week for something that was OK, but not fabulous, and that I also forgot about. So my suspicion-level is on high-alert for these kinds of things. Regional Emmys AND Promax are highly suspect. I've won a few gold Promax awards and always suspected they might have been BOUGHT by those who WANTED publicity the most. Not that my work isn't good, but still...the whole process seems suspect and can be manipulated by money for sure.

[D'Animation]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

All I can do is judge what is presented to me and not worry about what went on in the editing room or during the field recording. There has to be someone who says "this is the final result of our effort and it is the best we know how to do" and if that person is worrying more about the video content and not the total show they need to be reminded that IMHO audio makes up more than 50% of the total presentation. Some of what I heard would probably sound fine on a 3.5 inch speaker but when it is listened to on a full range playback system, which many people today have, it needs to be better.

I was agreeing with you actually - yes you should indeed judge what is put in front of you and subjectively analyse with your own ears and skills.

But, for example, if someone played Public Enemies to you (think we've all read the thread here on it...), knowing it was a big budget/high talent production, it would be baffling the mixers wanted the final level decisions that were made...I'm pretty sure the mixers were not saying thats the "best we know how to do" on that one

[D'Animation]

Originally Posted by ripple_fx1

often the entry process isn't merit based, but whether or not a supplier wants to pony up the entry fee in order to win an award for their client in an effort to win future projects. i'm sure some of the best work wasn't entered simply because nobody wanted to buy their own trophy.

This is indeed the way - a show I worked on (one of the worst things I've actually done TBH) was scheduled so wrong I ended up fx editing and mixing each 10 min ep in about 6 hrs. It was crap but they put it forward under any category they could

[cubivore]

first of all, wth are LOCAL emmys?! second of all, why haven't i got one?!

i will bet $1000 of you guys' money that the crappy audio was done by video editors dfegad

[soundfx]

Originally Posted by cubivore

first of all, wth are LOCAL emmys?! second of all, why haven't i got one?!

i will bet $1000 of you guys' money that the crappy audio was done by video editors dfegad

I think they're regional, one division for each quadrant of the country, but I'm probably totally wrong. As for video editors doing audio, I was working on a short last week and the VIDEO editor did the ADR. I asked the actors to come in and redo it all (since it was recorded on an RE-20...and badly) and they were shocked, since they had already spent two hours with the VIDEO editor doing it. What the hell is WRONG with editors and producers???? I wouldn't re-cut your damn video, so why do you think you can do audio???? Eek.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by soundfx

I think they're regional, one division for each quadrant of the country, but I'm probably totally wrong. As for video editors doing audio, I was working on a short last week and the VIDEO editor did the ADR. I asked the actors to come in and redo it all (since it was recorded on an RE-20...and badly) and they were shocked, since they had already spent two hours with the VIDEO editor doing it. What the hell is WRONG with editors and producers???? I wouldn't re-cut your damn video, so why do you think you can do audio???? Eek.

Because most video editors think AUDIO is a necessary evil that they have to "contend" with instead of telling more than half (IMHO) of the story. Most video editors are so worried about how things look (and will spend hours tweaking frame by frame) but will only spend a few minutes trying to sync up audio or doing a last minute audio edit that that producer is too cheap to hire the audio engineer to do.

Many times, in their defense, the production is done and ready to be shown or burned and someone hears something that they don't like or ??? and the producer asks the video editor to tweak the audio so the production can go forward. Since the video editor is usually the last one to work on the production it falls to him or her to do the final audio tweaks most of the time.

I think that is when a lot of these problems occur since there is a time crunch and the producer just wants to get it done and get paid and assumes, wrongly, that most people will not hear the problem(s).

FWIW and YMMV