Cutting Edge in Post Sound

[charles maynes]

for vfx heavy films it can be a total nightmare....

as to conforming console automation- the stage techs manage to do it pretty transparently. maybe they have some special magic going for them....

[JSt0rm]

When I conform sessions I conform the predubs or temp mix stems and the units. So its not easier to carry the predubs because the units must be ready to go at the drop of the hat. The good thing about the harrisons is the "mix" sessions are just volume automation so you dont need to worry as much about stray automation stuff.

[MixMasterM]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

for vfx heavy films it can be a total nightmare....

as to conforming console automation- the stage techs manage to do it pretty transparently. maybe they have some special magic going for them....

Ya, that makes sense...the stage techs would do the console automation, so the editors would be dealing with the editorial conforms....and not need to deal with any underlying (or at least minimal) automation for plug ins, send, masters , vca's etc.

Here in Vancouver, as a mixer/sound supervisor, I don't have the luxury of "stage techs", as resources are minimal. I had to work on a Soundtracs DPCII 10 years or so ago, and remember the nightmare of conforming a project on it, as well as all the editorial sessions. Not fun! So, was sure happy when virtual mixing became more common here. Since then, most of the projects I was on, I just conformed the PT mix sessions. Still complex, but at least, once it was done, the mix played back smoothly, and with no surprises.

[BenLoftis]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

as to conforming console automation- the stage techs manage to do it pretty transparently. maybe they have some special magic going for them....

Yes, this is no longer an issue on Harrison systems. You can import a change list file and/or build a change list and then click "conform". There's even a way to let a Soundmaster system conform ALL the PT machines and a Harrison console simultaneously from a single change list using USB and serial remote controls.

-Ben Loftis
Harrison Consoles

[BenLoftis]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

(I should add- the Harrison has certain features that are so far in advance of everything else that it is actually faster to work on their consoles- but again, thats just my opinion)

Wow, thanks for the nice comments, Charles! We have worked VERY HARD over the last few years and it's nice to see it was appreciated.

If we're talking about dub-stage mixing, I'd suggest these items for potential inclusion in a "cutting edge" presentation:

1) waveforms over each channel strip, synced to the playback machines
2) auto-conform of PT and console automation from a single change list
3) object-oriented mixing ( Dolby Atmos and upcoming Harrison MPC feature )

-Ben
Harrison Consoles

[georgia]

Love mixing on Euphonix, owned a 96 fader Euphonix system 5 with around 200 IO, owned a 48 fader - 190+ IO Neve capricorn, mixed broadcast on a Studer, mixed a feature on an SSL 4000 and a lot in the box... and even totally crashed an SSL 9000 on a film mix due to excessive automation moves!

But i'm dying to mix a film on a Harrison!


cheers
geo

[fredharris]

Originally Posted by BenLoftis

3) object-oriented mixing ( Dolby Atmos and upcoming Harrison MPC feature )

You hit one from my dream!

Any chance of letting out some details on that?

[ggegan]

I think I've recorded predubs on maybe three films in the last 6 years. I've been a rerecording mixer here in LA for well over twenty years, so I've done many more projects where I've recorded predubs than I've done automation-only predubs on, but I'm very familiar with both workflows.

My experience has been that doing recorded predubs takes longer than automation predubs, because you have to take the time and effort to consider and maintain the separation of elements in order to keep your options open in the final, which usually requires a fair amount of rebussing and housekeeping tasks like making sure that whatever reverb you are using is going only to the correct predub. With automation predubs, you can also do a number of offline finessing tasks that would take longer if you had to record the changes.

On the other hand, conforms are easier with recorded predubs and if you end up having to unwind your predubs often in the final because the director wants to play, you make more money, because you're going to be working more overtime.

I'll take automated predubs any day. For me it is a superior workflow from a mixing POV. I understand why some editors dislike them, because I've done plenty of PT mix session conforms and I know how tricky they can be. Recorded predubs may be easier for some of the crew, but they are not easier for me, and IMO not better in terms of the final product, at least not on the projects I've worked on. That could be because I usually work on medium and modest budget projects with more restrictive time constraints.

Still, if the powers-that-be want recorded predubs, I'll do them and not complain.

[philper]

Originally Posted by ggegan

I think I've recorded predubs on maybe three films in the last 6 years. I've been a rerecording mixer here in LA for well over twenty years, so I've done many more projects where I've recorded predubs than I've done automation-only predubs on, but I'm very familiar with both workflows.

My experience has been that doing recorded predubs takes longer than automation predubs, because you have to take the time and effort to consider and maintain the separation of elements in order to keep your options open in the final, which usually requires a fair amount of rebussing and housekeeping tasks like making sure that whatever reverb you are using is going only to the correct predub. With automation predubs, you can also do a number of offline finessing tasks that would take longer if you had to record the changes.

On the other hand, conforms are easier with recorded predubs and if you end up having to unwind your predubs often in the final because the director wants to play, you make more money, because you're going to be working more overtime.

I'll take automated predubs any day. For me it is a superior workflow from a mixing POV. I understand why some editors dislike them, because I've done plenty of PT mix session conforms and I know how tricky they can be. Recorded predubs may be easier for some of the crew, but they are not easier for me, and IMO not better in terms of the final product, at least not on the projects I've worked on. That could be because I usually work on medium and modest budget projects with more restrictive time constraints.

Still, if the powers-that-be want recorded predubs, I'll do them and not complain.

I think I understand the "recorded" predub thing and its problems pretty well. When you say "automation predub", do you mean that you premix and write automation for both plugs and levels etc on a system in a smaller room, and then take that exact same project and all the plug ins used to the dubstage as-is and go on from there?

phil p

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by philper

I think I understand the "recorded" predub thing and its problems pretty well. When you say "automation predub", do you mean that you premix and write automation for both plugs and levels etc on a system in a smaller room, and then take that exact same project and all the plug ins used to the dubstage as-is and go on from there?

phil p

Yes. That's a virtual pre-dub

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Yes. That's a virtual pre-dub

I always call them virtual predubs, too, but I didn't know if everyone would know what I was talking about.

BTW, just because you do virtual predubs, doesn't mean you can't do the final on a conventional console like a Neve or Harrison. I've done that many times. The only issue is that most stages I've worked on with conventional consoles use multiple HD2s or HD3s as source machines, and usually I do virtual predubs on one or two HD6s, so I usually need to break up my big sessions into smaller sessions in order for the stage's source machines to be able to handle all the tracks and automation. Often I also have to install my reverb and specialty plugins, too, because stages with conventional consoles tend to spend their money on outboard reverb hardware rather than PT plugins.

[philper]

Originally Posted by ggegan

I always call them virtual predubs, too, but I didn't know if everyone would know what I was talking about.

BTW, just because you do virtual predubs, doesn't mean you can't do the final on a conventional console like a Neve or Harrison. I've done that many times. The only issue is that most stages I've worked on with conventional consoles use multiple HD2s or HD3s as source machines, and usually I do virtual predubs on one or two HD6s, so I usually need to break up my big sessions into smaller sessions in order for the stage's source machines to be able to handle all the tracks and automation. Often I also have to install my reverb and specialty plugins, too, because stages with conventional consoles tend to spend their money on outboard reverb hardware rather than PT plugins.

So how much of a deal is doing all that, or is that done commonly enough that it doesn't matter to anyone? Do you figure that the time spent at the dubstage breaking up the sessions, getting your plugs to work and converting the bussing etc from your PT mixer to the console is still a savings over recorded predubs, mixed either with a console or ITB on the stage's computers? Do you think the industry, at least in LA, is moving more towards your "virtual" approach or towards the "recorded predub" approach?

phil p

[ggegan]

Originally Posted by philper

So how much of a deal is doing all that, or is that done commonly enough that it doesn't matter to anyone? Do you figure that the time spent at the dubstage breaking up the sessions, getting your plugs to work and converting the bussing etc from your PT mixer to the console is still a savings over recorded predubs, mixed either with a console or ITB on the stage's computers? Do you think the industry, at least in LA, is moving more towards your "virtual" approach or towards the "recorded predub" approach?

phil p

I prefer not to work on conventional consoles at all, but that isn't always a choice. It isn't that big of a deal to break up the sessions if all the reels are in one session, but if the reels are each in a separate session, then you have a lot of work on your hands.

I'd say that there seems to be less movement towards embracing virtual predubs at the high end of the business, and more movement in that direction towards the lower end of the spectrum. Part of that is probably economics, control surfaces are cheaper than consoles with self contained processing, and part is probably because the older mixers, who tend to be more resistant to new trends, are usually the ones working on tentpole projects, and younger mixers, who are more likely to embrace new technologies and workflows, tend to start out their careers working on lower budget projects. By the time they climb the ladder there will probably be new ways of working that they will tend to be resistant to. This is obviously not a universal truth, I know of many exceptions to this generalization (Myself being one of them. I'm older, I don't work on tentpole projects and I love learning new technologies and workflows), but I do think that it is a part of human nature.

[BenLoftis]

Originally Posted by fredharris

You hit one from my dream!

Any chance of letting out some details on that?

Oops, I can't share many details yet, sorry. I'll try to get clearance to talk about it in the next week or so.

-Ben

[fredharris]

Originally Posted by BenLoftis

Oops, I can't share many details yet, sorry. I'll try to get clearance to talk about it in the next week or so.

-Ben

Very much looking forward to that.

[PeterN]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Sound

Dolby atmos is pretty cutting edge.

Hahaha. That's really funny. Dolby Atmos is an old idea with some expensive marketing.

Get in contact with the guys at IOSONO. They have invented a wavefield-based cinema system years back,
which is by far more advanced than everything Dolby has to offer with Atmos. Atmos just adds a few speakers
to a given room and allows for more flexibility in panning the audio signals. The wavefield system can do all
this, but has the advantage that you're sitting in the sweet-spot - no matter where your seat is located
in the cinema. Have heard it once and it was mindblowing.

Now that's curring edge.

[londonengineer]

Originally Posted by PeterN

Atmos just adds a few speakers
to a given room and allows for more flexibility in panning the audio signals.

A gross oversimplification.

[PeterN]

Originally Posted by londonengineer

A gross oversimplification.

I don't believe that. I know Dolby quiet well. They always try to describe things as being "complicated" to defend the need of expensive consultancy (while again trying to establish a format monopoly), but in this case it IS rather simple.

Object-based mixing is not at all something new. And the idea of adding loudspeaker rows and "god"-channels is also old stuff. Auro has it, IMMSOUND (now bought by Dolby) had it.

So I hardly can see what is "cutting edge" here.

[nucelar]

I know some of the guys at imm. They spent 7 years in R&D, very bright minds. The fact Dolby bought them means IMO they were doing it right.
Just to be clear. This new atmos-imm system is not merely "adding speakers and being able to fancily pan between them" it involves state-of-the-art 3D audio processing. Not to mention all other practical challenges like DAW and dub stage integration, compatibility with digital cinema standards, automatic calibration methods of such complex setups, down-and upmix algorithms, etc.
Wavefield synthesis is also cutting-edge concept, but IMO to work well you need an insane number of speakers to be true, which in a cinema environment is not realizable.
Cheers

[dr.sound]

Iosono looks good on paper but after seeing 3 different playback demos in 3 different theaters I am not impressed. You can't edit your mix if there is any picture edit or revisions. They now use less speakers and smaller speaker across the whole room including the front wall. The dialog for example becomes thin and has no body. They have subs in both the front and rear walls that are not timed/delayed correctly. It had promise but failed in my book.

[PeterN]

Originally Posted by nucelar

I know some of the guys at imm. They spent 7 years in R&D, very bright minds. The fact Dolby bought them means IMO they were doing it right.
Just to be clear. This new atmos-imm system is not merely "adding speakers and being able to fancily pan between them" it involves state-of-the-art 3D audio processing. Not to mention all other practical challenges like DAW and dub stage integration, compatibility with digital cinema standards, automatic calibration methods of such complex setups, down-and upmix algorithms, etc.
Wavefield synthesis is also cutting-edge concept, but IMO to work well you need an insane number of speakers to be true, which in a cinema environment is not realizable.
Cheers

If I would be Dolby, I would have bought IMMSOUND too. That was a clever move. But all that 3D audio processing or "complex" down- and upmix algorithms, DAW integration etc. - all this is exisiting for years. I'm referring to the thread opener who looks for "cutting edge technologies". I don't believe he wants to judge wether an investment in x-number of speakers might be useful in a certain cinema room or not. From what I understood the thread opener looks for the technically most advanced system, "cutting edge" so to speak.

Dolby has brought surround sound to theaters, but they also have judged the market as they like.

IMHO, after decades it's finally time for an open format and not a closed Dolby something.

[fredharris]

Originally Posted by PeterN

If I would be Dolby, I would have bought IMMSOUND too. That was a clever move. But all that 3D audio processing or "complex" down- and upmix algorithms, DAW integration etc. - all this is exisiting for years. I'm referring to the thread opener who looks for "cutting edge technologies". I don't believe he wants to judge wether an investment in x-number of speakers might be useful in a certain cinema room or not. From what I understood the thread opener looks for the technically most advanced system, "cutting edge" so to speak.

Dolby has brought surround sound to theaters, but they also have judged the market as they like.

IMHO, after decades it's finally time for an open format and not a closed Dolby something.

Thanks for your input, PeterN. What would be an open format, in your opinion?

[charles maynes]

all of these extended formats are quite exciting, but I for one would like to see an absolute guarantee of a simply idiot proof, guaranteed to be working 5.1 reproduction system we could count on for every cinema our end product might be shown in.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

all of these extended formats are quite exciting, but I for one would like to see an absolute guarantee of a simply idiot proof, guaranteed to be working 5.1 reproduction system we could count on for every cinema our end product might be shown in.

That's not cutting edge.
Thats Science Fiction.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by Henchman

That's not cutting edge.
This Science Fiction.

thats a win!

[BenLoftis]

Hi everyone, sorry for the long delay!

Last month I made a comment about our new "cutting edge" Post Sound technology. After presenting it to a few of our closest film mixer friends, we made a few operational tweaks and ... most importantly ... came up with a name for it:

Object++

This feature has been a dream of ours for a long time. The major breakthrough was our patented "ESP Waveform" technology which debuted a few years ago. This allows us to know when sounds are playing, on which track, for every playback machine on the dub stage.

With Object++, you can view the sounds that are CURRENTLY playing from any source, at any time in the timeline, and then box-select the objects that you'd like to mix or pan on the console faders.

So, for example, if the director says "the stuff on the right is distracting me from the dialog", you can quickly grab everything on the right side that's playing NOW, and bring it to the faders, or perform other operations such as create a Remote (VCA) Fader group.

We don't have any official screenshots or pictures yet, but viewers of this thread can get a preview here.

The objects are shown from ALL of your playback machines simultaneously... but only the ones that are active now! Adjustable controls allow you to choose how long the sounds are visible before and after they occur in the timeline. Like our ESP waveforms, this provides a huge workflow advantage when you are dealing with dozens or hundreds of tracks.

So far, we've had very intense interest when we present this to mixers. Please tell us what you think!

Best Regards,
Ben Loftis
Harrison Consoles

[Henchman]

Ben, with the console in preview, can I select a region, loop it, change parameters, and write to selection? Can I copy all automation and past to fill it to a selected region? Having not used a newer Hartison console, just wondering if these are functions available in the automation. And can I select the regions by dragging a cursor on the screen?

[BenLoftis]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Ben, with the console in preview, can I select a region, loop it, change parameters, and write to selection?

Yes, of course! "Preview" has been a part of console automation for about 30 years now. We have a feature called "Region Write" which allows you to write your changes to a region selection. Once you've got your settings, you can go forward to the end of the region, backwards to the beginning, or both at once.

Originally Posted by Henchman

Can I copy all automation and past to fill it to a selected region?

Yes, you can copy/paste automation on the timeline, and even across different automation files. The console can load a change list (EDL), or you can enter a list of events by hand and then click the "execute" button to apply them all simultaneously. In fact, we have a collaboration with Soundmaster which allows you to apply a change list to the console PLUS all of your ProTools machines simultaneously! Using this feature you can conform all the playback machines and the console with a single EDL. Pretty cool! (this was already discussed earlier in the thread, btw)

Originally Posted by Henchman

And can I select the regions by dragging a cursor on the screen?

Are you referring to the screenshot I posted in the previous message? Yes, in the screenshot you can see a "box" around the selected sounds which will then be brought to the console faders. And it doesn't even matter if the sounds are coming from multiple playback machines! They will all be brought in front of you regardless of the source they represent!

Best,
Ben

[BenLoftis]

Sorry, several people missed the link. I guess I should be posting the pic itself instead:



This feature will be available on all of our post and film consoles.

Best,
Ben