you're confusing harmonic overtones with problem frequencies. Te technique is common, but you are not listening to the right frequencies. The dialogue has lost all body.
I was sweeping a lot of frequencies for harsh resonances on dialogue before, but be careful using that technique. In my experience you sometimes create a lot of problems that arent a problem. If you dont hear the problems before sweeping, they are not a problem for me. In my opinion these kind of passes makes the dialogue sound worse. Just my opinion though.
Totally agree. I think this boost and sweep thing is largely pointless, if not problematic. But I'm guessing in this case, kind of like he mentioned, he's doing things that he probably wouldn't do if it was more dialogue with nothing else going on in the scene. These are extra precautions to allow for music or sound effects to be behind the vocal without as much conflict and clashing.
This seems weird to me, if you sweep through any recording of any kind, even with the best mics available you're going to find 'problems', and hacking out that amount of frequencies loses all tone in the vocal. Would it not be easier and more natural to use a mutliband or dynamic eq, so then if those 'problem' frequencies are peaking, they're dealt with in the time frame they become problematic and not just lumping them out completely. Maybe this is the difference between Music production vocal mixing and Post production vocal mixing?
I agree completely. Boosting any frequency by 10 or 15 decibels is going to make them sound bad and "problems" come out. But yes I think you're correct that this is something they have to do more for post-production to allow the vocal to not conflict with background music or effects.
Hi Mark, I would love to know how the information in this video applies to dialogue recorded outside, especially in noisy environments where non-dialogue sounds are just as important as the dialogue. I find when mixing exterior dialogue, when appyling basic grades and EQ sweeps, the dialogue quickly becomes thin or brittle, as do the ambient sounds. What are your recommendations for mixing/grading this type of audio? Thanks for sharing all of your knowledge .. so valuable!
I've never ever heard the term "grade" being used by any dialog mixer in 30 years. And never seen anyone normalize dialog. And getting rid if everything below 100hz? Seriously. Wtf? And the fact you're still using that abomination of an EQ Q10, says more than enough.Wtf is with all those nodes? You have no business teaching Anyone about mixing dialog
Stop spreading false information…. Pretty much the entire video is wrong and based on a lack of understanding of how audio works and how to use both analysis and correction tools… And delivered with such confidence nonetheless…. Let’s go in order: There is no such thing “Dialog Grade” there is mixing, there is tonal balance, but not “grade”. Gating noise with NS1 is the opposite of what you want to do, you actually want to extend room tone and overlap it for the end result to be more consistent. It’s okay to be noisy, but not okay to having changing noise floor that goes in and out. You do not need 10 bands to do EQ on dialog. 100Hz is immensely high for low cut filter, in fact you don’t want to use a filter by default, but only when you have something specific to remove. By “singing” you mean “resonance” and they resonate because you are sweeping with a narrow Q, not because there are issues the EQ is magically revealing… The wider bands you use the more natural the results will be. What you are doing can be useful, but has to be done on specific syllables, on tiny sections of audio, not across the board. You are POSSIBLY improving a 0.5 second section chunk of audio and then ruining the rest of the recording essentially creating a comb filter… This video is proof that not having information is much better than having wrong information… It’s okay to not know things and to keep learning, but don’t go around pretending to be an expert… Mildly irritated, but still respectfully, your friendly neighborhood Emmy Winning mixer…
This is not how you eq. You should be listening to the actual voice, “the singing” you’re talking about is not actually a problem. When you scan for bad frequencies, you look for spots that actually affect the voice. Maybe 1-4 tight cuts max. You can’t chop away at the eq like that.
So yeh, just hack away at the eq until you kill the sound? This is really not how you EQ dialogue. -10db with a wide Q?! Then a -8.5bd cut like 100hz away? Bruh
almost every frequency sounds bad when narrowly boosted by 18 db. no one in the industry eqs like that. freq sweeping is for pros only, on playback you hear a problematic buildup, so you quickly boost a bit and sweep to better identify that area. if you are not able to hear problematic freqs and don't know where to start - don't sweep. compare with a reference and pullout a multiband, soloing the bands and comparing to your reference you get your ear trained.
Thank you, Mark! I always wondered why in all the movies voices are not very bright. But now I understand that, in addition to this, it should not sound too close, as in the song. And I use the Low pass filter at about 8-9Khz, as usual, I notice it's done in movies.
self-learning method =) in the favorite section there is by default minus 3 dB and you don’t have to search =) it’s immediately obvious that the person himself is still looking for how it all works =) dislike at 2 minutes 45 seconds out of 13 minutes
you're confusing harmonic overtones with problem frequencies. Te technique is common, but you are not listening to the right frequencies. The dialogue has lost all body.
yep
I was sweeping a lot of frequencies for harsh resonances on dialogue before, but be careful using that technique. In my experience you sometimes create a lot of problems that arent a problem. If you dont hear the problems before sweeping, they are not a problem for me. In my opinion these kind of passes makes the dialogue sound worse. Just my opinion though.
@@cinema_sound5003 Yeah, i agree its a good thing to know for sure!
nay you right, the audio sounds worse after he dug any character out of it
@@jpustin I felt the audio was slightly better after editing. I do agree though that it's typically best to do as little as possible.
Totally agree. I think this boost and sweep thing is largely pointless, if not problematic. But I'm guessing in this case, kind of like he mentioned, he's doing things that he probably wouldn't do if it was more dialogue with nothing else going on in the scene. These are extra precautions to allow for music or sound effects to be behind the vocal without as much conflict and clashing.
But your taking unnecessary risks! That stunt in the destroyer was insubordination--
How do you know you're not just getting filter resonance from the previous EQ node?
he doesn't. This guy doesn't know anything about audio/sound. He's a professional idiot.
This seems weird to me, if you sweep through any recording of any kind, even with the best mics available you're going to find 'problems', and hacking out that amount of frequencies loses all tone in the vocal. Would it not be easier and more natural to use a mutliband or dynamic eq, so then if those 'problem' frequencies are peaking, they're dealt with in the time frame they become problematic and not just lumping them out completely. Maybe this is the difference between Music production vocal mixing and Post production vocal mixing?
I agree completely. Boosting any frequency by 10 or 15 decibels is going to make them sound bad and "problems" come out. But yes I think you're correct that this is something they have to do more for post-production to allow the vocal to not conflict with background music or effects.
Hi Mark, I would love to know how the information in this video applies to dialogue recorded outside, especially in noisy environments where non-dialogue sounds are just as important as the dialogue. I find when mixing exterior dialogue, when appyling basic grades and EQ sweeps, the dialogue quickly becomes thin or brittle, as do the ambient sounds. What are your recommendations for mixing/grading this type of audio?
Thanks for sharing all of your knowledge .. so valuable!
He cleaned it for a mixing point of view. it won't sound good alone but great in the mix. Understand it people.
I've never ever heard the term "grade" being used by any dialog mixer in 30 years.
And never seen anyone normalize dialog.
And getting rid if everything below 100hz?
Seriously. Wtf?
And the fact you're still using that abomination of an EQ Q10, says more than enough.Wtf is with all those nodes?
You have no business teaching Anyone about mixing dialog
This video is misleading. This is not how you would mix film dialogue, professionally.
Brain Washer It’s an advertising piece.
Crys Stoll that makes a lot of sense, advertisement for Premiere?
Brain Washer Yes, Adobe.
Agree
Hey Brain! Any videos or books, etc. you can think of that talk about mixing dialogue for film/TV?
how do i turn off those oohs and ahhs, I'm trying to hear the sound
What is the headphone you are using?
Thank you for this. This was most helpful!
Stop spreading false information…. Pretty much the entire video is wrong and based on a lack of understanding of how audio works and how to use both analysis and correction tools… And delivered with such confidence nonetheless….
Let’s go in order:
There is no such thing “Dialog Grade” there is mixing, there is tonal balance, but not “grade”.
Gating noise with NS1 is the opposite of what you want to do, you actually want to extend room tone and overlap it for the end result to be more consistent. It’s okay to be noisy, but not okay to having changing noise floor that goes in and out.
You do not need 10 bands to do EQ on dialog. 100Hz is immensely high for low cut filter, in fact you don’t want to use a filter by default, but only when you have something specific to remove.
By “singing” you mean “resonance” and they resonate because you are sweeping with a narrow Q, not because there are issues the EQ is magically revealing… The wider bands you use the more natural the results will be. What you are doing can be useful, but has to be done on specific syllables, on tiny sections of audio, not across the board. You are POSSIBLY improving a 0.5 second section chunk of audio and then ruining the rest of the recording essentially creating a comb filter…
This video is proof that not having information is much better than having wrong information…
It’s okay to not know things and to keep learning, but don’t go around pretending to be an expert…
Mildly irritated, but still respectfully, your friendly neighborhood Emmy Winning mixer…
Interesting approach. Can I ask, Do you use Audio Compression or a Limiter? As used in music vocal recording?
Totally. This just helps get rid of frequencies that we experience - in a way that new mixers can easily find and kill.
Super helpful! Thumbs up.
This is not how you eq. You should be listening to the actual voice, “the singing” you’re talking about is not actually a problem. When you scan for bad frequencies, you look for spots that actually affect the voice. Maybe 1-4 tight cuts max. You can’t chop away at the eq like that.
I know, right?! OMG he just butchers the audio. There's no way it's gonna sound good after that.
So yeh, just hack away at the eq until you kill the sound? This is really not how you EQ dialogue. -10db with a wide Q?! Then a -8.5bd cut like 100hz away? Bruh
almost every frequency sounds bad when narrowly boosted by 18 db. no one in the industry eqs like that. freq sweeping is for pros only, on playback you hear a problematic buildup, so you quickly boost a bit and sweep to better identify that area. if you are not able to hear problematic freqs and don't know where to start - don't sweep. compare with a reference and pullout a multiband, soloing the bands and comparing to your reference you get your ear trained.
Thank you, Mark! I always wondered why in all the movies voices are not very bright. But now I understand that, in addition to this, it should not sound too close, as in the song. And I use the Low pass filter at about 8-9Khz, as usual, I notice it's done in movies.
I can do in 13 minutes what many people could not dream of in a day!
I can’t help but feel that I’m taking unnecessary risks.
WTF, the beginning of the video is like Ready Player One if Sorento wins the contest
Not sure I've seen a video with more annoying/distracting, flashing logos to make me stop watching.
Oh !!!!! Fuckk!!! Thx youuuuuuu !!!!! :D
self-learning method =) in the favorite section there is by default minus 3 dB and you don’t have to search =) it’s immediately obvious that the person himself is still looking for how it all works =)
dislike at 2 minutes 45 seconds out of 13 minutes
The wonder of youtube is that anyone can claim to be anything the want. You have absolutely no idea what you're doing with any of this, huh Bud?
I'm sure you're right. I've only been doing this for 35 years.