The Audience is Listening

by Sean Chercover

The pre-production meeting was buzzing. It would be a complicated shoot; that much was clear. Multiple crews covering fast-moving subjects in a frenzied atmosphere. Reality Television is a one-take environment, and proper planning was essential. At least that's what the executive producer said. The 23 people packed into the boardroom agreed, and the air was thick with opinions. A bevy of producers conferred with shooters, directors and editors. But there was not one representative of audio-post in the room. Not one.

And we would pay for that later...

Zen and the art of Producing

Producers working with tight budgets often blame monetary restrictions for not doing the little things that don't actually cost money, but improve production value. Smart producers do these things at low cost and parlay that added production value into getting bigger budgets the next time. There is an irony here that is not lost on sound editors, who have a good ear for irony, among other things.

"Having sound guys in on the pre-production meetings would be a good start," says Andy Gargul, a sound engineer/editor at Q West Studios in Toronto. "It doesn't cost anything, and we may be able to make suggestions that will save you time and money in post."

Saving time and money should appeal to any producer, since a good producer gets the project made on time and on budget. A good producer hires talented pros to write, shoot, edit and finish the project, and communicates the same vision to each of them, in the language of their specialty. But a great producer also listens. A great producer consults all of these people before going into production, and then gives each of them the best material possible.

Peter Lee is Andy Gargul's boss. As partner and general manager at Q West, Lee makes it his business to ensure that his engineers get what they need. "I see that as part of my mandate," he says. "The term 'fix it in the mix' is odd, because it isn't always fixable...if there's a grounding problem or other distortion, you can't fix it. Digital is very unforgiving, and any distortion isn't going away…you have to nip it in the bud."

To 'nip it in the bud', Lee insists on consulting with producers early in the project. And he takes this consultation to extremes, even visiting locations personally, before shooting begins. If the location is too remote, he asks producers to shoot a test for his guys to analyze.

"I don't charge for this time," says Lee. "High or low budget, I don't discriminate. I just want to remove as many variables as possible that can go wrong...whatever I have to do to make sure that I don't get those desperate phone calls in post, I'll do. For me, it's part of cultivating a strong relationship with our clients."

Grips with sticks

Of course, not all producers have a Peter Lee at their disposal. Even more distressing, many producers don't hire a professional sound recordist for their location shoots. This is false economy at best — a recipe for disaster at worst. Better that your craft service should consist of day-old donuts than save money here.

"What you spend on a decent sound man and equipment, you will end up spending three times as much trying to fix it in post," argues Brit Warner, sound editor/designer at Atlanta's Creative Sound Concepts. And he should know. He was mixing location sound when John Lennon was still giving peace a chance.

Warner has a special name for the amateurs. "We call them 'grips with sticks,'" he says, "and the problem isn't just that you are taking a job away from a quality sound man...more important, you're forcing someone into that position who isn't qualified."

Gargul concurs, "The money you save by having an amateur hold the boom will be more than spent trying to fix mistakes in the sound studio…I'm sick of producers saying, 'it didn't sound like that when I was there.' It never does."

Gargul explains that the ear, unlike a microphone, has the power of discretion. When you listen to someone speak, for example, your brain filters extraneous noise, such as the sound of traffic coming through an open window. But a microphone just picks up everything...no brain, no discretion. "Nobody notices a clock ticking — until it's on tape," he adds. "But a professional with a trained ear won't miss these things."

You say that you absolutely can't afford an expert? Fine...be that way. But don't come crying to us when things go wrong. And keeping in mind that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, here's a brief checklist to use when heading out to a location shoot.

• Listen to the room's acoustics. If the room is made primarily of hard surfaces, hang baffles wherever the camera won't pick them up. Even throwing a blanket up will make a big difference.
• Spend a few minutes listening for noises before the room is full of people and equipment. If you are shooting in a kitchen, close windows and doors, shut down the heating or air conditioner and unplug the refrigerator. Be aware that the fridge and HVAC both have compressors that intermittently switch on and off. Anything that is on must be always on, or your footage won't cut. And shut off the damned ticking clock.
• Collect your room tone before anyone leaves, and with your equipment still on. Room tone taken in a room stripped of people and equipment will not cut with your footage.
• Make sure that your equipment is properly grounded and shielded from RF noise. If you don't know how to do this, then you definitely should not be shooting your own sound.
• Even an outdoor environment can be controlled to some degree. Select a location where trees, hills or other natural features lessen wind and traffic noise. Invest in lavaliere mics and hide them strategically on your actors or interview subjects.
• If you're shooting in a hospital, school, police station or other noisy workplace, special care is required. Move your subject into a quiet room to conduct a quick interview, and then return to your main location to catch the action.
• Watch your levels like the fate of the world depends on it. Especially if you are recording to digital tape. Digital distortion is forever...don't over-modulate.
• Be aware that, because you can't see sound, there is a greater temptation to say, "that's good enough." Don't fix it in post. Fix it now.

These tips may save your sound editor from having a nervous breakdown, but they are by no means comprehensive. At the risk of beating this point completely to death — HIRE A PROFESSIONAL. He will know all of this and more, and he will save you from much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It used to be called Cutting Picture

Nowadays, you say "I'm an editor" and everybody knows that you're a nonlinear video editor. This seems to really bug sound editors...and rightly so. So they still refer to "cutting picture," which has a warm, nostalgic sound and is more accurate, to boot.

For those of us who are editors, (by which we mean 'picture cutters') it is easy to forget this point. The newest generation of nonlinear editing systems boasts extensive audio capabilities that tempt us to do too much audio work in the Avid suite. But we are not sound editors, and we often make the real sound editors' lives more difficult with our well-intentioned but clumsy attempts at sound editing.

So how can video editors help improve the lot of our neglected colleagues with the big ears? Peter Lee suggests that, once again, early consultation is key. "I'm always happy to come in, before digitizing begins, and check the system. An hour can save weeks of grief."

Lee also makes sure that his sound engineers are available by telephone, in case the picture cutters have questions along the way. "The lines of communication must be open between engineers and video editors...this way there are no surprises when we open the OMF® files."

When preparing audio for OMF, the most common mistake made by video editors is throwing away one channel of audio. Let's say, for example, that you have two mics (a lav. and a boom) from which to choose. Many editors will listen to both tracks, select the best and discard the other. This is a huge mistake. In the sound studio, these tracks are often blended for best effect. It's not an either/or situation.

"Always include both tracks in your OMF files," adds Lee, "otherwise, you are handcuffing the sound editor."

Gargul says he loves the Avid® editing system's ability to export directly to a Digidesign® Pro Tools® system. But he warns that video editors sometimes get carried away. "As long as proper care is taken in digitizing, it's great," he says. "Give us the stuff that the OMF tool was designed to give us — the audio that is married to video. But don't give us a mixed show."

A temporary mix is a good idea, according to Gargul, but trying to blend s/fx tracks and music in the Avid suite is a very bad idea if you're planning to have an audio professional perform the final mix. "You just can't hear it well enough to do it properly, until you're in an audio suite. Don't waste your time on stuff that we're just going to have to re-cut." He suggests that video editors simply make timecode notes for sound effects and music.

Brit Warner has had his share of surprises come from the Avid suite. "We definitely need more communication between the two camps," he says. "We get bad audio cuts, bad EQ, no EQ, bad checker-boarding…audio issues are often ignored completely."

We video editors hang our heads in shame…guilty as charged. It is easy to point an accusing finger at the producers, who often dictate some of the audio crimes we commit. But the sound guys are right — we really do need more communication between the two camps.

The next few years will see greater integration of video and audio post. Once the issue of bandwidth is resolved, the Internet will force the issue even further. Video editors and sound engineers will be collaborating more directly, throughout the post process. When it gets here, (and it'll get here sooner than you think) we'd better all be on the same page. If we take care of the communication gaps that now exist, we'll be prepared to take full advantage of the continuing technological revolution, which grows faster by the day.

"The good news is, the quality of programming will get much better," says Gargul. "The left hand will know what the right hand is doing...but we should be exchanging ideas now, or we'll get run-over."

And they all lived happily ever after

Whether you shoot, edit, direct or produce, you can contribute to the mental health of sound editors the world over. By exchanging ideas early in the process, we can re-examine the project from the perspective of our colleagues, and then can give them better material.

This exchange has been going on between shooters and video editors for years. Now sound editors want in on the act, which seems fair enough.

"It's all about managing the project better," Peter Lee says politely. "At the end of the day, everybody smiles and has a good time."

Postscript

While talking with sound and video editors for this column, a disturbing issue was raised repeatedly, and I was asked to address it, as a public service. While somewhat tangential to our story, it is of such importance that I am compelled to mention it in this space.

For want of a better, more profane term, I'll call this ugly practice, messing with the interview. We can all agree that it is perfectly acceptable to edit an interview for clarity and brevity. There's nothing wrong with cutting out the "ums" and "ahs" and false starts and meandering tangents. But messing with the interview is another thing entirely.

For illustration purposes, here is a fictional example...

Interview with Police Officer X:

• Interview Transcript: I love to make a good, clean collar. There's no place in the modern world of police work for an officer who would engage in any kind of brutality. And denying a suspect his Miranda rights is totally unacceptable. The vast majority of police officers are working very hard to protect civil liberties, and I think that's great.
• Edited Interview: I love — denying a suspect his Miranda rights. And — brutality — is — acceptable. The vast majority of police officers are — modern — and I think that's great.

Okay, maybe I exaggerate. But we've all seen producers come perilously close (present company excepted, of course). Some editors feel that this practice is on the rise, especially in the world of "reality" television.

I don't know if this is true, as I have not encountered it in a while. What I do know is that producers who would engage in such wickedness are truly the Spawn of Satan.

Whenever a sound editor faces such a situation, it is because the video editor did not take a stand. Each of us has to answer to our own ethical standards, but I submit that many video editors become partners in crime by simple default — by not taking a stand.

All you can do is come prepared to argue your point, and know in advance what line you will not cross. For most of us, that line is clear. We ask ourselves, "If I were the interview subject and saw this on TV, would I leap from my chair and scream, "but that's not what I said!'"

Thanks for listneing. We now return you to your regular programming...

Sean Chercover sean@chercover.com is a freelance writer and non-linear editor. He is not the Spawn of Satan.

The company, product or services names referenced above may be trademarks or service marks of their respective owners.