Audio Mythbusting - Social Sound Design

Audio Mythbusting

2011-07-18T12:00:10Z

Since we're all about information sharing on this site, I thought it might be interesting to have a thread to collect debunked audio myths. Who knows what wacky claims you've heard in the past, or what genuinely relevant information you may have stumbled across that others haven't.

Two examples for you:

Transformer-less microphones are better - They're not necessarily better. transistors are just cheaper to produce than an equivalent transformer. The right transformer can sound amazing, though you're going to pay for it [sometimes dearly....lol]
M/S is mono-compatible - This one stems from a conversation I had with a buddy at AES last year. He argued, and I now agree with him, that "compatible" is the wrong terminology. You still have phase cancellation, potentially eliminating sounds. "Mono-predictable" is a more accurate description. [Splitting hairs to be sure, but still accurate none-the-less.]

So, in the interest of public discourse and the redistribution of knowledge....what else you got?

Answer by Rene for Audio Mythbusting

2011-07-18T12:24:13Z

Here's one:

Foley miking must be pretty tight on the prop and must be hyper clean.

In fact, lots of really great sounding foley ends up being miked from 3' to 6' away. Adding a little distance to the mic position makes mixing that much easier because the perspective is much closer to what you need the sound to be, and because it naturally loses any proximity effect and off-axis effects that could mess with you.

Also, re: cleanliness - it really is amazing how much noise you can get away with when cutting foley. Its important to always cut in context, because doing so will give a clear indication as to how much cover one has in the foley room. This is not to say that one should be sloppy with regards to noise, but more to say that one should be obsessing over performance far ahead of obsessing over noise floor.

Answer by Nikos Chatzigeorgiadis for Audio Mythbusting

2011-07-18T19:16:54Z

ok one basic...

in foley and sound design equipment does NOT play a huge part

o'rly?

Answer by Brent_in_Sydney for Audio Mythbusting

2011-07-18T21:55:10Z

Oh I read this one the other day: "I use a convolution sample of an anechoic chamber in my convo reverb to remove room reverb from location sound, when I mix the dry and wet signals it cleans it up"...

If you run a sign sweep in an anechoic chamber you will only get the "colour" of the speaker playing back the sweep as there are no reflections in the room to deconvolve...so if you are replaying on the same speaker then you may hear a difference but...bad theory dude

Answer by AGZFX for Audio Mythbusting

2011-07-19T00:55:33Z

The classic - "You need to use all the bits when recording digitally." O RLY?

Another related myth - "Analog gear has more headroom."

A favorite of mine - "It's better to record at 88.2kHz instead of 96kHz because the math is simpler." Seriously, when was the last time you needed to put ANY effort into calculations BY YOUR COMPUTER. :D

Last one - "What's the point of recording at higher sample rates if it's just going to be played back as an mp3 through a 1" ceramic speaker?"

Answer by Sonsey for Audio Mythbusting

2011-07-19T15:07:09Z

The BIGGEST Audio Myth EVER "We can fix it in Post."

Answer by Stavrosound for Audio Mythbusting

2011-07-19T18:02:42Z

Although according to Frank Zappa, apparently just as big of a myth is that "we can fix it in the shrinkwrap"

One of my favorites though - "Picture is locked"

Answer by g.a.harry for Audio Mythbusting

2011-07-22T05:04:48Z

Having really nice speakers makes everything sound good.

Answer by Shaun Farley for Audio Mythbusting

2011-07-22T13:05:57Z

Alright, no one has mentioned this one yet so I'll throw it out there:

If you're going to be doing a lot of processing to a sound, you should convert 16 bit files to 24 bit before doing so.

I'm not referring to recording in higher bit rates (that you should do), but working with existing 16-bit files. Most of the programs we use (Pro Tools, Nuendo, etc.) work natively with 64 bit mix engines. [There may still be some that are only 32 bit, but I don't know for sure.] When you bring a file into a session, the DAW automatically pads the audio file anytime it does processing...including something as simple as volume automation. That means that a 16 bit file in a 64 bit DAW gets an additional 48 bits (added on as zeros after the existing word) to allow for more accurate math. If you were to convert the file to 24 bits first...yes, it would get 8 extra bits, but they would be all zeros. Bring that newly converted file into your 64 bit DAW, and it gets another 40 extra bits (all zeros again) anytime the DAW does any processing. You're still totaling 48 bits of padding zeros prior to processing. There's absolutely no difference.

The only time it matters is when you're actually exporting or bouncing your audio from your session. [I suppose that I should admit that if you're rendering within a session, i.e. audiosuite, it may matter. This one I'm a bit fuzzy on.] If you're doing any kind of processing to an audio file other than simple cuts (volume, pan, fade, plug-in, etc.), you'll actually get better quality final files by outputting at 24 bits than at 16 bit...even if the original files are 16 bit.

That's the biggest reason you're supposed to dither anytime you're outputting to 16 bit, even from a "16 bit" session...because the DAW actually does all it's calculations at much higher bit rates.

Answer by Utopia for Audio Mythbusting

2011-07-26T16:54:15Z

Some great answers!

My own personal favorite:

Good Sound Design of a movie begins after we are finished shooting and the film has been edited.

I personally believe that having good sound design begins with the script and a scriptwriter/director thinking with sound design throughout the whole pre-production and shooting process.

A myth I used to personally believe myself before I started doing more and more recordings with these little critters is:

Lavaliers sound horrible. Don't use them at all. (I do agree with choosing a boom over a lav but when it's all you've got, it can be sufficient!)

But, they really do work if you know what you're doing and you spend a bit of time learning how they work and what they sound like and where they sound best on the person. Like all microphones, there are poor quality ones and good quality ones. The COS-11 I've been using sounds great when used correctly.

I used to never think of using them and only using the boom (which I still do use most of the time) but when it's not feasible to record with one like in a cramped room or outside in a wide shot, they actually do work when you use them correctly. I was shocked to discover that most of the dialogue in The King's Speech was recorded with lav's. I had no attention on the voices in that movie - they sounded great!

and:

Just about anyone can do the boom oping. Use the PA - he's just standing around doing nothing.

So not true. It takes incredible skill and timing and attention to do a superb job of boom-oping. I've seen a poor boom-oping job done by an inexperienced person who meant well but just didn't have any training and the director thought "anyone could do it" and it ended up costing about $10,000 extra dollars for ADR recording and editing fees. From what I've experienced in the indie film scene is that more often than not they give the job of positioning the microphones for their movie to someone with very little if any experience and it bites them later.

A beefy gun sound comes from ONLY the closer microphones. You don't need to record from farther away.

Almost true, closer mics sound great, but you should always get a long perspective because from my experience some of the beef of a gun comes from the echo rather than the direct sound. For example, try recording a whip crack in a dead room. It sounds like you're snapping a pencil on your finger. You need some acoustical support to make something sound huge and natural, IMHO. This is definitely true in music recording and mixing.

All actors perform perfect ADR. They're actors, right? So if we book them for an hour to do 80 measly loops, they should finish before the hour is up and we can all go get a drink.

In my humble experience, I've found that the actors who are the best at ADR have a strong sense of musical timing and ability to duplicate pitch and tone. Not everyone can do this.

Good ADR is close-miked and noiseless. When you close-mike a voice (2 inches from mouth), you can just roll off the low-end and add reverb and it will make it sound farther away!

As always, depends on what your source material is, but in my experience when someone has told me this and we've done it that way the closer, deader mic is always the toughest one to match in with production dialogue. Put the mic back a foot or even 2 feet - the proximity effect is the arch nemesis of matching ADR to production sound.

I was so sure you audio guys could fix this interview audio where the hiss is louder than his voice, the interview was done next to the waterfall, and the auto-gained track, so I didn't bother to consult you about the audio quality before we went ahead and edited the video. Here you go. Needs to ship tomorrow - I told the producer you guys are FAST!

Answer by AdamAxbey for Audio Mythbusting

2011-09-02T04:27:39Z

My favourites,

"Nothing changed during the online." "We changed/moved picture but it won't affect sound." "I just have a few notes" "I'm sure our (picture) editor knows how to export an OMF."

Answer by Markus for Audio Mythbusting

2011-09-04T10:57:49Z

More from the music side : "louder sounds better".

Answer by Sound1844 for Audio Mythbusting

2011-09-04T11:44:05Z

This is a great video about more technical myths of audio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Answer by Iain McGregor for Audio Mythbusting

2011-09-04T14:33:17Z

Making it louder makes it more exciting.

Answer by Eric Baca for Audio Mythbusting

2011-12-03T21:27:21Z

What about talking of volume when referring to SPL? I have heard the only thing you can measure in volume when working with sound is tea or the room. This is because volume is not a measure of intencitiy.