-
A Lazy Editor’s Audio Workflow
-
[Walter Soyka] “So my question is this: what are rectified waveforms better for, and what are standard waveforms better for?”
I’d like to know the answer to this too! As far as I can tell, rectified waveforms offer no benefits whatsoever.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “[Charlie Austin] “But I like them. 🙂 ”
Really? Really truly? Do you use them in your DAW? 😉 😉 😉
“Actually, yes. Not always, but it’s sometimes easier to keyframe levels cause you can kinda follow the “curve” of the waveform a little easier visually. Regular waveforms don’t always visually reflect the relative level as well. Especially when the clip/track height is minimized. That’s why I like ’em in X and keep ’em on in Pr when I use it. My clip/track height is always as small as I can get it and still see waveforms.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Charlie Austin] “Not always, but it’s sometimes easier to keyframe levels cause you can kinda follow the “curve” of the waveform a little easier visually. Regular waveforms don’t always visually reflect the relative level as well. Especially when the clip/track height is minimized. That’s why I like ’em in X and keep ’em on in Pr when I use it. My clip/track height is always as small as I can get it and still see waveforms.”
Yes, my assumption is that rectified waveforms minimize the display of redundant information, effectively doubling your vertical resolution / ability to display dynamic range. So my question of standard waveforms would be, “Why do you need to see the same information twice?”
I generally keep rectified waveforms on in Premiere, but I feel like I occasionally misinterpret them a bit as I’m working. This is certainly operator error, but I’d like to know what I’m missing. Am I just forgetting that apparent dynamic range is different?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Charlie Austin] ” That’s why I like ’em in X and keep ’em on in Pr when I use it. My clip/track height is always as small as I can get it and still see waveforms.”
Ha! Well we’re definitely opposites in that regard. The videos I posted above are exaggerated for clarity, but my usual strategy (especially when cutting audio) is to make my audio tracks as large as I can get away with!
Different strokes…
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Walter Soyka] “So my question is this: what are rectified waveforms better for, and what are standard waveforms better for?”
As I noted above (below?) Rectified waveforms offer a better visual representation of the clips relative levels. So, to me, they’re better for quickly gauging the effect or necessity of any level changes you make. Also, they convey the information in less vertical space.
“Regular” waveforms are probably more accurate if you’re doing reall tight keyframing and you want to make sure your changes are correctly affecting both the + and – amplitude. Personally, that type of waveform editing is something I don’t do when I’m cutting in an NLE.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Walter Soyka] “Yes, my assumption is that rectified waveforms minimize the display of redundant information, effectively doubling your vertical resolution / ability to display dynamic range. So my question of standard waveforms would be, “Why do you need to see the same information twice?””
Because it’s not redundant information. If you look closely at a waveform you’ll see that it’s never perfectly symmetrical. There’s visual information about relative levels that comes across more immediately when you see both sides of the wave. It’s also faster to spot valleys and zero crossings. At least it is for me.
Question – how come you never see rectified waveforms as the default display for DAWs?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Walter Soyka] “I generally keep rectified waveforms on in Premiere, but I feel like I occasionally misinterpret them a bit as I’m working. This is certainly operator error, but I’d like to know what I’m missing. Am I just forgetting that apparent dynamic range is different?”
Our replies crossed, but no… I don’t think your really missing anything unless you’re trying to do sample level phase matching of 2 identical clips recorded from like, a lav and a boom or something. I’m sure there are other cases where full waveforms might be beneficial. Again, they just let you see both the + and – amplitude so they’re more “accurate” in that regard. Not really an issue with dia/fx/pre-mixed mx etc. At least to me… In the end, it’s all about your ears anyway. 😉
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[David Lawrence] “It’s also faster to spot valleys and zero crossings. At least it is for me.”
Yeah, it is for sure. It’s a different strokes thing I guess. zero crossings are for the mixer to worry about. 😉
[David Lawrence] “Question – how come you never see rectified waveforms as the default display for DAWs?”
I dunno, how come they have them as an option? Why does Pr use them as the default setting? Why is the sky blue??!?! ;-D
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[David Lawrence] “Because it’s not redundant information. If you look closely at a waveform you’ll see that it’s never perfectly symmetrical.”
How much useful information is there in the asymmetry? What can you know about the sound from seeing this asymmetry?
Serious question. I’m predominantly a visuals designer, so looking closely at a waveform is not something you’re likely to find me doing.
[David Lawrence] “It’s also faster to spot valleys and zero crossings. At least it is for me.”
Me too. I wonder if some kind of color or intensity coding on these areas would help.
[David Lawrence] “Question – how come you never see rectified waveforms as the default display for DAWs?”
Assuming this is not an appeal to authority, I’m all ears for the answer.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “[David Lawrence] “Question – how come you never see rectified waveforms as the default display for DAWs?”
Assuming this is not an appeal to authority, I’m all ears for the answer.”
Despite my flippant reply to David… probably because it’s easier to accurately cut on zero crossings. And I’m not dismissing the importance of this, especially mixing/cutting music for finishing. But in an NLE, we’re primarily concerned with picture. If I’m gonna edit music for a finish or something, I’ll use logic or protools. In an NLE, any issues with cut points can be quickly “fixed” with a fade, or a dissolve or a trim. It’s cheating, but I gotta get my cut to the client, if there’s an issue with pops/clicks it’ll get fixed when it goes to finish. That said, it’s not been a serious issue for me, even cutting with regular waveforms I’m not zooming in to check the edit point that closely. I guess I’m lazy. (on topic!!) 😉
EDIT. And honestly… with reference waveforms on in FCP X, it’s pretty easy to spot zero crossings if you need to, even if the amplitude of the clip is really low…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up