Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Activity Forums Creative Community Conversations Audio Mix Window

  • Posted by James Ewart on July 12, 2014 at 6:23 am

    Hello

    Do you think Apple are likely to introduce a traditional audio mix window anytime in the future?

    I am no audio mixer and anything complex I will export but I think the lack of this window is a bit of a barrier to people used to having it in traditional NLEs. (Just my personal experience of people I know). Or is this something people are just going to have to “get over”?

    Is this a tired debate that is done and dusted? if so apologies but I have done a search and can’t find a specific thread.

    cheers

    james

    http://www.jamesewart.co.uk

    Andrew Kimery replied 11 years, 10 months ago 13 Members · 49 Replies
  • 49 Replies
  • Bill Davis

    July 12, 2014 at 8:53 am

    I suspect if they do that, it’s going to look significantly different than mixers one might be used to.

    Consider that with embedded audio being the default Primary Storyline mode – and in Secondaries and Compound Clips – any or all of which can be slid over or under any video tracks – and with the ability to Break Apart Audio from Video and/or use wild imported discrete audio as well, X might be potentially a bit tricker than a standard NLE where every audio track is simply laid out on the lower levels of a tracked timeline and that once it’s put there it can be expected to stay there.

    That’s kinda the point of the Roles thing. It’s a metadata abstraction that allows audio to float into and out of any storyline virtual “lanes” while always retaining it’s Role attributes.

    It will be fascinating how they address this and still make it a “mixer” that retains some semblance of the physical “channel strip” focused boards we’re all accustomed to.

    Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

  • James Ewart

    July 12, 2014 at 9:06 am

    I just wonder might this be the deal breaker for a lot of the major broadcasters, facilities houses and major motion picture editors?

    The FCPX video interface just requires mental adjustment I found. But for audio mixing can it achieve everything that could be achieved with the traditional window in Legacy?

    http://www.jamesewart.co.uk

  • Marcus Moore

    July 12, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    At present, no. But in both visual organization and grouping/bussing of audio elements, Roles could fill this gap. But it’s not there yet.

    They overriding key is to give the organizational and mixing function of tracks without compromising the flexibility of the trackless timeline.

    Here’s my thoughts on Roles-

    https://disproportionatepictures.blogspot.ca/2014/05/roles.html

    Working up a follow-up post to address audio components. They present a special problem, since they’re linked visually to video elements. If we’re going to see a “Roles organized” timeline, I think we’ll need an alternate mode that allows FCP X to break up audio components and group them by Role.

  • Oliver Peters

    July 12, 2014 at 11:02 pm

    However they get there, group and master bussing is essential and compound clips won’t cut it. This is even more critical these days in broadcast, where CALM Act loudness compliance is becoming a delivery requirement. I can do that easily now in Premiere Pro and Audition. I can do it in Logic Pro X if I buy third party metering. I cannot do it inside FCP X.

    – Oliver

    Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
    Orlando, FL
    http://www.oliverpeters.com

  • Lance Bachelder

    July 13, 2014 at 4:36 am

    Concur! It seems easy to design an audio panel that included a “bus” for each role with an effects panel for each bus where you could apply plug-ins? And a Master bus where you could apply a compressor for CALM or whatever. I really wouldn’t miss a mixer as long as I had this additional control.

    It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

    Lance Bachelder
    Writer, Editor, Director
    Downtown Long Beach, California
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

  • James Ewart

    July 13, 2014 at 5:55 am

    I knew nothing of this CALM act of which you speak and can somebody out there tell me if something is in the pipeline in the UK. I hold the ‘gizmo’ (that’s remote control unit in UK English) as a gunfighter would in a duel when a commercial break is approaching. It sounds like a good law.

  • Jari Innanen

    July 13, 2014 at 8:04 am

    It is EBU R128 in Europe:

    https://tech.ebu.ch/loudness

  • Oliver Peters

    July 13, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    Also this:

    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP202.pdf

    – Oliver

    Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
    Orlando, FL
    http://www.oliverpeters.com

  • James Ewart

    July 13, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    Those commercials mixers are clever girls and boys. They seem to live within the law but so adept are they with their Compressor filters it still seems loud to me.

  • Oliver Peters

    July 13, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    [James Ewart] “They seem to live within the law but so adept are they with their Compressor filters it still seems loud to me”

    The loudness specs are averaged over time. In a commercial, the overall levels are relatively low, but can be highly compressed and so appear to sound louder than the surrounding programs. Of course, a mixer may deliver a spot or show within spec and then it gets jacked up down the line, through distribution and transmission.

    In FCP X, a compliant mix generally seems to hit in the range below -12 on the meters, with peaks hitting at -12.

    – Oliver

    Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
    Orlando, FL
    http://www.oliverpeters.com

Page 1 of 5

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy