Murch and NLEs from IBC

[Michael Gissing]

[Jeff Markgraf] “Not a “fanboi,” not being defensive. Truly don’t see the evidence to support the assumption.”

Audio post has been my bread & butter since the mid 80s. So I will attempt to put simply the basic requirement of us audio oriented editors and the DAWs that they use to edit & mix.

Clip level. Gain, EQ and plugins are useful at this level for specifics like denoise or matching level & eq in a dialog edit. Ideally I want a DAW that allows me to stack clips non destructively on the one track. Spare takes perhaps or just layers I can go back to of the original audio plus the clip stack which might represent a denoising pass I have rendered so I can further edit the denoised audio as a clip.

Track processing. OK track level processing becomes more important than clip level because I want to apply EQ or dynamics processing to a whole track. I want to chose if that processing is pre or post fader and I want total automation of levels, FX and plugins.

Buss processing. Again I want exactly the same as the track level. I have used all three stages of processing to get a stem with the right combination of EQ and dynamics processing. Dynamics often works best when it cascades rather than a since instance. The effect is to control dynamics and envelope the sounds into each other.

Master bussing. All the split stems now need to combine to create the final balance. Guess what, I use plugins and on board master buss processing to control dynamics to envelope the music, FX and dialog elements. I also need tools to indicate loudness and meet various specifications regarding peak levels etc.

Finally when mixing a big monster of tracks down to the final 5.1 I want to be able to have a visual spatial organisation that lets me equate a sound to the fader it appears on in a mixer that combines it all. Magnetic breaks that visual association. In the same way that if you organise musical notes by colour and not spatial position in a score, it would be much more difficult to associate. Tracks like music notation gives vertical and horizontal association that is very much easier to follow, especially when track numbers get big. I also want to be able to very quickly resize the track height and scroll quickly to a specific track, jumping between seeing 96 tracks and just one quickly.

So an NLE doesn’t need to match all that functionality but it sure makes it nice to be able to just grab two faders and adjust the music to fx to dialog relationship when sorting a complex dialog edit. You just want to do it while you cut the dialog so switching between automating a bus and simply moving faders with automation bypassed is a nice feature. This is different to soloing but sometimes that is nice too. Again when audio elements start getting very densely layered this layout matters. If you have seen any screen grabs of a Murch edit you will see he has tons of elements including alts stacked on many tracks.

So when spatial arrangements conventions are changed and a system to organise clips without regard to like type appears that is based on a metadata tagging like roles, I can’t see why all of the power of DAWs cannot be similarly achieved. But with X it can’t. Why not have a mode where clips are displayed based on roles, in other words rearranged on screen like tracks? Why can’t we have the multi stage of mix and dynamics control that allows the same structure as clip/track/bus/master? I would love a system that allowed such quick and easy visual re arrangement. I feel the potential power of Roles is not going to be realised.

I have no intention of putting words in Murch’s mouth but when I indicated I understood why someone who is sound oriented would be unlikely to be able to use X and probably prefer tracks/bus/master arrangements with full FX & plugins plus automation at every level I meant I don’t understand why they would chose a tool like X compared to Pr or Vegas if you really use and want the features that have been bread and butter for many years.

[David Roth weiss]

[Jeff Markgraf] ”
Again…what? What different direction? Someone, PLEASE explain this. My head explodes every time I see this notion that Apple and X have abandoned audio presented as gospel truth.”

Jeff, first of all, you really need to examine why this makes your head explode. Does your head explode when your clients disagree with you or when they opt to choose a different creative direction from the one you’ve chosen?

And next, you work in a biz that’s mostly track-based, and the entire discussion of the forthcoming roles editor, which may or may not actually be forthcoming, is about a translation tool that’s an abstraction layer that makes a trackless app function more like it does have tracks.

As I’ve said for more than four years, as far I’m concerned, the trackless timeline is a solution looking for a problem. So, since I see no benefits that apply to my workflows, and since the unrealized fix that’s talked about is to make it more tracklike, should I need to worry that expressing that here makes your head explode?

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi David.

Yeah, as a life-long Cubs fan, I didn’t expect them to get as far as they did. But I was shocked to see them humiliated so completely by the Mets. The Mets! Sheesh. The leftover hate from ’69 still burns strong..

Regarding tracks, etc.: Look. I’ve edited and mixed with systems using conventional tracks for 30 years with no problem. Got nothing against tracks. And I don’t think a preference for working with traditional tracks is wrong, or an indication of incipient Luddite-ness, or any such thing. To each his own.

I’ve never been part of the “if you don’t get with the program, you’re old and calcified” crowd. But I surely do know how deeply conservative and change-aversive Hollywood is. That’s okay. Just don’t dismiss me as an amateur because I happen to like the way FCP X works. (Not directed at you…I’m speaking in general of the incredulous and sad “poor deluded child” reactions I get on a regular basis when I say I like the thing.)

What I’m responding to, and sincerely asking for clarification on, is the oft-repeated dismissal of X as being incapable of complex audio mixing. Look back at this thread. I’ve read it from you, from David, from several others – even from the lovely Tim Wilson, (may his name be praised). Significantly, in spite of some people’s characterizations, I’ve never read or heard it from Walter Murch, the ostensible subject of this thread. All I’ve read is other people projecting their opinions onto Mr. Murch.

So I ask again, nicely, sincerely, with no axe to grind: in what way is X unsuited to complex audio work? Why do you say that? Please, anyone, provide actual evidence, actual examples. So far, no one – seriously, NO ONE – has actually answered my questions.

Oh – and there’s always next season!

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Michael.

Thanks for the detailed replay. It may surprise you that I truly do understand what you’re talking about. While I am not a mixer, I do mix, and I completely understand the tools and needs of professional mixing on a real board with a real DAW on a real stage. For that reason, I would never presume to do serious mixing in ANY NLE. (Well, I’ve never even touched Vegas, so I can’t speak to that…)

What you’re describing is mostly beyond any NLE that I’ve ever worked with. I certainly do not consider X to be an exception to the rule. One can only do so much in an editing program.

What I am trying to clarify is, why the hate for X? Compared to Avid or PPro, why is X judged by some to be inferior in regards to audio? What can Avid do that X can’t?

More specifically, where is the bussing and such that you speak of in your earlier post? I know PPro has a track mixer, so I guess you can link a couple of tracks and control them together. Not bussing, per se, but it may help get the job done. So in X, I would put the clips into a compound clip to do that. True, no actual mixer interface, and no “automation” (i.e., recording the mouse pulling the fader). As I said in an earlier post, I’ve never used it and don;t know know any editors who do, but it would be nice to have the option in X.

Again, no NLE has the kind of bussing and patching and sends and side chains that a real DAW/mixing stage has.

As far as organization, I understand organizing by track. It’s logical, it’s visual, it’s traditional. Since I’m able to highlight timeline clips by role and subrole with the click of a button in X, I don’t see the practical difference. If I really need the visual cues, I guess i could always borrow Charlie Austin’s method of inserting “barrier strip” slugs between SOT and MX and FX. But I’ve never found the need to so do.

As far as sending to a real mixer, X2Pro works just fine. It creates a real ProTools session with clips organized by roles and subroles in the very organization mixers generally prefer.

When all is said and done, I really would like a roles-based mixer in X (roles being functionally equivalent to tracks). Whether from Apple or from a third party plugin.

In the meantime, I do mixes in X that are as complex and anything I’ve ever done in Avid or any other NLE.

[David Roth weiss]

Michael Gissing’s response should pretty much answer your questions Jeff.

However, let me just reiterate, whether roles in X ever adds the missing links that make X more acceptable to those who prefer tracks, is anyone’s guess, but it’s pretty clear that the magnetic timeline is a major hurdle for many experienced editors, most likely including Walter Murch. No, he doesn’t state that clearly and emphatically, but that was pretty clearly the implication I think most viewers will take away from that interview.

The bottom line is, there is no doubt that Walter Murch could figure out a way to do his audio work in FCP X, but, he doesn’t. And, I’d venture that there’s just one reason, and it’s probably pretty much the same as mine… It’s pretty simple… Why? The industry is pretty much track-based, has been since its inception, and all other solutions require translation to tracks. That, combined with a hefty learning curve could make our heads explode, if we chose to allow it, but we don’t consider it a solution for anything we need, so we simply reject it. We don’t think you or other X users are deficient, inept, immature, or silly, we just wonder why so many if you are so attached to your software that you can’t seem to tolerate that others might be similarly attached to their own software and workflows that are time-tested and simply work.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles

David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.

[Michael Gissing]

[Jeff Markgraf]”What I am trying to clarify is, why the hate for X? Compared to Avid or PPro, why is X judged by some to be inferior in regards to audio? What can Avid do that X can’t? ”

Personally I don’t hate any NLE. Coming from a DAW like Fairlight to any NLE seems like a backward step so I am agnostic about NLEs. I use NLEs as finishing tools post grade which is my other hat. So lately I have been using Resolve and occasionally Pr and before that FCP7. Resolve 12 looks like it has many of the features that I am talking about with DAWs like clip/track/buss/master and CS6 which I have used occasionally also seems to have the same mixer structure.

Both Resolve & Pr also support VST plugins and I am not sure yet if they can be applied to all the track/buss/master stages and full automation of everything. I think they are closer to that goal than X and when it comes to AVID I have little practical experience but again with a limit of 24 tracks it would be a poor choice for complex edits like the screen grabs I have seen of Murch projects.

I find it interesting that Murch used FCP Legend because I found it terrible as an audio tool. I guess at the time the difference to AVID was simply the sheer number of tracks. Now editors have extra choice and that is terrific. Since tools like X2Pro I have had a few jobs that were cut on X and I trust the editors who prefer X to have both the skill and the right to prefer it as a platform. All my early concerns about getting xmls and AAF/OMF out of X have been long solved, so really my perspective is the simple one of comparing NLE features and offering opinion based on my experience with DAWs and if any editor is happy to work around the limitations of any system to get the best result and enjoy the process then go for it.

But of all the NLE methodologies, I find that X is the more radical departure and may spook the horses. What I am referring to in this particular discussion is the specifics of an experienced edited who demonstrably uses more tracks than many and uses tracks as an organisational tool and does a lot of mixing compared to a more typical offline approach would. If I was such an editor (and as a sound post person I do picture edit occasionally), I would naturally gravitate to the tool that didn’t require the sort of work arounds you have mentioned. I get that many are prepared to do those sort of workarounds because so much else in the editing experience pleases and suits them. But this whole discussion has been about what an editor like Murch says he wants to use and what many of us have been second guessing as to why he may or may not chose a tool.

Roles certainly has the potential to do so much more and if they ever devlop it to the point where I think it as good or better than Pr or Resolve or Vegas for complex audio editing and mixing then I will be more than happy to cheer becasue we all win when tools develop to their potential.

[Tony West]

[David Roth Weiss] “Tony, what you keep forgetting is that you can’t just kick the tires on FCP X, which is the application’s #1 problem for experienced editors. There’s a significant learning curve for X that many experienced editors simply aren’t willing to invest their time in.”

I don’t really disagree with this statement David. I understand if he doesn’t have time to really dig into it.

I’m not mad at him : )

I was just saying I would be interested to know what he would think if he really gave it a go that’s all.

When I watched the video I was hoping to hear his opinion from his use and just break the program down.

Instead he was really honest about how he didn’t really have much experience with it.

“I can’t speak from an informed base as if I were using it” That’s a very honest comment from him.

I very much enjoyed his interview. I was very impressed with him. I’m not upset that he doesn’t use X in the least.

I never tell people they “should” use X

I tell people why “I” like using X

I have converted a number of people over to X and not one of those people did I ever tell “you should use it”

It’s up to them what they want to use. I think you can do a great job with any of these programs if you have talent.

[Dennis Radeke]

Here, here!

[James Ewart]

[Dennis Radeke] “In the case of Premiere, there are Adobe engineers involved who are studying workflows and requests and seeing how to make these changes in Premiere. It extends into media optimizations with SANs, as well. This is something not even Avid has done very much of except maybe in the early days.

I can confirm all of this as a regular practice for us and I’m on record as saying this is a large contributing factor to Adobe’s success.”

This is something that makes some of us non PP users peek through the keyhole into Adobe land with some envy. How do you go through this process and decide what is a genuine “good” feature request?

And out of interest what are the chances of introducing a magnetic timeline option within PP? (not kidding).

[Dennis Radeke]

[James Ewart] “This is something that makes some of us non PP users peek through the keyhole into Adobe land with some envy. How do you go through this process and decide what is a genuine “good” feature request?”

Hi James, complicated question though it’s posed simply enough. I think the answer is multi-faceted. First off, I think that all of the DVA (digital video and audio) folks in Adobe generally have the same customer focused goal in mind and it makes us come together in a number of important ways. The second answer is that we have a lot of field folks like myself who work actively with customers and feed in problems and issues to our engineering teams. There are over a dozen of us worldwide and we bring up requests from all different kinds of customers. We also maintain the public wishlist and actually look at it (my goodness!)

We also go out and actively seek customers input in an open forum. This week, I was proud to have helped host our annual broadcast round table where we outline what our product road map (under non-disclosure) and seek feedback from our customers. It is always a lively discussion and we get a lot of insight from it.

Because of my location (New York area), I mostly focus on large media accounts and I tend to think that what big media companies need generally benefits all users. Things like small edit tools (improving trimming for example) or things like performance with 3rd party I/O are examples.

What makes a genuine good feature request also varies. However, since we have so many different kinds of input coming in, generally if you’ve got a problem with something, chances are others feel the same pain and consequently we see a trend and work to address it.

I think that our attentiveness to our customers is a key differentiator and what has propelled Adobe forward in the marketplace. If you have to choose between two vendors but one of them listens to your needs, I think you go with the one you trust to meet your needs more effectively.

[James Ewart] “And out of interest what are the chances of introducing a magnetic timeline option within PP? (not kidding).”

Officially: I honestly have no idea. My own (non-Adobe!) opinion is thus: If it hasn’t been a runaway success for the majority of NLE users, I don’t see it coming in the near future. HOWEVER, if customers request it, Adobe would probably look it.