NLEs, DAWs, Tracks and Audio-centric Workflows — Continuing the Conversation…

[Jeremy Garchow]

Thanks, David.

[Jeremy Garchow]

Just curious, did you get a chance to answer those questions in the last post to you (from the link).

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Just curious, did you get a chance to answer those questions in the last post to you (from the link).”

They’re great questions. I’ve been distracted by work this afternoon 😉 but I’ll answer with some screen grabs when I get a free minute.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Jeremy Garchow]

No worries and certainly no rush. Screen grabs were pie in the sky.

Just want to make sure I didn’t lose the thread! 🙂

[Michael Gissing]

Sound Post has been my speciality for 27 years and I have been involved in software development with Fairlight and dSP, often alpha testing. Firstly let me observe that the magnetic timeline to me seems to be a methodology to both reduce screen real estate and automatically prevent clip over writing.

Both these issues were solved over a decade ago by both dSP and Fairlight but interestingly not both by many other DAWs. Screens are dynamic on Fairlight with the ability to jump between displaying any number of tracks so it is possible to jump from an overview of 48 or 96 tracks to just a group of selected tracks. This dynamic resizing is extremely quick and intuitive. The paradigm of DAW editing is the selection of tracks to edit, not just clips so track based arrangement is important to that. NLEs are the most clumsy audio editing devices that I have encountered.

The issue of overwrite I have mentioned here before. Clips stack non destructively in Fairlight/ dSP. This means nothing is overwritten, merely hidden beneath. You can rotate the stack and reveal all the layers. The convention is only the top layer plays but you can crossfade to layers underneath. This allows very powerful subtle sub frame dialog editing on a single track. So both issue that FCPX seems to be trying to tackle have already been solved in a more powerful and elegant way.

The most important thing about tracks in DAWs is the power of track based processing. Clip based processing is terribly limited when it comes to something as mainstream as a string of dialog with multiple edits. The DAW approach is to do sophisticated dialog edits on a single track and then be able to apply dynamics, EQ or any other sort of processing to that track. This avoids having to paste a set of plugins to multiple clips and then tweak each clip. Track based processing allows for processing post fader. So dialog levels can be automated to chase a level before it goes into a compressor/ limiter.

The track base then has a further important ‘role’ in routing to a bus. A bus is simply like a master channel for all the dialog or music or FX tracks to go for grouping and final manipulation. The busses then need to be further routed to a master bus for the final mix. So the hierarchy is clip>track>bus>master. At all stages this hierarchy allows over arching processing. On the Fairlight I can use plugins on a clip, track, bus and master. This stacked processing is incredibly powerful and the reason why properly posted sound is beyond NLE tools. STP is not a particularly good DAW but it does follow the DAW conventions of clip>track>bus>master. Play with it and see the power of a track based hierarchy and track based processing.

So to FCPX and roles. As you can see, DAWs harness the power of a multi role model. So how in FCP X can you define audio to be a single role when roles within roles are the basics for sound post. All we ask is for an OMF to re arrange the roles based trackless edit environment of FCPX into tracks. I can assure you that whatever those tracks are, we will further refine them anyway so I don’t need perfectly laid audio from a locked edit.

I cannot stress strongly enough that FCPX or any NLE is incapable of proper sound posting. Vegas comes closest. So the issue of what will ultimately work for editors needs to be thrashed out and I think the magnetic timeline + roles is an inferior approach to problems that are ancient history in DAW land.

[Jeremy Garchow]

First of all, thanks for your sharing, this is great. This is kind of what I was getting at that video editing and audio post have separate processes. Whatever I hand over, it’s going to change. When I get a timeline for color correction, I change it so it makes more sense for the deed at hand. Fairlight sounds cool.

[Michael Gissing] “Play with it and see the power of a track based hierarchy and track based processing.”

This is how M100 used to work back around the turn of the millennium, and I miss it (clip, track, bus, master). Fcp has never had it, and it doesn’t look like it will now, but for my use (which is basically keeping things separate for audio post, or if it’s not going out to post, then I need tools in the timeline to work decently and efficiently), Roles can come real close with some upgrades. This is where I think of a metadata based editor being very powerful, as you can group items, seemingly disparate items, very easily and no matter where they are in the timeline. In essence, it’s creating a bus, and the index is the map legend, or patch panel. Compound clips could then become tracks of a sort in that you could apply effects to multiple clips. And look, I know all of this is a stretch as it’s not available today, right now.

[Michael Gissing] “So how in FCP X can you define audio to be a single role when roles within roles are the basics for sound post”

FCPX has roles within roles, but the control is a bit limited at this point, but the capability is certainly there.

[Michael Gissing] “All we ask is for an OMF to re arrange the roles based trackless edit environment of FCPX into tracks. I can assure you that whatever those tracks are, we will further refine them anyway so I don’t need perfectly laid audio from a locked edit. “

Every audio post house I work with says the exact same thing, as long as nothing is mixed down, they’re good.
I’m nice, and I like receiving organized projects, so I do my best to keep things as logical as possible without too much fuss before I hand it off. I think Roles will be able to allow the proper information to an OMF handoff that will equate to audio tracks, and that aren’t the current ‘stem’ export you get now.

[Michael Gissing] “So the issue of what will ultimately work for editors needs to be thrashed out and I think the magnetic timeline + roles is an inferior approach to problems that are ancient history in DAW land.”

Thanks so much for your perspective.

[Michael Gissing]

[Jeremy Garchow] “First of all, thanks for your sharing, this is great. This is kind of what I was getting at that video editing and audio post have separate processes.”

I have always wondered why NLEs don’t think of the clip stack per track approach for video. In a way a clip stack plus track based processing is like a nest but potentially much more powerful as each layer can be manipulated in the timeline.

[David Lawrence]

Picking up from the questions in Jeremy’s post here:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16855

[Jeremy Garchow] “Let me ask you this. Do you think FCPX will ever get tracks? Do you think they will work with the trim tool? By adding tracks, don’t you think we will lose some of the editing efficiency?”

Will FCPX ever get tracks? I don’t know. I tend to doubt it because I believe Apple is heavily invested in the marketing and the engineering direction FCPX represents. I think it would take a lot of pressure to turn them around. Not that it’s impossible — I’ve pointed to what I see as evidence that tracks are integral to AV Foundation. But I also agree with Craig Seeman’s observations about other parts of the AV Foundation spec. It feels like the UI is an expression of this object data model rather than the track parts of the model. That would explain many of the object behaviors as well as the constraints.

This is pure conjecture on my part but I believe that at one point, FCPX did have tracks and that there was a big internal fight for the soul of this product. The track people lost and they were the ones fired in 2010.

I do think that tracks could be brought back with a hybrid system that gives us the best of both tracked and trackless. The first step would be allowing more than one primary storyline. Don’t even call it primary, just make it storyline (i.e. fixed track), and connected storyline (i.e. secondary storyline). This would solve many of my problems right away. That may be tough or impossible because of the data model. I don’t know what they’re doing under the hood.

Re: trim tool and editing efficiency – I think we need to break this into two related but different aspects of the magnetic timeline’s behavior. 1) ripple mode 2) tracklessness

Ripple mode and trimming:

There’s a lot to like about the FCPX trim tool, especially how it’s context sensitive depending on cursor position. I’d love to have that in FCP7. But it’s never been a big deal tapping A, R or RR depending on what I want to do.

I hit RR for ripple trim maybe 5% of the time on the actual timeline. I’m more likely to cut or trim by grabbing the clip edge then delete or shift-delete depending on if I want to ripple or not.

If I want to ripple, I often go into trim mode. It took me years to figure this out — the trim mode in FCP from double clicking an edit is in many ways as good as AVID’s legendary “Rock and roll” keyboard trimming. I use this mode to loop around the edit point making one frame adjustments on either side of the edit. It’s done entirely by feel. +1, -1 +2, etc. No need for filmstrips. This is how I do 95% of my rippling. It’s a very specific tool for a very specific need.

Rippling is the default mode for the magnetic timeline. This default mode is the opposite of how I edit most of the time. To return to the music metaphor:

If a clip is a note and the timeline is the composition sheet, I want to place the note anywhere I want in time and have it stay there as I build the piece. It’s all about having absolute control over time and pacing by placement in space. This is intrinsic to the open timeline and tracks. With this in mind, can you see how if the system starts mashing notes together (and up and down on the staff) all by itself, or forces me to insert spacers to hold the notes apart, it might be a problem?

I’m not saying the magnetic timeline is inefficient. I think it’s very efficient, but for very specific, specialized tasks that aren’t the default in my usual workflow.

[Jeremy Garchow] “Also, do you think that this style of editing simply is impossible in FCPXs timeline?”

I’ve done it. It’s possible, but the process isn’t exactly what I’d call efficient (or fun).

Stay tuned, I’ll say more in another post.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Michael Gissing] “I have always wondered why NLEs don’t think of the clip stack per track approach for video. In a way a clip stack plus track based processing is like a nest but potentially much more powerful as each layer can be manipulated in the timeline.”

Auditions in FCPX are attempting this very notion. Not the same as you can only see one clip at a time (and can’t dissolve from clip to the other clip), but they are there in the timeline at the same time and selectable.

I think that audio and video are very different, and have very different philosophies, and of course are extremely complimentary. Certainly, they can both motivate each other. When it’s all said and done, there’s one piece (or layer) of flattened video playing at once. For audio, there’s at least two, and sometimes much more, even in a master. I really think psychologically (and physically), it stems from this.

Reatively modern sound design and recording has been about more tracks and layers, visuals are more singular. These very notions are being changed everyday with the advances in stereoscopic cinema and the complications of keeping all the in sync, and FCPX is giving an honest shot at changing these notions, or at least exploring new ways of doing things.

[Andrew Richards]

[David Lawrence] “I’ve pointed to what I see as evidence that tracks are integral to AV Foundation. But I also agree with Craig Seeman’s observations about other parts of the AV Foundation spec. It feels like the UI is an expression of this object data model rather than the track parts of the model. That would explain many of the object behaviors as well as the constraints.”

I maintain that AVFoundation forces nothing on the UI. The UI is 100% abstracted from the OS frameworks that handle the actual bit-laying. Walter Soyka! Back me up!

[David Lawrence] “This is pure conjecture on my part but I believe that at one point, FCPX did have tracks and that there was a big internal fight for the soul of this product. The track people lost and they were the ones fired in 2010.”

Maybe he was flat out lying, but Jobs reportedly said the layoffs were from support, not engineering. Then again, that was the infamous “awesome” email, so I’m probably not changing anyone’s mind with such evidence…

Best,
Andy