Understanding audio waveforms in FCPX

[Gary Goldblum]

You rock! That fixed it.

Thanks

Thanks!

Gary

[John Rofrano]

You’re welcome but what was it? Remove silent channels?

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[James Culbertson]

[Gary Goldblum] “As someone who has used Pro Tools for 15 plus years I can see where I need to make an edit before I hear it. I am at a loss to why they use rectified waveforms now as I think the audio is as important as the video.”

I’ve only done audio editing from within the context of video editing and video editing apps, but I’ve never had a problem seeing an edit (using only audio) before I hear it, using a rectified waveform. I’m not sure what a full waveform would add to the experience, or to my speed of editing music or dialogue.

[John Rofrano]

[James Culbertson] “I’ve only done audio editing from within the context of video editing and video editing apps, but I’ve never had a problem seeing an edit (using only audio) before I hear it, using a rectified waveform.”

+1

Unless you have some serious DC offset problems, the top of the waveform and the bottom of the waveform are the same. Why would you have any less functionality by just seeing the tops? I get that you are not use to it… but it in no way changes what you can do. The zero crossing is now simply the bottom instead of the middle and peaks are still at the top. No difference at all really. All of the information is still there to make an informed edit decision. Just a different way of looking at it.

In my 17 years of editing video, I have never, not once, at any time, looked at the bottom of a waveform to make an editing decision. I only look and the height to determine amplitude and the difference between the zero crossing and peaks to determine an edit. I have all of that information in a rectified waveform in FCP X.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Bret Williams]

I’m not an audio guy either. I used regular waveforms for 20 years and when X came out I instantly understood rectified. I’m not even sure I noticed the difference. If anything I wondered why the hell we were wasting specie looking at a mirror image all these years. Why don’t audio meters go up and down or left and right with 0 being the middle if it’s such an important concept? Of course I wouldn’t mind it being an option but really don’t see the point.

[Craig Alan]

I know I’m late to this thread since you’re happy but thought I’d add this:

I use P2 cams and they record the external mikes and internal mike as four mono or two stereo which appear in FCP X even though when you play it back from the camera you do not hear the internal mike channels.

But they do play back in FCP X which can save you on occasion but mostly the internal mike channels ruin the sound.

Easy fix:

I know the screen grab only shows two channels but it will display four for P2 footage.

You can now select the configuration and use the check boxes on each channel to deselect the unwanted channels.

So I pretty routinely uncheck channels 3 and 4 (or the 2nd channel of stereo) which are the internal mike tracks.

I can do this clip by clip or select the entire timeline and then do it all at once.

The on-board mike can come in handy for room tone or just a clip with problems with the recorded external mike.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.

[Pat Spahr]

Gary, I see this is an old thread but I am having this SAME ISSUE. I *HATE* that I can not see well defined peaks and valleys in the audio wave form in FCP. I am editing a musical showcase and its maddening. You can sortof get a good view if you zoom in far enough. Then I have to zoom back out to get on with the show. Takes F O R E V E R 😴

[Pat Spahr]

I just saw you posted someone fixed it? Please what fixed it?

[Ben Balser]

I am an audio engineer professionally and there is nothing vital missing from FCPX waveforms. Accurate, easy to read, has made editing dialog and finding slate claps (a thing of the past with audio sync), etc, with great ease. I very strongly suggest taking the basic FCPX course from Ripple Training or macProVideo, as FCPX does not work like other NLEs and can’t really be compared that way. Just saying.

Audio meters and wave forms show two different types of data, although related to each other, you need both to work with audio properly.

[Gary Goldblum]

I respectfully disagree. It’s the gaps in-between audio that cue me into where I am going to edit. I have been editing both audio and video for nearly 20 years. The ONLY reason I no longer use FCP is because you cannot see the entire waveform. I started editing with FCP and up until version 7 you could see the entire waveform (not just the peaks). Logic Pro, Premiere Pro, Pro Tools, FCP 7, and DaVinci Resolve all work with rectified audio waveforms. How do you edit if something wasn’t recorded with enough gain? In DaVinci Resolve I can instantly see where I am going to place an edit even if the audio signal is low. This is why I think FCPX is a joke. I LOVE DaVinci Resolve. I used Premiere Pro for many years and now have evolved toward DaVinci Resolve.

I’m shocked that Apple hasn’t incorporated this into FCPX.