[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Phil. I’ve done lots of news and feature-type editing on deadline, so I’m going to jump into the fray here.

The short answer, in my experience, is, “No. You can’t replicate the Avid-style alternating l/r audio track layout in FCPX.”

I have a couple of workflow questions.
1) Are you required to layoff to tape, and thus require the VO-1, SOT & nats-2 format?
2) Is playback for broadcast still based on the 2 discrete channels from tape and being mono’d at the audio board?

I know news has very specialized procedures, and audio in X isn’t really designed with this process in mind.

A couple of thoughts regarding this kind of editing (probably similar to yours, as you’ve clearly been doing this for a long time):

I would certainly cut VO and SOT in the primary (a radio cut, if you will). I find that trimming and re-ordering clips is really fast this way. Drop in the VO, pull out the unwanted stuff by marking in and out on the fly and deleting, and the pull-ups will happen without even stopping the playhead. Now each VO is its own clip, and the SOTs can be dropped in at each edit point really quickly. Trimming in the primary is really fast (ripple editing by default, but with the ability to add a slug to improve timing, etc.).

As far as overlapping audio and video: expanding the audio and video (control-s) and the audio components (control-option-s) makes L and J cuts very fast. No need to detach audio or to place audio as connected clips. I would do b-roll and additional nat sound as connected clips. (Sometimes it’s necessary to change the connection point of the first or last connected b-roll if you’re going to move a chunk of the story around.) Sometimes adding a dissolve on a split edit requires a little fiddling, but you can always detach just that one bit of audio.

Regarding the lav-1, boom-2 source issue: I don’t think there’s any way around the lack of alternating l/r issue. Though it has been my experience that cutting everything in as dual mono and turning off the unwanted channel of each clip in the timeline via the inspector is pretty quick. I’m not sure what problem you’re having with skimming multiple clips while the inspector is open.

So…if I cut the clip into the timeline as dual mono, then expand audio on all the clips, I can turn off the boom or the lav as necessary on each clip or group of clips. I can then make those same clips “stereo l/r” in the pan mode, and pan full left or right. Since the only clips I need left (ch. 1) are VO, that’s a simple lasso & change operation. Every other clip is right (ch. 2), using the same lasso & change step. I would do this just before output or layoff, so that I’m monitoring my mix while editing in mono.

Would be interested in your feedback.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Neil Goodman] “Im asked to kick back into gear to deliver these notes before 6 and its 5:45.
“

Neil – boy do I feel ya there. At a certain network that currently has executive offices just off the 134 freeway, I used to tell the creative directors that if it wasn’t important enough for the boss(es) to give notes before the end of the day (when they had the rough cut at 11am), then it certainly wasn’t important enough for me to stay late to make the changes. But then, I was also a known crank and malcontent.

Did I mention I kinda hate promo? Even after all these years…

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi David.

Got swamped with work and couldn’t catch up with this thread until now.

Regarding exploding heads – I guess my poor little head is just too sensitive. All that grey matter splattered all over the walls… You should have seen the mess every time Trey Goudy and his merry band of a-holes opened their mouths to speak at that absurd and shameful house committee hearing a couple of days ago. Maybe I should get some netting to keep my poor head together.

As far as this discussion goes…well, I think it’s time to give up the ghost. Except for some info from Shawn about the track patching & bussing capabilities of PPro’s track mixer, no one has really addressed my actual questions. There have been a fair number of condescending and uninformative responses, along with a truly amazing variety of deflection. But very little real information. And not even halfhearted attempts to justify some of the more ridiculous statements of “fact” regarding audio mixing and the question of traditional track structure.

I get it. Positions have been staked out. Agendas must be furthered. Maybe Aindreas can visit and drop some more amusing word bombs for our entertainment. I had simply hoped for some real discussion.

Oh well. Back to doing real work. And maybe the Cubbies will take it all the way next year. 😉

[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.

[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]

Tim, I don’t generally respond to your posts, because they are unfailingly well though out, and “me too” is just a waste of bandwidth. But, in this case…

[Tim Wilson] “for some movies he works on, the MAIN thing…FCPX is a non-starter.
“

I know I’m a broken record on this, but I still can’t get an answer. Why is X a non-starter? The only system Murch called a non-starter is Avid, because of only 25 audio tracks. He never addresses X. So why do you consider X a non-starter for audio?

[Tim Wilson] “the best way to work with both picture and sound on one project is an organizational structure that works for both picture and sound, and robustly roundtrips with Pro Tools sessions in particular as a core value.”

Avid and PPro don’t roundtrip with Pro Tools. It’s a one way trip with AAF to Pro Tools, and a final mix back into the NLE. Unless I’ve missed something really big, you can’t open a Pro tools session in Avid or in PPro. You take the mix as provided, and whatever stems the mixer may provide. I don’t consider importing that final mix from an AAF file vs. an AIFF or a QT as “roundtrip.”

[Tim Wilson] “at a certain point, explicitly chose NOT to continue to provide it!!!! “

Umm…evidence to support this? Again, Murch says nothing about X’s capabilities or limitations.

As far as Apple not being responsive, ala Adobe: very true. Same to be said for Avid. So we have evidence of Apple being Apple, not of X being inherently unable to do the job. And this is news, why?

[Tim Wilson] “In other words, he knows EXACTLY how important sound is to picture….and the product team he leads at Apple CHOSE to go in a different direction.”

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 Markgraf]

He says he’s tried X, but not on anything substantial, and definitely not on a paying gig.

So, for professional purposes, he hasn’t tried X. He doesn’t say he doesn’t like it; nor does he say he likes it. He says nothing about its suitability for professional movie work. He says nothing about its audio capabilities or limitations.

Walter Murch certainly doesn’t HAVE to play with or deep-dive-into or seriously use X. As far as I know, he doesn’t use Resolve, either. Or Lightworks.

So what?

This willingness to put words in his mouth, and to then hold these supposed words up as evidence of X’s deficiencies, is ludicrous.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[David Lawrence] “Especially since it’s always proposed as the solution whenever someone brings up the deficiencies of a trackless timeline for complex audio mixing.”

This statement makes a rather bold assumption – one that I see repeated frequently, as if it were an accepted fact: the assumption that a “trackless” timeline is unsuitable for complex mixing. How so?

Point 1:
A roles-based mixer is proposed as a response to the desire to buss audio. As of the current release, putting audio into compound clips is one solution. It is a somewhat imperfect analogue to assigning tracks to a buss. I can put all the dialogue, or all of “Bob’s” dialogue, into a compound clip, then process it as I wish. Same with any other group of clips. Assigning proper roles makes it simple to bundle specific clips into a compound. (Grouping clips as secondary storylines is a less effective means of dealing with audio bussing.)

Compound clips is not an ideal way of bussing. Perhaps the main flaw is that compounds can’t be “opened” in place. They open in a new timeline, and so the clips are not heard in context with the main video in the main timeline. I find this limitation (both audio and video) frustrating and puzzling. Less frustrating with audio, but still…

Point 2:
The characterization of “trackless timelines” as being “deficient” for complex mixing. I keep asking, “why?”
How does not seeing audio visually linked to specific tracks prevent complex mixing? What can one NOT do in FCP X that one CAN do in Avid? Or Premiere Pro? X has virtually unlimited layers (think of them as tracks, if you wish), as does Premiere Pro. Avid is limited to 24 (or is it 25?). X has a large variety of filters and processors available (as do the others) which can be manipulated in real time (not so for Avid). Within any given audio clip container, one has multiple channels that can be turned on or off, set as stereo or mono or surround, even edited within the clip container. They can be viewed with all channels expanded for viewing, or collapsed into a single container. If the audio is attached to a video clip, the audio can be manipulated independently of the video, while staying in synch by default. Unless you choose to detach to audio.

Where, exactly, does this fall short for complex mixes? Compare to Avid and Premiere Pro. What makes either of them more suitable for complex mixing?

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

[Jeff Markgraf]

Michael –

While I’m firmly in the Mac OS camp with no plans to change, I’m curious about your take on Linux vs Windows. The conventional wisdom holds that, as cranky as Windows can be for serious audio and video setups, Unix/Linux is a whole new level of hurt in terms of needing to be a real gear head to get it up and running.

Is this still the case, in your opinion? Based on what I know (likely very little!), I’d be very leery of diving into a Linux setup.

It’s all a moot point for me, as I don’t need the kind of big iron rigs that Mac doesn’t do. But I am interested in where things stand, from someone who knows his stuff.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Andrew Kimery] “Reasons like these aren’t indicative of anything other than personal workflow preferences.”

Exactly. Hence my frustration with those in this thread who are essentially putting words in Murch’s mouth. It would be just fine with me if Murch someday gives X a serious spin and ends up hating it. But he’s done nothing of the sort at this point. And the number of posts this thread suggesting Murch doesn’t care for X or “trackless” audio (or video, for that matter), even finding it unsuitable for professional work, is disheartening. I though we’d moved beyond this silliness.