[Jim Giberti]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “… well, you certainly do seem enthusiastic.”

I’m always enthusiastic about creative. I’m really liking all the new and nice stuff in X and this was the time in the learning curve that I had to see if I could really do it all “in house”.

[Franz Bieberkopf] “I have to disagree with you about hardware faders, though. I find they allow and enable the user to manipulate more than one track at at time (where in most software you are pretty much restricted to one track at a time) as well as allowing quickly changing focus while you’re listening. Further they provide a record that can be adjusted manually with keyframes etc.”

There’s always some compromise early into adopting. I’m just trying to see if it can do really quality audio post and it can. Honestly though, I’ve got a new song in mix now that’s well over 48 tracks with vocals, real instrument tracks and virtual instruments. I absolutely want to see them all layed out and grab faders in real time to work the mix hour after hour.
I’m a tweak junkie.

But not audio post. If it’s got music, I’ve already done what we described in that mix.
I’m not riding faders in a mix for TV or film, I’m sculpting the sounds I have and laying them into cues.

[Franz Bieberkopf] “If I’m not misunderstanding you, it seems that FCPX requires a sort of listen / stop and adjust / listen work-flow in terms of volume graphing.
“

Well it’s not a mixer, but no, you don’t have to stop and listen. You play the project, select the track and adjust the fader in the inspector in real time while hearing it.
I think it works great for film post.
So far, early on.

[Jim Giberti]

Here’s a close up of the top.

0_xclose.png

[Jim Giberti]

OK , so that didn’t work – bear with me, I’ve never included an image here.
Gee, I should have read the directions.

[Jim Giberti]

[Jeremy Garchow] “A picture would help, even if the picture are blurred out. Set the timkieline to view names as roles. We won’t tell anyone! :)”

Here’s a short portion from the top to give a sense.

I’ll post a close up of the top next.

[Jim Giberti]

[David Lawrence] ”
Jim, if I understand correctly, it sounds like you’re using the 1 frame gap at the head of the show as the connection/sync point, then connecting compounds to that?

That makes sense, although wouldn’t using secondarys give you a bit more flexibility as far as access without stepping in? I don’t know what the implications would be for audio FX.

Not sure what you mean about attaching to the end of the piece since I’d think this would constantly be slipping sync as you edit. But maybe you’re already locked at this point?”

Exactly David, I’m using both CCs and 2ndries.
In places, specifically the actors ADR, that I want magnetized I leave them and CC them when the edit is done and ready for final mix.

They can stay as CCs because I want them *(likewise the SFX tracks) to reference the Primary, but anything fixed , like a music track I’m cutting to starts out in a secondary connected to the “anchor frame” at the top.

I mentioned the “clip at the back” as the way to start building a visual series of tracks below the primary – an empty frame at the top and end of the edit that you select and Option/G.
This creates an empty container and eliminates the wandering clip issue. If you want to edit clips into is vs say a full length bed – you need to make it a storyline.

So, in my scenario, you use both CCs and Secondaries.

[Jim Giberti]

[David Lawrence] “So I’m assuming you have everything in a secondary, yes?”

In this context yes, the Secondary/CC combination is what’s working.
It’s the only way to create a “container” to edit into unmagnetically and get the benefit of bussing.

[Jim Giberti]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “I’d be interested in more info too – specifically how FCPX deals with real-time volume graphing without a mixer (I assume you can keep several volume controls available?)

Also how you might speculate control surfaces might be integrated in future.
“

I’m looking at it this way Franz (being open minded about learning a new way mix great audio even if it’s completely different from my life experience) – At any given time during a complex music mix on a 48 track console (my day to day audio room) I can only focus on one track at a time.

I began to meld my thinking in regard to mixing once I went to a dedicated DAW as my recorder. After a while of doing that, I’m just as comfortable grabbing the track and adjusting it with keyframes and drawing curves (next please Apple) as I am riding faders with automation.

So, in that sense, yes you always have your basic fader/pan strip available in the inspector the moment you click the clip/CC that you want to work on.

There’s no field of faders and knobs to see as an overview, but that can also be very cluttered and one of the reasons that I keep the track list open beside the timeline in DP so I can shut off all those distracting channels when I’m working track by track.

When I begin to create master drum groups, Backing vocal groups etc. I still have to use grouping in DP and then work with the groups as sub mixes and then buss to the master.

So far, I’m doing all of that and it’s faster and more organized and immediately available to me than DP or Logic.

It’s very different, but not bad different. And it’s easy to adopt.

[Jim Giberti]

[David Lawrence] “[Jeremy Garchow] “it would be nice to “open the drawer” and manipulate what you need in context, then close the drawer back up with everything inside. Also, the detach function is great, but there’s no reattach. Basically, it would be nice to be able to edit what’s in the compound clip in greater context of the over arching timeline rather than having to “step in” and open the compound in it’s own timeline. You lose the relationship to your timeline (the elements outside the compound clip) a little bit the way it is currently setup.””

I’m having no problem doing this with Break Apart jeremy.

[Jim Giberti]

[David Lawrence] “True if you use handles or keyframes, I’m talking about something different – using dissolve transitions between clips. I do this with audio for various reasons pretty regularly. You can get the same effect by using handles/keyframes and stacking clips but I find it’s often faster and more direct to just drop a crossfade between clips. In FCP7 it’s a single-click operation.
“

I use that technique at times too David and yes the fades stay with the CC if you Break Apart or Open in Timeline

[Jim Giberti]

[jon smitherton] “So if you made a compound clip of say the dialogue stem, added a compressor…then ‘broke apart’ the compound clip then added another compressor to a single clip…you would hear both compressors when broken apart?”

No Jon, if you break it apart or Open it it will lose the “master buss” relationship.

The difference being, if you break it apart it will be gone for good because you need to recreate the CC.
If you Open in Timeline then you won’t hear it in context as you add the other compressor but it will be there when you step back in time.

I’m still working this out, but I don’t see that as a problem yet in my workflow style.
In my “track” scenario only similar audio clips are in any track. I’ve already “normalized” any audio differences between clips that make up that audio take. I would never add an effect to one that I wouldn’t wan’t across the range and that’s where they CC/buss thing works so well.

Any other tracks, say a single SFX would exist in a Secondary and have only the EQ, level and FX that I want for that moment in time. The next SFX down the line stays in the SFX Secondary but gets treated similarly. This group isn’t a CC in a Secondary but a series of clips edited (D) into it but horizontally grouped as a track.