Is this fixed in post-production...?

Television filmmakers have a certain tendency to overlook sound in our products. We take it for granted that as long as the message is clear enough and the volume levels are adequate, everything is fine. On-site quality control is often limited, when there is time, to a periodic check of the signal level. In the worst cases, the sound is reduced to mixing music to a track of voices and effects that is mounted in any way when editing the material.

Sometimes, the sound can be recorded with serious problems, but many times we refuse to repeat shots to improve the audio. And it is in these cases when the magic phrase arises: "OK, this is fixed in post-production ... next take, please." When it comes time to process material with poor audio, we are often forced to copy it as it has been recorded and resign ourselves to continuing to work with a low level of quality.

In many cases, production companies design work systems that offer apparent savings by bringing sound post-production to editing rooms. The idea is that the same installation that is used to mount image can be used for sound post-production, and that to achieve this it is only necessary to add some elements. Perhaps a larger sound mixer, a compact disc player, a DAT recorder, even a mini-disc machine... In principle, the idea seems reasonable. With a small additional investment the editing room can fulfill two tasks, which is ideal for a producer who always faces money problems.

This scheme can work if you are going to make simple products, which do not require a very sophisticated sound post-production. However, in the long term, these multifunctional systems tend to be uneconomical. Why? Let's think about the occupation of the room. Suppose it is a simple dramatization, which may be edited in about twelve or fifteen hours. During this time, most of the sound equipment in the room will be turned off. And while four or six hours are spent sounding a program, most of the video equipment, which surely includes an expensive effects unit, will be locked. Wouldn't it make more sense to increase the initial investment a little and install a standalone sound post-production system?

On the other hand, sound post-production in an editing room imposes technical limitations that seriously affect productivity in these applications. Most video recording formats used in our region have only two editable audio channels. In some cases these channels can only be used in parallel, which dramatically limits the possibilities of the system. Some equipment allows you to use channel bouncing techniques or copying from channel to channel on the same tape. In this way it is possible to mix various sound elements making several consecutive copies between the channels of the tape, but these mixtures are irreversible, since each step of the process erases the previous one.

A skilled editor can overcome these drawbacks by using the other video recorders available in the editing room. Under these conditions, the operator manages to emulate the functionality of the equipment of a conventional sound studio and it is possible to significantly improve the quality of the product. The drawback is that, to achieve this, our editor uses and wears out several high-cost video recorders, for a task that can be done better with a multitrack audio recorder that will almost always cost less than a single video recorder.

Let's start by clarifying that the basic function of a sound post-production system is not to correct defects in the material. It is about having an instance that allows to produce sound tracks of greater richness, more competitive and that allow to attract the attention of an audience that is becoming increasingly demanding for its contact with the stereophonic sound of satellite channels. On the other hand, the migration to stereophonic sound is much more complicated if you do not have specialized audio systems for video.

To increase the flexibility of sound post-production systems, the basic resource is to increase the number of sound channels available. By having all the elements separated it is possible to control their incidence in the final mixes to the maximum and changes can be made without affecting other components of the sound track. In addition, it opens the possibility of making sub-mixes to generate versions with a different musicalization or music tracks and effects that are indispensable to make dubbing into other languages.

In large film productions it is common to find sound tracks that use more than 32 channels, which is completely out of reach of the normal budgets of video makers. A suitable compromise is, then, the use of eight-channel equipment that gives enough flexibility, allows to achieve perfectly suitable mixtures for listening on current televisions and can be an interesting experience in stereo equipment with high quality amplification.

Normally a video audio system is mounted around an eight- or more-channel recorder, which is synchronized with a low-cost video recorder. In most cases, copies are used in a different format than the master of the program – to reduce costs and avoid deterioration of the tape – but it is common to find systems that use the original format. Of course, it is necessary to have a mixer of adequate capacity, microphones, playback equipment, effects units and a processing chain that facilitates the work of the operator and allows to maintain optimal signal levels.

These devices are usually operated by a synchronizer – a specialized controller that uses the timecode to keep the playback of the two machines perfectly aligned – in such a way that the synchrony between the audio and video tape is always preserved. In some cases the synchronizer can control multiple sound recorders to increase the available channels. So it is possible to add elements in separate channels and then make a mixdown with the final sound of the program and insert it back into the original tape.

Many companies cannot afford the costs of new equipment for sound post-production systems and choose to mount more limited systems that allow them to optimize the use of editing rooms and in some cases take advantage of used equipment that is available. Synchronizers are often replaced with simple editing drivers, or outdated video machines are used to increase available channels. In some cases, companies adopt one of the digital formats that allow four editable sound channels to be handled, and thus greater flexibility is obtained.

On the other hand, many producers look carefully at the possibilities of digital audio technology, which offers options that allow to replace totally or partially conventional audio systems for video. The market offers everything from fully integrated workstations to multitrack audio recorders based on ordinary personal computers. However, producers tend to look with some suspicion at fully digital systems, which can be justified when we remember the headaches that usually accompany the installation of any equipment with state-of-the-art technology.

Many production companies have available some of the equipment needed to assemble analog audio systems for video, and this makes it very attractive to acquire only the essential elements to remove the workload of sound work from the editing rooms. For example, it is common to find installations based on multitrack digital recorders that work in an analog environment and are handled with small editing controllers, or even with the front board of a video recorder. This type of solutions allows to implement efficient sound post-production systems of low cost and very good quality while giving a waiting compass to the completely digital systems. TV&V