editing environment vs. your audience's

[ebobster]

I'm advising some friends on some purchases for their new post production studio and enedup we ended up in a really heated debate over something that's kind of in my Dojo, but not enough so that I could argue with any sort of certainty. but it's way out theres which is what pissed me off.

Long story short, they said that it made no sense to fork over more money for really nice audio equipment, and that it was necessary to in fact buy a crap home-theater-in-a-box because we need to edit our material in an environment similar to our consumer who does not have a zillion dollar setup.

It's fine to be cheap, but to be blockheaded and illlogical without considering anything technical pissed me off. They're Award winning editors and filmers and so I don't argue with them when it comes to most things post-prod related but this is just bone headed IMO.

My thoughts are that if you're using amazing gear and producing a higher quality film, it can only be a good thing because all the frequencies and channels will be rich and you can really fine tune it. Then those who do have nice systems can at least benefit from it whereas if you're making a less fine tuned and optimized media, you're both depriving the people with nice A/V gear as well as lowering the bar from which any loss in quality will start.

kind of confusing but hopefully someone can answer without too much trouble.

 

[daybreak]

In the end of the day you can have the best equipment in the world, but if you dont have the material for a) people to like to listen too. b) the talent all would be a waist of time.

 

[JasonA]

Why not have both a good system and a crappy consumer one? When I edit, I use nice, professional nearfield monitor stereo speakers for most of my work. But then before finishing, I also check everything going through a crappy mono TV speaker to hear what it sounds like on the lowest common denominator too. I get the best of both this way.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The point of the higher end gear is not to mirror what the typical consumer might be using (which is impossible considering all the variables in gear, products, room conditions, etc.,) but to get an accurate representation of what the material actually looks like and sounds like. Pro equipment can be calibrated so it imposes little or no bias onto the material so you can see and hear what the material actually looks like (as opposed to a consumer TV that adds 'vibrance' or a consumer audio setup that enhances the bass).

I understand budget limitations but if people aren't even aiming for the best they can afford I'd have to question how much they care about the quality of their finished work.

Sure, the average Joe is going to have a janky setup and will never know the difference but the consumers/clients that do care will strive for a proper setup and will wonder why your friend's work has a pink cast to it, the mix is so uneven and every audio edit is audible.

I've always advocated doing the best work that you can and then letting the chips fall where they man once it goes out into the wild. People use everything from nice home theater setups to cell phones to view content and it would be impossible to create something that excels equally across the board. If something I worked on looks or sounds poor on someone's setup I know it's because that person's gear is way out of reference and not because myself or my team did our jobs poorly. I take a lot of pride in my work even though the majority of people will never recognize it.

 

[ChrisA]

Long story short, they said that it made no sense to fork over more money for really nice audio equipment, and that it was necessary to in fact buy a crap home-theater-in-a-box because we need to edit our material in an environment similar to our consumer who does not have a zillion dollar setup..

You need an ACCURATE system for editing and mixing. If for example you system lacks bass you are gong to boost the bass and then it will be to high. But the idea of also having an low-fi system to listen is not a bad one. You should test your final product inside a car too and on an iPod, on good and pro stereos and a boom box.

But you work on the most accurate system you can afford, If you are on a budget that is going to be studio (not consumer or audiophile) headphones. These cost about $100 and can be dead-on accurate.

It should be obvious that you don't want to your final mix to be compensated for the defects in a low end audio system. Every low-end system is different.

 

[LethalWolfe]

But you work on the most accurate system you can afford, If you are on a budget that is going to be studio (not consumer or audiophile) headphones. These cost about $100 and can be dead-on accurate.

Even with a nice pair of cans though the mix can sound very different in headphones (where L/R are discrete) compared to speakers/monitors.

 

[ChrisA]

Even with a nice pair of cans though the mix can sound very different in headphones (where L/R are discrete) compared to speakers/monitors.

Yes, you are right. But the head[hones will be the most accurate, then I many times will take the headphones off the "hear what it really sounds like". With a big budget your speakers will sou like the headphones and the room will be treated and so on. But for most of us, the headphone are used mostly then you take them off now and then to listen on speakers.

I heard a story about Neil Young taking a cassette out of the studio to the parking lot to listen in his pickup truck. I think it is good to do tests like this but it is just s test, not the way to work.