Speakers for Video & Sound Editing- Need Suggestions

Hey folks....

I'm trying to purchase a pair of nice speakers to hook up to my FCP system for audio editing. The ones I have now are terrible-- the audio sounds great on my machine, and horrible everywhere else.

My understanding is that I need a pair of speakers that are magnetically shielded, with a 20Hz-20kHz frequency range (which is only obtainable via subwoofer). I found a nice pair of M-Audios for $100: [www.m-audio.com], but my budget is super tight, and I'm trying to find something for $75 or under. Any thoughts or suggestions? Do I really need something with a 20Hz-20kHz range for editing or can I go with something cheaper?

Thanks!
-SK

$100 is over your budget?? There's always ebay. I am using EVENT 20/20 BAS monitors (they blow the roof off my suite) so I can recommend EVENT monitors:

[cgi.ebay.com]

At this price, I would jump on these if I didn't already have monitors.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Quote

Do I really need something with a 20Hz-20kHz range

Yes if you need to monitor sound properly - its a bit like asking "do I need a Broadcast monitor?" yes if you are doing Broadcast work.

If you cut corners you will come up against an issue that you cannot resolve sooner or later.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Hi

I also use Event near-field monitors. They are great.

In my opinion part of the trick is to ensure that there is no latency between the video and the audio when you play the timeline and that the lips are always in sync.

I connect my speakers directly to my Decklink HD card's Digital Audio using a Geffen digital to analog audio converter, as the monitors do not accept a straight digital signal. no latency at all

good luck

Ughh, video editors trying to deal with accurate audio monitoring, can their be a more awkward match? ;-) It's like watching a video edited by a sound editor. I am only posting this because you used the term, "audio editing". That would imply that you are mixing audio, doing final mixes and that your work will not run through the hands of professional sound mixer for sweetening, sound design and final mix, correct? In the recent past, this wasn't an issue but now that the new editing paradigm means that often the video editor is awkwardly thrust into the positions of sound mixer, motion graphics designer and often producer. You used to hand off the project to someone who knew what they were doing with audio. Now we are trying to do it all ourselves.

Your choice of audio monitoring is secondary to your monitoring environment. Unless you have a sound treated and tuned room to mix in, to a point, your choice of monitors is immaterial as far as accuracy. You can take the finest, most accurate monitors in the world and put them into a typical "not designed for sound mixing" edit bay and they will sound grossly inaccurate.

The goal with audio monitors is identical to using a broadcast monitor for video. In video, the monitor is for judging contrast, focus, color, aspect ratio, etc. In audio, it is for judging quality, frequency, separation and relative levels of different sound layers in relation to each other. You know that nobody will ever watch your shows on an accurate video monitor, but the idea is to establish a baseline accurate standard of what the signal really is. Audio monitors are the same. Accurate audio monitors are transparent. If material sounds bad, accurate monitors will present it as "bad sounding". If the material sounds good, accurate monitors will represent it as "good sounding"

The problem is that most video editors end up with monitors that make everything "sound good" (M-Audio, Event, KRK, Cheap Tannoys, Cheap JBLs, some Mackies, Samson, Yamaha, etc.) rather than monitors that present the sound more accurately (Genelec, Dynaudio, Hafler, Adam, Klein + Hummel, etc.) Most video editors are not going to spend the money for accurate audio monitors because the cheapest small pair begins at close to $1,000.00 per pair for small near field monitors and $3,000.00 to $5,000.00 for most mid fields.

Plus, as mentioned previously, unless the room has been designed and or modified acoustically, you will never achieve anywhere close to accurate sound. Mention non-parallel surfaces, room reflections, slapback, bass traps and diffusers and most video editors eyes glaze over. Mention spectrum analysis, white noise generators and room tuning and most video editors begin to shake their heads in confusion. "What, you mean I actually have to spend a lot of time. money and effort to tune a room and make it as acoustically inert as possible?". Very few video edit bays are setup for accurate audio. They shouldn't need to be. Everything would sound leagues better if professional sound mixers could mix every project. But that isn't going to happen, its become a DIY world for many of us.

There are methods for doing this yourself and it does take time and money. You can get educated here [www.acoustics101.com] or here [www.auralexuniversity.com] or on many other websites about sound engineering and facility design. Obtaining accurate video monitoring is easy and simple in comparison. Control ambient light, buy a nice broadcast monitor, pay an engineer to set it up and calibrate it and you are good to go. Setting up a room for accurate audio is more involved but you can do it yourself. I have setup three different facilities and it just takes an understanding of basic audio principles to design the room to work in conjunction with the monitors to reproduce accurate sound. Or better yet, you can hire a sound installation consultant, but of course, this costs significantly and not every edit bay can physically be optimized to sound accurate.

The other thing that video editors don't want to hear is that there is no such thing as "an" audio mix, unless you are delivering for only one exhibition medium. On television, I continually hear mixes that are optimized for the web, vice versa and mixes where correct compression and EQ was not implemented to optimize music levels versus dialogue levels, etc.

I just delivered a project. It will be shown on the web, on DVD, and on broadcast. Yes, you guessed it, three different masters with three different audio mixes. Broadcast is broadcast, your levels must be optimized for and meet broadcast specs. Has nothing to do with sound quality, has everything to do with levels. For DVD, I like submit a more dynamic and higher level mix because DVD is capable of cleanly reproducing dynamic range that broadcast cannot. For the web, it is a lowest common denominator mix, music levels and ambient levels must be raised significantly in relation to dialogue or they will not be heard on most systems.

Without accurate audio monitoring, you are shooting in the dark as far as knowing what you are actually hearing and what your mixes will sound like on most audio playback systems. it is up to you if you will spend the time, money and effort to achieve accurate audio results.

Best of luck,

Dan

Dan...you are correct in all you say...but you are talking to someone with a $100 budget for monitors.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Right, but they shouldn't spend $100.00 on monitors unless they are willing to concede that there is no chance of anything near accurate sound with those types of speakers.

I am seriously thinking of authoring an on-line course or application that shows people in our business how to budget and spend their money on gear. I sense a recurring theme in our business that is so frustrating.

1.
I bought a bitchin' new camera that I really couldn't afford. Now I need a really cheap tripod because I didn't budget correctly. I should have bought a much cheaper camera and had a budget for proper camera support

Variation 1A.
I bought a really bitchin' new camera that I really couldn't afford. I also bought a nice tripod that is the bomb. I need to buy a lighting kit ot shoot my spec indie film, I have $300.00 budget for my light and grip package.

Variation 1B.
I bought a really bitchin' new camera that I really couldn't afford. I also bought a nice tripod that is the bomb. I spent another $8,000.00 on this kickin' light kit, C-stands, sandbags, everything. Now I need a really cheap mic that I am going to plug directly into the camera to get epic sound. I have $125.00 to spend on my audio package.

Variation 2.
I bought the new top of the line Mac Pro, fitted it out with the best graphic card, 400GBs of RAM and 35 Terabytes of RAID 5. I sprung for two 30" Cinema Displays, a new top of the line editing desk, every piece of video editing software and plug-ins known to man. Oh yeah, I need studio monitors and a mixer and my budget is $89.00

I could go on, but the variations are as tried and true as a Brahms concerto and I have been reading them since the Internet had discussion boards.

Sense a trend here? Nothing against SK, if all you have is $100.00, all you have is $100.00.

But something doesn't equate for most users when they have dropped thousands or even tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars on one portion of the equation yet totally neglected the other equally important yet less sexy portion of the equation. Anyone editing with FCP, unless they are using an illegal Bit Torrent version shelled out $1,200.00 for FCS, at least probably close to $2k or more for a Mac, another grand or two probably for monitors, furniture, other software, plug-ins, drives, UPS backups, etc. When all is said and done, I would think even the poorest users are in for at least $4 to $5k total.

Same with camera people, I will even boil it down to this. Most people have no clue how to budget, intelligently spend their budget and they just buy impulsively and later regret that they have to do all of the other parts of the package in a half-a** way. They don't learn, they don't research enough and they just plunk down the plastic shortsightedly.

Is there some way to educate people with more money than sense on how to intelligently and prudently buy gear? I have been doing some consulting on the side, doing exactly this, I have saved my clients hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad decisions but I am thinking that this could be a program or lecture or something on-line to reach a greater audience. Go look in the Marketplaces on most of the big websites, 80% of those items up for sale were someone's shortsighted mistake.

Dan

Great idea Dan. I'd read it and help you promote it.

Michael Horton
-------------------

I am with you brother. I can write an entire chapter on people being cheap on just external RAIDs / hard drives.

I actually helped some peeps (who asked my opinion - will remain nameless) purchase some video gear = a camera, a laptop and an external RAID for remote editing to "raise the bar" on how their stuff looks currently and their workflow. They bitched a little about the prices said "Hey...I can get a cheaper camera set-up / laptop / RAID than you are recommending". I said "...then ask someone else's opinion. I don't buy cheap gear." They bought what I suggested and haven't stopped thanking me for it because it shows in the productions.

The old saying "sh!t in - sh!t out" applies big time to the quality of gear.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Hi Skiley,

Dan is 100% correct in everything he says. However, you need to get by with something far less expensive.. - And you say you want it for "Video Editing" -You're not asking for something to give you audio for a final, "professional" quality mix. You just want something that will give you a better reference point than what you've got.

Of all the elements in the audio chain, the speakers, the microphones, and the acoustic environments are what accidently "color" the sound the most. Every speaker product sounds different from every other - and they sound different in different locations. An inexpensive, consumer-type speaker system, as Dan pointed out, is likely designed to sound "good" without being expensive or large, by taking shortcuts, not by producing smooth response or low distortion, etc. - Most use external "bass reflex" systems, which attempt to use the external room acoustics as part of the speaker system - the sound will be quite different from room-to-room.

What you need is a "reference point" - Something you can use to tell you when you're kinda' close. One way to accomplish this is to put a track that you're familiar with, from one of your favorite CDs or DVDs on to the timeline and listen to it. From there, you'll at least have some indication of what audio from a known good source (presuming decent audio from your CD) sounds like. You can then determine if you need some sort of EQ in your monitoring system or different speakers.

This type of method is far from perfect, and results will vary - for instance if your speakers can't reproduce audio below 80 Hz, and you have too much audio in that range, you'll never hear it, but at least you'll have a starting place and a crude (remember it's crude) reference point.

Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

I've enjoyed reading the discussion. But there's an option being overlooked. Just get a pair of industry standard headphones like the Sony MDR-7506s. $100 and will solve SK's problem.

Phil Cramer
Indianapolis

> Just get a pair of industry standard headphones like the Sony MDR-7506s. $100 and will solve
> SK's problem.

Headphones are not an alternative to speakers. They give you a false perspective for the audio. And only one person can listen in. I'd say if you were setting up a system purely for editing and not a final audio mix, then get $100 speakers rather than $100 headphones.


www.derekmok.com

I won't agree with you on that, Derek.

For that price range, i'd get a pair of closed cans for monitoring. One main issue of using closed cans is that bass response isn't as accurate, since we absorb a lot of bass frequencies through our bodies rather than our ears. The next issue is fatigue- I can't do a mix for as long on a pair of headphones as i can on external monitors.

However, the bigger advantage of mixing with closed cans is that they are relatively inexpensive, and the room does not matter as much and they have a more transparent sound than many low end monitors.



www.strypesinpost.com

Here's the counter-argument. For the past six weeks I've been working on a reality show where the subjects are huge celebrities, and they drop in frequently to listen to dailies and edits. They had headphones on the office station...for about a week. And then the impracticality of having each Executive Producer and show star listen on headphones -- and having to run every movie file four times just so each person can hear -- became apparent. After a week of that headphone nonsense, they put on a pair of $30 speakers and everybody's been happier since.

As my previous post states, if you're only editing and not doing the final mix, speakers are far, far more practical than headphones. And if you were doing the final mix, $100 ain't gonna cut it either way.


www.derekmok.com

I have been following this thread for a couple of days. First of all let me state that I have, and use, the M-Audio speakers that skiley asked about in the first post.

The thing about FCP is scalability. Some of you are finishing feature films with it. Others of us may be doing vanity videos for our friends kids.

When I am working on a project for the broadcast networks, I don't finish audio on my system with $100 speakers. I DO sometimes offline material however.

Dan described an ideally engineered room to do a final mix for a big budget project. I think the total revenue I have generated with my attic edit room would probably not buy wall coverings for that bay.

So skiley, as an owner of those speakers, I can recommend them. Work on small projects, or edit your film and you will be happy. If you are doing something that will eventually be projected in a theater, or submitted to a broadcast or cable network, hire a sound mixer in a proper room for your final mix.

-Vance