Direct offline processing feature improvement

Nuendo
,
1

Hi,

I have been using Nuendo at the dubbing stage since 2012. I am getting to the point where I dont’t know if I can continue with that going on forward. The unpredictable audition volume in DOP is starting to hurt not only me, but also my clients. It can play extremely loud compared to how it sounds in the sequencer. However, I have a suggestion on how to improve DOP volume predictability pretty easily.

Please have a look at this this video where i describe the problem and a possible solution.

I would love to be able to sync clip volume to the audition volume slider in DOP. Is this hard to implement? Maybe there could be a checkbox for this feature.

Clip volume 2
Clip volume 22304×1472 189 KB

I really hope to hear from the Steinberg team on this issue!

Is this a feature you would like?

  • YES
  • NO
0 voters
2

Yeah, this has been asked for over and over again. No response from Steinberg.

3

Hi,

The audition is not affected by the mix by purpose. The idea behind is, you want to audition/preview the Audio Event isolated (to hear the sound properly).

If you want to hear it in the context of the whole mix, don’t use the Audition, use the common playback instead. Thanks to this, you have both options, to hear it isolated or to hear or in the mix.

1 Like
4

Hi Martin,

did you watch the video? There is no problem “to hear the sound properly” at all.

Isn’t it a good thing that the level is predictable to begin with, and then you can use the volume slider to adjust if you need to boost it? The offline processing to me is exactly as a normal mix process. It doesn’t make sense to automate an EQ on the track with 1000 clips of documentary sound. (Or a bunch of soundFX with varying volume)

I use the offline processing as an integral part of the mixing process. I find myself using more time on adjusting the audition volume slider than processing clips. (EQ, dynamics, Restoration etc.)

It seems like the Nuendo Steinberg team doesn’t understand how professional users actually use the offline processing in every day work. This is not a matter of wanting a new feature. This thing is about maintaining a safe mixing process when you are mixing at high SPL at a dubbing stage.

4 Likes
5

I’m sorry Martin, but what you are saying just doesn’t make much sense.

When one uses the Audition in DOP is not because one wants to isolate the audio event (that’s why we have track solo), but simply because that’s the only way to MONITOR what you are doing to the event in real time, before applying the process. If you use the common playback you can only listen to what has been applied already.

And if the current way it works really is on purpose, that’s a big mistake by Steinberg right there. I agree with Ambolt that it seems Nuendo team has no idea how we use this in the day-to-day. Clip gain levels can be wildly different from post-fader levels, and it can either be very dangerous to health and equipment, or very annoying, cause that little fader will only get you 6dB up.

Steinberg should just change this already.

5 Likes
6

DOP preview should be POST CLIP GAIN (maybe even post fader).
i fail to see any benefit the way it is now, if some wants to preview the original sound, you can do it in pool.
when doing location audio, dialogue etc, we get various levels or recorded audio material.
after doing a “rough” edit/mix, targeting the delivery LUFS, clip gain and faders are used to do that.
so DOP should folow that.
example:
i get a dialogue that was recorded very quiet (it is a common thing these days).
i add 15 db of clip gain to reach -23LUFS, and then i hear that there is a buzz arround 7khz.
open DOP to filter that buzz, but the audio preview is pre clip gain and i dont hear anything.
then i crank my speakers up to hear the DOP proces.
hit apply.
then my ears EXPLODE (and my speakers too) because i forgot to turn my speakers down…

2 Likes
7

this “purpose” shoul be changed asap.

8

Hi,

Then you don’t have to use the Audition, you can use the Playback instead.

9

HI Martin,
audition in DOP is realtime, witch is suitable for all kint of eq sweep filtering, declicking and denoising.
even if we select “auto apply” in DOP, there is still a delay for proces to finish, so that means that playback through sequencer (timeline) is not suitable for that pourpose. i am mainly speaking from dialogue editing and sfx perspective, but there are many more cases where current DOP implementation fails.
please give us a option to audition dop post clip gain

1 Like
10

Yes this has been discussed before for sure. On option for Post FADER might be interesting way to help this out., your idea of sync to clip gain is decent. Though The only way this can work I believe without any audible suprises would be that the signal would likely have to be routed back through the same channel and FX + Insert processes that the clip is on no?.What if you have an FX on the channel that is making the volume much quieter.

So by doing this you may have to hear the clip gain effect plus any inserts you might have and maybe even the full channel path (if going to a group with fx or master bus etc. Which isn’t exactly ideal either. There is a way to get a separate control on this for mixing purposes. You can set the listen audition to route through the phones channel and then in the control room set a dedicated output for that channel. I have it on a separate output going to my near fields and I even have a fader assignment on my mixing desk to control it VIA a fader- this way I have manual control and separate output if I want to avoid any nasty super loud suprises.

1 Like
11

The real question is: Do they need to reinvent the wheel at all? Other DAWs like Samplitude/Sequoia have been offering real-time clip-based processing (and thus in-place monitoring) for decades now, so it’s pretty obvious how to tackle the issue.

1 Like
12

I have a little difficulty understanding English - Maybe I didn’t understand the problem correctly.
So I don’t know if this is a solution:
We do audio restoration and have the equalizer and other plugins as an insert. So you can adjust everything in real time and the listening volume is right.
Once the equalizer (or other plugins) are set, we simply drag and drop it from the “insert” into the DOP.

13

Just add your 15dB as an offline process, instead of using the clip gain.

Fredo

14

yeah I do this a lot as well, mainly to lock in settings in realtime and then drag it onto DOP. its handy

15

Oh have mercy Fredo.

Can you imagine adjusting clip gain on a 45 minute piece by typing numbers on a process screen in every single bit of audio? Not reasonable at all.

2 Likes
16

Like Henrique wrote it’s not really a workable workaround though. My process for one-man jobs for TV is that I edit all the production audio but I also level and clean it at the same time. I have +/-1dB on key commands so I can quickly adjust level while checking on a meter (if I choose). The key commands make it very quick to adjust the entire clip(s). So like they wrote, imagine an average show that’s 45 minutes and then having to do this via DOP to all clips instead. It would slow the process down.

What’s worse is that of course adjacent clips will often have slightly different room tone, or at least different levels of dialog with the same room tone, and then it won’t be as easy as just “blindly” hitting a target number for both, I really have to listen to how they transition between each other. Can’t do that with DOP.

1 Like
17

That is truly the correct answer. It’s one of the reasons why I have not completely switched over to Nuendo and continue to use Pro Tools. There are a few editing “quality of life” features that keep me there. My main takeaway after a few years of learning Nuendo is that it’s a fantastic DAW, but certain features can be cumbersome when transitioning from another program. DOP handling and clip gain editing are at the top of the list.

tg

18

Well, I tried not to judge the workflow. I just wanted to offer a solution for that particular problem.
But if you ask … if there is one thing I absolutely hate is receiving dialog with adjusted clip gain on individual words or parts. This is a nightmare for the dubbing mixer. As you mentioned, the room tone goes up-and down, which is an absolute no-go in Audio Post. In addition to that, I wonder how it’s done, measuring the LUFS on a clip-by-clip basis.!? This is just nonsense. However, the OP is working in dubbing, which makes it a bit more understandable. Less worries about Room tone. That being said, in dubbing, the level of recording should be consistent and correct versus the original version. (For the record, I have done a fair bit of dubbing -to say the least- so I think I know what I am talking about) So, except for cleaning, there shouldn’t be any major clip gain adjusting. Yes, sometimes a tweak needs to be done here and there, but that is clip-gained by the ear, and it shoudln’t be more than a few dB. Then you go straight to mix where you balance the voice vs the M&E. And thats where and when you aim at the -23dB LUFS.

I am aware that in some dubbing processes, there isn’t much mixing involved. The big international companies want to receive recordings in a specific track layout and with specific levels, so they can throw it into an automated mix system which mixes all languages without the intervention of an engineer.
No matter how much I hate this, I understand it. I’ve delivered some of those myself. However, never been in a situation where I had hours of work applying EQ or and leveling before sending to Final Mix. The recording levels always matched ballpark those of the original Voice-tracks. Just a few tweaks during cleanup and done. If this isn’t possible, insert a VocalRider or such to speed up your workflow. Any additional work is just a waste of time and money.

Now, everybody has his/her personal workflow. I am the last person to criticize a non-common or non-standard workflow. If it works for you, then it’s good. In addition to that, I do think that it is a good idea to include clip gain into the DOP process. I do however have a problem with “unusable” and “workflow killer” or whatever you cant to call it. Ask yourself how you can avoid these kind of situations. You will save time, money and frustrations.
Not condescending the OP, just want to give some good advice.

Best regards
Fredo

2 Likes
19

Fredo, I said the absolute opposite of that. I said that room tone will NOT go up and down after editing, even while adding clip gain because I (we?) make sure of that. It really is as simple as receiving a clip where the level of the dialog is so far below -23LUFS that simply shoving the fader up when “dubbing” won’t cut it. Trust me, it happens. What’s the maximum gain we have, 12dB? For sure I get clips that are below that at times.

In addition, I also stated that I was talking about a one-man operation. So when you start talking about being a dubbing mixer that’s just completely irrelevant to the situation I explained to you. If I’m editing and cleaning and leveling at the same time then I’m also at the end of the process the mixer engineer, so if the level (and tone) is good after the first edit/clean/level-pass it’s good during the mix. There are no surprises there.

I’m not sure what you think I was saying but it really is as easy as having a send on the dialog tracks and having a target that is an output bus (no physical output assigned) with a loudness meter on it. Playing back while editing will then always show you the loudness of any given piece of audio you play back. OBVIOUSLY I’m NOT “loudness-normalizing” every clip independently. That’s so obvious it shouldn’t have to be stated. I simply play through a section of clips and if I want to I can look at the meter to see where that section lands and adjust the clip gain to get in the ballpark. Sometimes it’s dead-on, most of the time it’s just ballpark with the rest being done riding the fader. And again, I’m not going to adjust clip gain in a way where I get room tone bumps.

No nonsense here.

If you’re a dub mixer of scripted fiction etc. then it’s a completely different thing, but there are a ton of us that work on everything from sports-follow docs to lifestyle programming to reality to advertising and beyond… a ton of content that isn’t medium- to high-budget fiction in multi-engineer workflows. And we don’t deliver a project file to the client, we deliver the stems. So in terms of this:

It just doesn’t apply. They get stems.

  • By the way, perhaps there’s a different use of the word “dubbing”. Some seem to use it to describe the re-recording session, others foreign language-dubbing.

Your objection given your previous comment (that I responded to) seems pointless then.

20

Not picking a fight here, just adding my opinion. Sorry if you don’t like it.

I do work on Tv-series, Reality and Movies on a daily basis. So I think I can say that I have a bit of experience. That is including receiving crappy recordings.

Not going to answer line per line, just a few things.

-When I receive a recording (I call that a “take” which later is cut into “clips”) which is way under the targeted level, I just boost (DOP) the complete take x-dB (Key Command 6,9 or 12dB) so it sits ballpark in the target range. Then, and only then, I start dialog edit by cutting up the take in smaller clips.

-Location recordings always need extensive Dialog edit. So restauration and (clip) levelling is part of that process. You prepare the dialog “ballpark” for the Mixer. (Which can be you, yourself)

-LUFS is a measuring method over time. I.e. it is measured over the total program length. And it is measured over the total mix, not only on Dialog. So levelling dialog lines/takes/parts to “a” LUFS- target is nonsense. The LUFS target is for the complete mix. However, you do level dialog. You level it on a calibrated system by ear. I don’t think I ever looked at metering during Dialog edit.
(Except for Netflix, which has an individual loudness spec for dialog)

-In a one-man operation, the same procedure goes. 1: Dialog edit 2: Mix
Mixing involves gain riding and writing automation, while dialog edit mostly involves offline processes. Can you do both at the same time? Sure, but the order of execution remains the same.

-When I mention “dubbing”, I refer to foreign language dubbing. Recording within a studio environment. Especially International productions can have -very- weird workflows, which indeed need “exotic” procedures.

-It is not because I try to offer a solution, that I am deaf for the arguments in favor of an improvement of the functionality.

Fredo