Fact of life: Video rules over audio every time.

[littledog]

As if anyone needs reminding...

 

Absolute Rule #1: All things video always a higher priority than any audio considerations.

 

Example:

 

I'm hired by a large charity fund raiser ready to set up sound for a one hour concert. There will also be a ten minute video shown on a large rear projection screen. I arrive to set up, only to find the room is plunged into total darkness, while the video guys are trying to perfectly center the image on the screen. Being a semi-polite kind of guy, I ask if it's okay if I can get a low level work light so I can start setting up. I'm told flat out by the video guys that they can't have any light in the room until they finish their "critical" task, which they proceeded to take 20 more minutes to do.

 

I was already running on a tight schedule, and the result was that the final sound check was still being done as the guests entered the room.

 

What is bemusing is the sense of entitlement that video guys always have that any tiny detail of what they want or need to do is automatically far more important than anything concerning sound, and that attitude seems to permeate through all levels of the industry.

 

I wonder how it got to this point?

[loslobos]

IMO people just dont get live sound. they think you just plug speakers in and play some music.

[IsildursBane]

Shoulda blasted 'em with 115dB of pink noise for 10-15 minutes.

 

"Sorry guys, I have to tweak my rig, too."

 

-Dan.

[Synonym Music]

Originally posted by littledog As if anyone needs reminding... Absolute Rule #1: All things video always a higher priority than any audio considerations. Example: I'm hired by a large charity fund raiser ready to set up sound for a one hour concert. There will also be a ten minute video shown on a large rear projection screen. I arrive to set up, only to find the room is plunged into total darkness, while the video guys are trying to perfectly center the image on the screen. Being a semi-polite kind of guy, I ask if it's okay if I can get a low level work light so I can start setting up. I'm told flat out by the video guys that they can't have any light in the room until they finish their "critical" task, which they proceeded to take 20 more minutes to do. I was already running on a tight schedule, and the result was that the final sound check was still being done as the guests entered the room. What is bemusing is the sense of entitlement that video guys always have that any tiny detail of what they want or need to do is automatically far more important than anything concerning sound, and that attitude seems to permeate through all levels of the industry. I wonder how it got to this point?

 

I don't know. But it's all their fault.

[B. Adams]

Originally posted by SYN I don't know. But it's all their fault.

 

Maybe it is, but you'll soon realize that no matter who's fault it is, it's always your fault.

[ashivraj]

I read this one somewhere:

 

To prove which is more important, sound or lights/video, pop in a live concert DVD into your DVD player. First watch it on mute. Then turn the volume on and shut your eyes. Which is a better experience?

 

This is proof enough for me that sound rocks.

 

AS

[agedhorse]

Originally posted by B. Adams Maybe it is, but you'll soon realize that no matter who's fault it is, it's always your fault.

[Ed Dixon]

That old line about a picture being worth a thousand words comes to mind.

 

Many folks look at sound like their TV remove. They press power on, and the volume goes up and down from their remote. They wonder why sound is not so simple.

 

I've seen volunteer sound techs speek to an audience holding a handheld wireless at their waist and wondering why feedback occured...

 

Ed

[pro1-54]

Its all about the white balance

[InACanProductions]

 

Originally posted by ashivraj I read this one somewhere: To prove which is more important, sound or lights/video, pop in a live concert DVD into your DVD player. First watch it on mute. Then turn the volume on and shut your eyes. Which is a better experience? This is proof enough for me that sound rocks. AS

 

 

When I took some TV Production classes in college my professor had a lesson one day where he showed us 2 video clips, one where the audio stayed consistant but the video quality changed drastically, black and white shots, to color, to grainy out of focus shots, cristal clear, slow motion you name it, then the 2nd clip was a consistant shot of video with the audio going haywire, he asked which video appeared to be done right. Hell as I'm typing all this I have the TV on next to me about 10 feet away, I can't see the action, but I get the jist of the show from hearing what's going on. If you turn on the TV and there's a black screen with no audio for more than 3 seconds you think something is wrong with the feed, or your set, but if that black screen has even the slightest of sound effects you know everything's fine. Ever see those cell phone commercials where the network drops the call and it goes completely silent. First time one of those came on I was at the computer not watching the screen and when it went silent I thought something happened to the TV. Audio is as important to the viewing expierence of a video/TV/movie as the video itself, why do you think no one makes silent movies anymore?

[B. Adams]

Nobody here is disagreeing with that, but things seem to work differently in the real world. IME, the average video production company seems to have no shortage of $10,000+ cameras, expensive tripods, remote power supplies, switchers, and all sorts of other fancy gadgets to go along with them, packed up in designer cases. Then all their audio is from cheap microphones, or the cheapest wireless they could get their hands on, into an ancient Mackie 4 channel mixer with scratchy pots, into the cheapest processing (if any) that they could find, onto the cheapest recording device they can get away with, all hooked up with blue-light special cables, and it's all just wadded up and thrown in an old duffle bag at the end of the day. The whole audio setup can cost less than just one of their tripods, yet the general consensus here is that it's equally important to the end product. I would say that the vast majority of those involved in the video industry don't see it that way, or at least underestimate what it takes to do it right, and don't care nearly as much about audio as they do video. And yet it's equally important... Somebody should probably tell them that, because I don't think they got the memo, and I doubt they ever will.

 

FWIW, I don't see video problems on TV all that often, but I often hear poor/inconsistent audio. Bugs the hell out of me, but it never seems to change.

[Synonym Music]

Originally posted by B. Adams Maybe it is, but you'll soon realize that no matter who's fault it is, it's always your fault.

 

I did not expect anyone to take me seriously on that.

 

Of course it ends up being your fault. I learned that after trying to find a depressed mute button in pitch {censored}ing black and missing one of my cues. Doesn't matter who pressed it - I didn't, just for the record - I missed my cue nonetheless. Therefore, it's my fault, and I did take responsibility for it.

 

Of course, if someone had to set up video in the middle of a play and it kept me from my responsibilities, they'd probably be fired. Theatre is quite different.

 

But they seemed unreasonable is my actual point (at least from littledog's POV). There's no need for that.

[Synonym Music]

AND I just noticed that my situation happened to be very similar to littledog's.... Not enough light. I mean for christ's sake, all we need is a flashlight. Even something keychain size is better than nothing.

 

So again: :rolleyes:

[Scodiddly]

 

Originally posted by littledog I'm told flat out by the video guys that they can't have any light in the room until they finish their "critical" task, which they proceeded to take 20 more minutes to do.

 

 

My money would be on "the video guys were idiots" - twenty-plus minutes to center & focus? I've been the projector guy a few times, and I didn't need that much time. And I've definitely never needed complete darkness.

 

In that situation, as audio crew, I probably would have started shoving cases into the room and using flashlights as needed. "Sorry guys, but we're on a tight schedule."

[bassred]

Yeah, I'd have to go with the 'move my sh*t in using a flashlight' if anyone gives you a problem, remind them that you are hired by the same person they are and you are just doing your job as well. THen walk up to the projector and hit the two buttons they can't seem to use right........ well, I wouldn't go that far......

 

In TV, I can tell you that audio is taken quite seriously. on most shoots there are more A-2's than will ever be needed, because the possiblity of a problem scares the crap out of the folks in charge. Even on video shoots, to be edited at a later date, I've been A-2 number 4... that means to get a lav adjusted or battery changed there are four guys on Comms who can rush to fix an error....... kinda ridiculous, but I don't complain, it means I've got a job.... I did a video shoot of a conference that was 5 days long, set up, in half a day, I would have sat for the rest, it got to the point that I asked the video truck owner if there were any little tasks that he hadn't been able to get to on his truck and spent a good bit of time helping him with mults and racks, I was getting paid, after all, and don't want to be seen as a lazy employee.... One issue occured, before the shoot began one day, a PL was not getting through to the truck, turns out it wasn't supposed to, the Lighting Director picked up the wrong PL pack (like the white gaff and big sharpie'd letters 'LD' weren't apparent enough........) that was it, they paid us to set up, hang out and strike.... I even ended up helping the audio company that was running FOH for the conference because they didn't have enough people, so I was A-2 on the stage as well as for the truck, anything to keep me from sitting on my arse eating doughnuts and drinking coffee (I hate sitting around, and I love catered gigs...)

[littledog]

I'm with B. Adams on this.

 

How many have seen the following on A/V installs? Tens of thousands of dollars typically get spent on the video "half" of A/V, and then a bunch of 3" crappy speakers are mounted in the ceiling, with maybe a $200 powered mixer.

[bassred]

I work for a company that does corporate sound, I'd have to say that folks are spending a good bit of money to make sure the audio is right.

 

I have seen the installs of which you speak, but it has been a while since I was at a venue like that, most of what I've seen has been high-dollar all around (sure, the video equipment may have a high price tag, but they are renting it, not buying it... and I venture that our Midas H3000 cost more than a small video setup might.... that usually goes out with JBL Vertec speakers, Crown I-tech amps, a couple of Klark-Tecknik EQ's.... if the customer were buying the rig, it'd have a hefty price tag as well....... Audio has more competition, maybe, so the pricing has gone down and down.....

 

Video guys think that their 'product' is more important because it is newer to the industry, relatively..... a lot of the shows I've worked, the video guys hauled in and tested their gear the day before we brought the audio in.....

[ashivraj]

From the Iggy Pop rider, page 10:

 

'And although nobody goes home whistling lights, it's also true that no-one goes to gigs to stare at the f****** P.A. stacks.'

 

 

AS

[milesdf]

video or audio first, i think we can all agree that lighting is at the bottom of any list.

[littledog]

 

Originally posted by milesdf video or audio first, i think we can all agree that lighting is at the bottom of any list.

 

 

 

Except on wedding venues. Then the heirarchy goes like this:

 

1) Caterer

2) Baker (wedding cake)

3) Florist

4) Photographer

5) Videographer

6) Lighting

.

.

.

.

27) Band

[Ed Dixon]

And on wedding events,

 

0a) Mother of the bride

0b) Father of the bride

1)...

.

.

.

[IsildursBane]

 

Originally posted by milesdf video or audio first, i think we can all agree that lighting is at the bottom of any list.

 

 

I don't know man... The more I read pro lighting mags, the more respect I have for those guys. They can do some crazy {censored}.

 

-Dan.

[Synonym Music]

Originally posted by Scodiddly My money would be on "the video guys were idiots" - twenty-plus minutes to center & focus? I've been the projector guy a few times, and I didn't need that much time. And I've definitely never needed complete darkness. In that situation, as audio crew, I probably would have started shoving cases into the room and using flashlights as needed. "Sorry guys, but we're on a tight schedule."

 

I hear that. If it gets in the way of your job and there's no compromise available (though the flashlight has been the go to here, and that is NOT a lot of light!), then tough for them. They shouldn't be unreasonable in the future, nor should they disregard audio. How about a silent reception? *cringe*

 

One thing does cross my mind, though... An old fashioned misunderstanding. Why are we arguing about which is more important, though? If you need them both, video and audio are equally important because neither can really be shortchanged (just cheaply done... And that shows! )

[littledog]

I don't think the discussion is about which is more important.

 

I think the issue is why video guys feel entitled to have their needs prioritized above any of the audio needs, regardless of how trivial theirs are when viewed in the larger scheme of things. It's near universal attitude that has somehow evolved, although there wil obviously be exceptions on a case by case basis.