Issue link: http://digital.copcomm.com/i/1197255
C A S Q U A R T E R L Y W I N T E R 2 0 2 0 15 Tech Tips for Quickly Matching ADR T E C H N I C A L L Y S P E A K I N G When I fi rst took on this subject, it seemed like a straightforward "Tips and Tricks" article. I was to show how differing versions of EQ Match (FabFilter or iZotope, for example) could speedily help a mixer match ADR. And they can, to a certain extent. But fi rst, let's take a step back for our non-dialogue mixing friends and defi ne our terms. What is the primary difference between production dialogue and ADR? Well, production audio is simply that. Audio captured on set/location (the production) via shotgun (aka "boom") mics, lav (aka "radio" or "wire") mics on the actors, and occasional plant mics hidden in a prop. After the rubicon of production mixing, these recordings are subsequently put through the ringer of picture editorial, a crop of assistant dialogue editors, and then the actual dialogue editor. All this happens before it ever makes it under faders at the hands of the re- recording mixer. ADR (aka "looping" or even "dubbing") on the other hand is an acronym for "Automated Dialogue Replacement." Re-recording mixer Vicki Lemar best described the aims of ADR in my article from the Summer 2019 CAS Quarterly called "Dialogue's Chain of Custody." ( h t t p : / / d i g i t a l . c o p c o m m . c o m / i/1152266-summer-2019). Here, Vicki told us that a "show's supervising sound editor creates a timecode cue sheet with a reason for an ADR recording. There could be an airplane passing over set polluting a line, the director might want a different performance, or a line might change or be added because the script had evolved." This is all achieved "primarily on a dedicated stage at a post sound facility " where "an ADR mixer places the appropriate microphones for the recording on the stage, records and edits the new performances." I have walked you through all this to point out the enormous difference in the provenance of these two types of dialogue. One is captured on a frenetic set in a space built with little or no regard for the vagaries of sound. The other is recorded in a calm space designed with dead quiet, acoustically clean recordings in mind; quite literally a recording studio dedicated to the human voice. In short, even when using the same microphones and making every effort to get the actors in the same headspace to deliver their new performance, production and ADR audio rarely sound similar. These points illustrate the paramount importance of high-quality ADR matching. That brings us to speed. And speed seems to be a big element in ADR matching, mostly due to the rate at which one is expected to mix these days for broadcast/ streaming. Even theatrical mix schedules can be noticeably compressed, leaving less time for mixers to fi nesse each one of these lines into an acceptable shape. As such, a handful of companies have been developing tools to help mixers smooth out the difference in tone between production dialogue and ADR. The most ubiquitous these days seem to be offerings from iZotope and FabFilter. In fact, as this article was submitted, iZotope had just released their new "Dialogue Match." b y C A S A s s o c i a t e P a t r i c k S p a i n iZotope Dialogue Match