This document provides an evaluation of an FMP (Final Major Project) in audio production. It discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the research, planning, time management, technical qualities, aural qualities, audience appeal, and peer feedback portions of the project. The research allowed inspiration but lacked focus. Planning helped develop ideas but more could have been done. Time management and quiet recording space were issues. The audio quality was hindered by background noise. Peer feedback suggested improving the plot and duration.

1. FMP Evaluation
Your name

2. Production Process Evaluation

3. Research
• The strength was that it allowed me to in layout and spawn some ideas in definitive context
ad hence it aided the product as I had the audio to base upon a clear outline.
• The weaknesses was a possible lack of diversity in format which means I could have improved
my selectivity process which would have led to a lot less singular structure and a clear plot
outline.
• The products I looked at were not entirely the same and therefore gave me mixed results and
I should have focused more on one type.
• I got a sense of mood and narrative from the research and this inspired me when I came to
write my own.
• I would do more research into using sound effects as I felt these were not suited once I
placed them into the project but it could have made it more atmospheric.

4. Planning
• It follows that I was able to develop various contexts in a practical way and
the general tempo of the product itself which gave life to the process of
arrangements.
• Made it more clear in the objective of the product i.e. what’s the
characters? Etc.
• It allowed me to formulate all my ideas together, linking them to help me
see the overview.
• I generated other ideas but these were less involved as my passion was
more directed towards my final choice therefore I didn’t develop these as
much.
• Stretching beyond my comfort zone I could have looked into other ideas
and developed more skills.

5. Time Management
• Time was an issue due to my constant rearrangement of the script and its
lack of dynamic.
• The product would have of course improved under additional time due to
more investment and actually making it a stable plot.
• I was able to edit fairly fast after recording as it was a skill I had experience
in.
• I struggled to find a quiet space to record, therefore this made it take
longer to settle down and record in one take as I did it in two.
• I should have booked out a recorded and done that at home and also got
my script prepared in advance.

6. Technical Qualities
• The audio has a much more refined lines of “experimentation” which are comparable to various genres
which lack any certain elemental procedures.
• The differences is that it doesn’t entertain a long duration to actually fulfil the “lack.”
• I used razor, to make specific cuts. This was for effect but also to remove background static.
• The move tool helped me arrange and this was necessary.
• I used the space bar for exact positioning.
• I think using the software was good in enabling me to have free roam and control in the production
process.
• I need to develop my knowledge of practical procedures to make the work more outstanding.
• I think it sounds professional but the noise in the background does hinder this.

7. Aural Qualities
• Simplistic in effects to entertain a moderate duration.
• I would improve by giving it a much more clear outline with a much stronger presence in general.
• The narrative is quiet and the background noise is dominant, I struggled to find a quiet space to record,
therefore the soundclip has interference and this loses the general mood from the piece.
• I think the overall composition work but I was unsure on the additional effects or music so I opted to keep
it simple
• I think if I had more time I could have added more audio clips which would have made it more engaging.

8. Audience Appeal
The “flat-like” context surrounds a specific appeal due to its experimental state and
hence the script itself embodies that as that’s all there is.
16-24 • The delivery is appropriate and done by someone of that age range. It doesn’t offend or create fear.
Male • The lead voice is male and the general topic may appeal more as it is dark themed.
Socially conscious • Aware of change, transference of light and dark and open to higher thinking and narrative scripts.
Lower class • Much more adjusted to new habits because of their constantly changing environment., this is reflective in the
content and the harsh rainfall being a metaphor of the hardships always being present.

9. Peer
Feedback

10. Feedback 1
• What did you like about the product?
– Impactful in its natural sounds
• What improvements could have been made to
the product?
– Difficult to follow due to lack of plot

11. Feedback 2
• What did you like about the product?
– The rain sound contrasts with the vocals
• What improvements could have been made to
the product?
• has little replay value due to duration

12. Feedback 3
• What did you like about the product?
– Orginial in is production
• What improvements could have been made to
the product?
- Make it more for the average listener

13. Peer Feedback Summary
• What do you agree with from your peer
feedback?
• that it could have been longer in duration
• What do you disagree with from your peer
feedback?
- Making it for the average person in mind is not
what you genuinely wish to create

14. Peer Feedback Summary
Make it more plot-based so it follows
basic patterns of reference.
Record somewhere quieter to remove
interference.
Allow more planning and time for script
and recording
Research other similar products deeper
and use them for informing the
production style and clip management.