“Loudness refers to the perceived strength of a piece of audio (music, speech, sound effects etc.). The loudness depends on the level, frequency, content, and the duration of the audio, amongst other things”
(On the way to Loudness Nirvana –Audio Levelling with EBU R128: Florian Camerer ORF)

Graham Heath MIPS

I was asked by IPS Chairman Simon Bishop MIPS to write a short article about the recent loudness summit I attended just before Christmas 2011. I agreed with some trepidation, as writing for the IPS website is quite daunting! I feel a bit like a WW2 bomber pilot worried about flack and being shot down in flames!

So what is all this loudness malarkey about? As a TV Sound Supervisor I try to tickle PPM6s on the meters and, hopefully, make a decent enough balance that’ll earn me my next crust. However, I’m constantly frustrated by the ‘loudness’ of network junctions, adverts, and even VT packages that are often unheard until the dress run (if you’re lucky enough to get a dress!), and sometimes not even then. Yes, I could slam my audio hard into a compressor or limiter – and I have tried multi-band compressors in the past – but I don’t like the results and, more to the point, why should I? I am there to make the audio pleasing to the customer and, just as importantly, to the listener at home.

I don’t know anyone who hasn’t at some time had to ride the volume control when watching the TV for any length of time because of unwanted changes in loudness. There are lots of complaints about audio from the public, some justified and some ill informed, but it appears that the loudness issue is a problem faced by all broadcasters worldwide, and one that needs regulation. So what exactly is being done about it?

Well lots, actually. I knew there was talk amongst my colleagues about EBU moves to measure and control loudness but I didn’t realise quite how global an issue it had become and how my working practises face change over the next few years. Indeed France and Holland have already introduced loudness compliance quite successfully, as I believe have Japan and some major networks in the USA .

When I became aware of the London Loudness Summit I was quite prepared to pay for a ticket when, by chance, I saw a post on the IBSnet (now IPSnet) about a draw for free tickets – so I entered and won! What’s the chance of that? (I must do the lottery). So on the 16th of December I made my way to the conference which was being held in the charming and imposing building of the Royal Institute of British Architects at Portland Place.

The summit was attended by about eighty engineers, manufacturers and broadcasters and the opening address was from the summit chairman Florian Camerer MIPS (at left) who is one of the top broadcast sound engineers at ORF, with a huge knowledge and understanding of all aspects of audio. He is to sound what Steven Fry is to the English language!

Florian spoke eloquently about EBU R128, PLOUD [pronounced P-Loud – Ed], LUFS, Compliance, Dynamics in mixing (or the lack of it), and Gating… and I began to feel like I needed to do a bit of homework. Luckily the EBU maintains a fantastic web site that helps to explain all of these terms: http://tech.ebu.ch/loudness

EBU Loudness

So before I give a brief synopsis of the summit I suppose I should try and summarise, in the smallest of nutshells, what the EBU is specifying regarding loudness. I would like to add that the following few paragraphs are a condensation mainly of Florian’s EBU article: On the way to Loudness Nirvana [available at: http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_2010-Q3_loudness_Camerer.pdf], for which I’m hoping that he (and you) will forgive any inaccuracies.

EBU R128 and its four accompanying technical documents were published in August 2010 after two years of intensive work by the EBU PLOUD group led by Florian, proposing a set of standards/recommendations regarding metering, production values, and programme distribution for radio as well as TV.

Florian’s article describes the fundamental changes that we must embrace over the coming years in broadcast audio to control programme loudness. Programme Loudness is defined as the “integrated loudness over the duration of a programme”, and in addition to monitoring and controlling this we will also have to take into account the Loudness Range (LRA) and the Maximum True Peak Level. The former is the distribution of loudness levels within a programme and is useful in deciding if the use of dynamic compression is required. The latter is the “maximum value of the [reconstructed] audio signal waveform of a programme in the continuous time domain” measured with oversampling peak meters conforming to the new ITU and EBU specifications to reveal any potential peak clipping between samples which wouldn’t be seen on other meters, especially PPMs. The maximum allowable broadcast True Peak level has been defined as -1dBTP for generic linear audio.

Florian advocates maintaining appropriate use of dynamic range coupled with good mixing practises within a programme, but the loudness normalisation should ensure better consistency between programmes, adverts and networks. Indeed, he argues that quality should improve by implementing the loudness normalisation specifications as the current perceived benefit of producing the loudest soundtrack (especially amongst advertisers) disappears and that there will be less level-compression artefacts.

Traditionally we have used PPMs in the UK broadcasting industry, but their finite integration time means that they (deliberately) don’t take into account brief transient peaks. These transients can be problematic, especially on (still used) FM transmission carriers, which is why there is a Permitted Maximum Level (PML) of -9dBFS (to ensure adequate headroom). However by crafty processing and transient clipping (the human ear tends to ignore transient clipping of less than around 5ms), which is deemed acceptable by some commercial organisations, the loudness level of an audio signal can be significantly increased by around 4 to 5dB whilst keeping the PML at the allowed value,– and hence the need at home to ride the TV volume control.

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) formulated a standard which forms the basis to counteract this kind of practice, which was published as: ITU-R BS.1770. This describes algorithms to measure both loudness and true peak levels. The ‘K weighted filter curve’ is a modified second-order high-pass filter (K is just an arbitrary letter and has no special meaning) which is applied to all channels (except the LFE channel in surround sound programmes) and the results, after a clever bit of maths, give a figure of ‘LKFS’ (Loudness, K-weighted, referenced to digital Full Scale). In R 128, this was subsequently renamed ‘LUFS’ as the EBU’s preferred term (Loudness Units referenced to digital Full Scale).

In short, -23 LUFS is the ‘Nirvana’ to which we should aim. The average programme loudness is measured with a loudness meter compliant with the EBU metering standard ‘EBU Mode’, and which incorporates a defined gate function. This gate pauses the loudness measurement when the audio level falls below a specified threshold for a minimum duration so that periods of silence or low level atmospheric effects don’t reduce the programme loudness figure inappropriately. By normalising source material to the -23 LUFS standard level there is an inherent simplicity in the process and we can mix in a more dynamic way and hopefully achieve better quality mixes.

It is also possible to manipulate any associated programme metadata so that the loudness normalisation can be achieved at the consumers’ end – and to help get your head around this concept I really recommend that you visit the EBU site and read Florian’s article and the ‘Practical Guidelines’ (EBU Tech Doc 3343) several times!

Summit Else

Well back to the summit. After Florian’s opening address we heard from Randy Conrod who is the product manager for Digital Products at Harris USA. Randy gave a talk on topics such as why loudness is a collision of biology and technology, and how metadata could be the panacea but isn’t due to its susceptibility to tampering.

Next we heard from Phil Greene (right), the lead technologist for Technology Division BBC, and Tim Carroll, President and Founder of Linear Acoustic. One of the notable points that Phil made is that there is a dilution of audio skills within a diminishing work force. Very few people are being trained properly today and this has an effect on standards as fewer people understand the underlying principles. He told us that the majority of loudness complaints received by the BBC were age-related (very few, if any, young people complain about audio quality) and that we as an industry should be focussing more on loudness and intelligibility. To be fair the EBU already is, even if the UK hasn’t as much up until now. He also reiterated Florian’s point about bringing audio quality back into focus.

Tim Carroll (right) was a joy to listen to as he imparted knowledge with good humour. He touched on the metadata issue in some depth, suggesting that current metadata systems needed drastic streamlining (apparently there are 240 parameters in the Dolby Digital system), as well as finding a means to safeguard metadata against tampering. His main mantra was that ‘a happy consumer equals compliance, and happy producers equal unmodified audio’. To achieve this we should have an accurate delivery specification which is accessible by everyone and which matches average loudness by verifying content and the correct use of metadata.

He pointed out that it could still go horribly wrong of course, for example if a harrowing death scene in a dark drama is followed by an in-your-face shampoo advert – particularly where there may not be sufficient budget or an adequate system to oversee the content’s suitability beforehand! He also felt that (wide) dynamic range material will always generate complaints, despite loudness compliance because of the wide range of platforms that consumers use to listen/watch, from low-end TVs to high-quality home theatres, iPods and internet-based TV – each with their own inherent processing quirks and quality limitations. One interesting query he raised was how many under-30s with a hi-fi system do you know? I can’t think of any, and all the people I know with decent audio systems are soundies or musicians, which means young people are in danger of being less discerning about quality (if that hasn’t happened already) because of the devices they’re listening to and their lack of experience of what good-quality audio really is.

Florian then gave a brief summary and overview before lunch, giving more food for thought (groan… sorry!) by discussing some potential pitfalls of the K-weighting system and how unscrupulous broadcasters could abuse the system. For example, placing male voices in the LFE as well as the main channels allows the level to gain 1 or 2 LUFS for ‘free’ because the LFE contribution is unmetered (although this wouldn’t work with Joe Pasquale, of course!). Another example he cited was fooling the Gating threshold with the right level of background music or atmospheres. Finally, whilst -23 LUFS is the target Florian restated the importance of using your ears and balancing skills, and that there is no need to compress the audio into an ‘audio sausage’ (Florian’s term for a squashed waveform).

After lunch we heard from Jeffrey Riedmiller, Director of the Sound Platform Group at Dolby Laboratories Inc. Topics touched on were measurement and control in the professional space, and rendering and control of loudness metadata in end-user devices. We also saw a video of Barrack Obama signing legislation that makes it a US legal requirement to have loudness processing in the broadcast audio signal chain. Failure to comply will result in a fine of 2% of revenue which, for some broadcasters, could exceed $100 million. Generally, the larger broadcasters will regulate loudness properly but there are many regional TV and radio stations that will probably just plug a processor at the end of the chain regardless of whether there is loudness control already in place elsewhere. In an ideal world metadata would turn this off when necessary, but then it could also be bypassed deliberately to safeguard the broadcasters’ interests. Jeff also pointed out that by implementing loudness management through the process of law it becomes very difficult to amend or update the compliance standards, and could become counterproductive.

Other speakers at the summit included Peter Poers of Junger Audio and Chris Hollebone of Merging Technologies, They put forward very articulate and salient information which expanded and reinforced the points made throughout the summit and summarised above. Last but not least came Richard Van Everdingen, a broadcast sound consultant specialising in Loudness Nornalisation. He talked about the importance of maintaining loudness control and normalisation procedures throughout the whole signal chain, discussing programme distribution issues all the way to the consumers’ set-top boxes.

Completing the day’s presentations, Matthieu Parmentier from France Télévisions surprised us all with the well thought out strategy being implemented in his organisation where loudness normalisation is now the norm (as of January 1st, 2012) with mandatory compliance of all programming by the end of the year!

Q & A

The summit concluded with a Q&A session involving all of the day’s speakers, after which it was time to return home with my goody bag, and a visit to the EBU web site to help clarify and focus my understanding of many of the topics and issues raised.

Going into this summit I really didn’t know what to expect, but it was a welcome eye opener and forced me to do some homework. The loudness normalisation issue isn’t as scary as it might seem. It means some changes to our current metering tools and techniques, and to the required delivery standards, but for the majority of us we will continue to work much as usual and still balance, dub, edit, and acquire audio in much the same way, and we will still rely on the best monitors possible: our ears. It might, however, bring audio to the forefront of production values… though I wouldn’t hold my breath!

I found the following documents invaluable in helping me understand the EBU standards and recommendations, and to write this article, and strongly recommend them for some background reading. Links to all these papers can be found at: http://tech.ebu.ch/loudness

Graham Heath

The new name for the IBS reflects the shifts in the audio and broadcast industries over the last 34 years, and also the changes in the Institute’s own membership and working practices. Where once sound people working in broadcast had staff jobs with the BBC, ITV or independent local radio, most IBS members are now freelancers. Of necessity, the Institute’s members also now tend to operate in more than one field in the audio industry; for example, they may work on radio ads one day and a TV sound dub the next, while a location sound recordist might work on TV dramas, documentaries, corporate video or live sound events over the course of a few weeks.

Simon Bishop, Chairman of the IBS’s Executive Committee, explains the Institute’s reaction to these changes:

“Our new name more fairly reflects who we are. With members that move freely between the varied worlds of radio, video, TV, music recording, location and live sound, broadcast is no longer necessarily the single thread that binds us all together. However, all of us work as audio professionals, and we would like to speak for all who fit that description, whilst also reaching out to others who might have been dissuaded by our old name. Hence the change to something more inclusive.”

The IBS/IPS name change will come into effect officially on 1 January 2012, but already the regular programme of training events and meetings organised by the IBS for its members is reflecting its more inclusive emphasis. Events this Autumn have included training on SADiE, Riedel and Studer products for broadcast and live production, and the forthcoming annual training weekend in February 2012, the first to be held as the IPS, will be split between Outside Broadcast training on one day, and PA and live sound workshops on the other.

“With the 2012 Games coming up, it’s appropriate that we focus on OB work on the Saturday,” explains Simon Bishop. “However, on the Sunday, we will be offering training on foldback and PA mixing, with live bands playing throughout the day. We’re going to make some noise — and you’ll see much more of this kind of event from us in the future.”

The IBS is formulating a response, and will publish it here, once sent.

Thank you for your letter and for enclosing the letter written by Louise Willcox, headed BBC — Doing Less, But Making It Sound Better.

I note that at the Institute you have become increasingly concerned about what you feel is a decline in technical standards in UK broadcasting, and in particular the BBC.

One of the points you raise is music overwhelming dialogue. I recognise that one of the most common complaints to the BBC in recent years has been that some people find it hard to hear the dialogue in programmes because of background music and noise.

However, the Trust is aware that the BBC is taking proactive steps to reduce the effect of background noise on audiences. BBC Vision’s Audibility project was a huge undertaking and resulted in the “best practice” guide for programme makers.

Producers are also told when there are a number of complaints on this issue relating to their programmes, and adjustments are then made in subsequent programmes in a series.

I should explain that the Trust sets the BBC’s strategic framework, but responsibility for operational and editorial decisions within this framework — such as the use of background music, dubbing, training, employment of sound recordists or self-shooting directors — rests with the BBC Executive, led by the Director-General.

As the Trust is therefore not in a position to involve itself in the specific points your letters raise, I have arranged for your documents to be brought to the attention of the Director-General, who will ensure a response from BBC management. I trust that this reply will answer your concerns.

I hope this is helpful and thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention.

next – a letter from  the BBC Director General, Mark Thompson >>

PO Box 208
Havant
Hampshire
PO9 9BQ

4th August 2011

The Lord Patten
Chairman
BBC Trust
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ

Dear Lord Patten,

RE: BBC – DOING LESS, BUT MAKING IT SOUND BETTER

We hope the headings below will assist reference.

1. Who are we, and should you take us seriously?
2. What is ‘good’ sound?
3. What do we want and why are we writing to you?
4. Some disturbing facts.
5. What have the public noticed?
6. Who are the TVAG?
7. TV Audibility Survey – of 20,000+ people.
8. What the survey found.
9. BBC Vision’s response to the survey.
10. Why are these skills being lost?
11. Staff security versus freelance fear.
12. The elephant now in the room.
13. The Institute of Broadcast Sound – not averse to, but an instigator of change.
14. Will you meet with us?
Appendix 1.

1 . Who are we, and should you take us seriously?

The Institute of Broadcast Sound was formed in 1977 by experienced Television Sound Supervisors, Senior Radio Studio Managers, Dubbing Mixers, and Sound Recordists from across both the public service and independent broadcast industry. We have been supported by the BBC, ITV and IBA as well as broadcast equipment manufacturers. To qualify for membership, practitioners must have a proven track record for good quality sound acquisition and mixing, and be recommended by established members of the Institute. Many of us have been recipients of Craft ‘sound’ BAFTAs over the 34 years of our Institute’s existence. We will be renamed The Institute of Professional Sound in January 2012 to better reflect the interests of our members now providing expertise in feature films, corporate, new media, as well as radio and television audio.

2. What is ‘good’ sound?

• The viewer/listener should never have to reach for the volume control once a level has been set on the TV or Radio. This applies to an entire TV channel (including advertisements), not just to individual programmes.
• The viewer/listener should be able to follow plot – that usually means they should be able to hear the words, and have time to understand their meaning.
• There should be no aural shocks, except for dramatic effect.
• There should be no mute footage, except for dramatic effect.

3. What do we want and why are we writing to you?

To re-establish good quality broadcast sound across all networks, but on BBC networks in particular.

Members of our Executive Committee listened to the interviews marking your appointment as Chair of the BBC Trust. You talked about the BBC needing to “do less, better”.

Many of we operational staff started uttering those very words when first Radio 5 Live, then BBC 3, BBC 4, 6 Music, and BBC 7 were created. “Too little butter spread over too large a piece of toast.” was BBC canteen gossip in 1995. Now, most of those canteens no longer exist and many of the gossipers have long since been ‘released into the community’, but we know their views as freelancers have not changed. Jeremy Paxman expressed similar fears when he delivered the James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture in 2007 – a speech that is still relevant today, if you have time to read it. Latterly, Mark Thomson seems to be preparing to go down in history as the first DG who might actually make the BBC smaller. We hope it also makes Aunty produce better quality programmes – editorially and technically.

We believe that the only way to justify paying for a public service broadcaster (be it BBC originated or independently produced programming) is to ensure that it sets a benchmark, as well as entertaining and educating the public – BBC Charter obligations. That Charter also stipulates that the BBC has a remit to train the industry, as recognised in a 21st February 2011 BBC Academy press release: “As well as training our BBC staff, the Academy also has a remit under the terms of the BBC’s Charter Agreement to train the wider industry.”

We know that, so far as television sound is concerned, the BBC is not setting a benchmark, and it does not train the wider industry in anything other than basic location sound recording techniques. When the current generation of practitioners who mix complex programmes, (eg: Strictly Come Dancing, Later with Jools Holland, Springwatch or Question Time – all mixed by our Institute’s members) finally hang up their headphones, we know our replacements are not waiting in the wings, because we are not passing our skills to them, now.

4. Some disturbing facts.

1. Sound recordists are rarely employed: the BBC and other broadcasters have almost eradicated the use of experienced sound recordists for television features location work. Television drama seems safe at the moment, but there are huge budgetary pressures in this area too. ‘Technology’ means kit is smaller, and self-shooting directors (recording both sound and pictures) are employed for the majority of factual and features work. However, the public have noticed the degradation in sound quality that has resulted (survey details later).
2. Lack of training: we know the BBC has not provided training courses for any television Sound Assistants, Deputy Sound Supervisors or Sound Supervisors for at least 15 years. The BBC Academy occasionally still trains some Radio Studio Managers, but even in radio, the push is for producers to do more of their own sound mixing and editing. The recent much heralded (Radio) “2 Day” highlighted some operational inexperience and/or lack of planning – great music balances during Janice Long/Mike Harding and Bob Harris’ hour, but some interviewees were barely audible.
3. ‘Dubbing’ – where items recorded on location are sent into an acoustically isolated sound mixing area to smooth the “lumpy” audio joins that inevitably occur when single camera-shot material is edited together; where voice-overs, sound effects and incidental music are added, then professionally mixed-down (to ensure the viewer doesn’t have to reach for the volume control, and can hear the plot/words clearly) – this is now regarded as an expensive luxury. Instead producers rely on inexperienced picture editors to do a basic job in noisy edit suites. Inaudible dialogue often results.

For information: Picture editors used to be trained in basic sound mixing techniques, but experienced editors who know what they are doing are expensive and rarely used. BBC Studios has just closed its Post Production department at Television Centre and cheap freelancers – some straight out of media colleges – are the preferred suppliers. We know of several universities where Physics lecturers have had their departments closed and been told to teach ‘media studies’. Frankly, they don’t have our level of expertise to pass on.

5. What have the public noticed?

Perhaps what we think can be discounted because we have a vested interest? However, our paymasters – licence fee payers – are getting very angry. Complaints to the BBC about ‘sound’ have been at, or near, the top of the BBC’s complaints webpage for the last three years, with complainants often ‘shouting’ their annoyance IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

6. Who are the TVAG?

The Voice of the Listener and Viewer Television Audibility Group (TVAG) was formed in 2007. The group consists of Richard Bates, (former BBC Financial Controller, Regional Broadcasting, retired 1995); Peter Menneer (former BBC Head of Broadcasting Research, retired in 1992); and David Walker (former Head of an Engineering Resources department for the BBC, retired in 1993). They initially complained about the overuse, inappropriateness and loudness of incidental music, obliterating dialogue. This proved to be the tip of a very large iceberg.

7. TV Audibility Survey – of 20,000+ people.

The TVAG cornered Jay Hunt, the then Controller of BBC 1, at the Edinburgh Festival in 2009. The upshot was that the BBC and Channel 4 agreed to survey the public about TV Audibility on the five terrestrial TV channels. ITV and Channel Five decided not to ‘play’, but their programmes were surveyed anyway.

During the second week in August 2010:

• The BBC made available its Pulse on-line audience research group of 20,000 people (around 8,000 respondents per day).
• The VLV, with assistance from Widex (hearing-aid manufacturer), funded a paper survey of approximately one thousand over 65-year-olds who were not on-line.
• A group of RNID volunteers were also surveyed.

The survey asked questions about sound quality, audibility of dialogue, fluctuations in volume, style and quantity of incidental music across the week’s television programmes.

The BBC, in particular, was taken aback by the number of complaints, the anger expressed by some respondents, and the fact that many of its flagship programmes were criticised. Casualty and two other prestigious dramas, The One Show, and The Weakest Link all made it into the worst ‘cut’.

The 22 most criticised programmes were earmarked for closer analysis. DVD copies of the BBC and Channel 4 programmes were sent for assessment to David Walker of the TVAG, and Louise Willcox – freelance, ex-BBC, Sound Designer, and Executive Committee member of our Institute of Broadcast Sound.

After analysis, their report was published to the BBC and Channel 4.

8. What the survey found.

• Concealed microphones and clothing noise muddying dialogue.
• Camera microphones used to cover dialogue – dialogue unintelligible.
• Drama: dialogue from actors unclear – voices so quiet that their own movement noise was louder than their vocal performance.
• Actor’s dialogue badly enunciated.
• ‘Gutless’ voice-overs, recorded in boxy acoustics – edit suites, perhaps? No dynamic control. (ie the voice too quiet to be heard easily over music and effects. Voice-overs should normally be recorded in a voice-over booth, in a ‘dead’ acoustic, and mixed by a sound professional who is schooled in the use dynamics gadgetry to treat the voice to sit on top of the rest of the sound design.)
• Fast paced editing making dialogue hard for the brain to ‘process’. An intake of breath to allow a ‘thought pause’ is fast becoming a thing of the past.
• Music overwhelming dialogue. Inexperienced mixers – picture editors, or dubbing mixers? – not reducing the level of music enough to ensure dialogue is heard. This was found across all genre of programming – sport, drama, features and documentaries.
• Music used as “filler”. Filling gaps where, apart from the voice-over script, there were no other usable effects from location, and no budget apparently spent on a dub where effects to match pictures could have been added from sound libraries.
• Music added to a programme without any sense of musical form or house style. An apparently random selection, often in short bursts, that viewers complained simply didn’t make ‘sense’.
• Music used instead of an audience – eg the Weakest Link. A device to manipulate emotions and create suspense, and timed to climax at the end of each round. However, some music was too loud and overwhelmed the speech.
• Sport programmes where music and crowd noise obliterated commentary.
• Sport location in-vision positions set-up adjacent to public address (PA) speakers – the spill from the venue PA drowning dialogue from the presenters despite their microphones being only an inch from their mouths.

9. BBC Vision’s response to the survey.

Information you may know: BBC Resources Ltd, managing television craft and operational expertise, was separated from the BBC, proper, in 1995. The sale of Res Ltd as one entity failed, but areas have been sold off or outsourced over the years. The remaining areas that could not be sold were subsumed back into the BBC. However, managerially, the BBC had anticipated a successful sale of the whole company, and there is currently no television operational, practical management on the Board of Management. The BBC is controlled by ‘creative thinkers’ only – ex production and journalism departments. This is why our heading focuses on BBC Vision’s response.

BBC Vision set the publicity machine in motion, with interviews on the Today and BBC Breakfast programmes. Attention was drawn to the survey having been done (though not credited to the tenacity of the VLV). They commissioned and shot seven ‘how to do sound’ videos, perhaps thinking that they were fulfilling the Charter obligation to train the industry by making the videos viewable by the public. The videos can be seen here:
www.bbc.co.uk/academy/collegeofproduction/search?page=1&q=Audibility

The BBC have also issued a couple of edicts – which can be seen here: www.bbc.co.uk/academy/collegeofproduction/tv/sound_matters_cohen www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-hearing-summary

Whilst we applaud any attempt to move ‘sound’ up the agenda, we practical (and creative) people do not see these videos or edicts as the answer.

Knowing where to put a microphone to get the best sound; knowing that if the performance is bad, a well-placed microphone (or a dub) can’t fix the problem; knowing how different microphones work and which are appropriate for different sound sources; finally, knowing how to pace, treat and balance sound to make an aurally intelligent and understandable programme; all this is becoming a dying skill that no number of videos will rescue. Reversing the decline in quality needs the provision of training in facilities where the trainee initially has the freedom to fail, and where the aural effects of the use of different microphones, sound gear and techniques can be demonstrated, compared and assessed; followed by mentoring in the workplace.

The BBC Academy’s own ‘sound’ trainers (based at Wood Norton, near Evesham) were not consulted about the seven videos. They have been completely forgotten throughout the whole process. Whether deliberately, or through ignorance, we know not.

BBC Research department was consulted (the blue-sky thinkers of the engineering world), and they are doing good work investigating “loudness” issues (that’s a whole other essay). However, we suspect BBC Vision see them as fellow creative thinkers – albeit ‘engineers’ whom they have learned they can’t quite do without.

10. Why are these skills being lost?

The ultimate culprit is reduced programme budgets: so many hours of broadcasting to be filled and too little money to do it properly.

You won’t find many of our members baulking at the idea of the BBC cutting a network or two if the result is a large enough budget to do our job professionally.

Sound has always been seen as the least important craft in television – how many times might you have heard a director say ‘it will be alright in the dub’? When budgets are cut, sound is one of the first things to be sacrificed. However, there is now some evidence that, even when there is a huge budget (eg The Wonders of the Universe), a director or producer’s understanding of what a good sound design should be has already been lost (or they invite the composer to the dub – always a bad idea!), and the skills which dubbing mixers employ to mix sound tastefully, ensuring intelligible dialogue, are being eroded.

11. Staff security versus freelance fear.

When ‘sound’ practitioners are employees of the broadcaster, they stand a better chance of forming trusting relationships with production staff, developing innovative techniques and sharing them with colleagues (example: ensuring we heard the wedding vows at the recent Royal Wedding without seeing microphones). Staff are also more likely to raise their heads above the parapet, for instance: pointing out to an assertive director that no matter how familiar Professor Brian Cox may be with his Wonders of the Universe script (having helped write it, and rehearsed it several times), Mr and Mrs J Public still need to hear the words.

A freelance will think twice before passing on innovative ideas (in fear of losing their ‘unique selling point’) and will also be reticent about disagreeing with someone indirectly responsible for employing them: “Do I fight for better intelligibility, or keep quiet and guarantee I’ll be working next week?”

The majority of broadcast sound practitioners are now freelance. There are only four staff television sound supervisors left at Television Centre.

We have no political agenda; simply stating the facts as we find them.

12. The elephant now in the room.

Material filmed by self-shooting directors – with questionable sound acquisition skills – goes on to be edited by someone who doesn’t understand how to mix sound. The resulting programme is aired through a transmission area (Red Bee’s NC 1, 2, 3, 4) where no person controls ‘sound’ – the sound ‘mix’ is a function programmed into the vision mixer buttons operated by the Network Director. We are already broadcasting programmes where no sound professional has been involved anywhere in the broadcast chain. No surprise that dialogue audibility is often compromised, and that volume is inconsistent – not just within individual programmes, but across whole networks.

13. The Institute of Broadcast Sound – not averse to, but an instigator of change.

Audio digital technology has actually moved faster than video – with our encouragement. We ensure that our members learn about new techniques and equipment from seminars and training courses that we organise.

For years, sound professionals have been recording digital audio on formats that have evolved from digital audio tape (DAT) and CDs, to audio files stored on hard disks and solid state media. Location cameras have only just taken the leap from digital tape to hard disk recorders.

14. Will you meet with us?

We estimate that we have ten years to address this issue before our unique skills are lost to the world.

Sound is the essential information carrier in over 80% of television programming. Simply put, words are plot and many broadcasters seem hell-bent on losing it. We would like to see the BBC buck that trend, and we would be delighted to meet you to discuss how this could be achieved.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, not inconsiderable, document.

Yours sincerely,

Louise Willcox

Sound Designer and Executive Committee Member On behalf of The Institute of Broadcast Sound

http://www.ibs.org.uk

Tel: 024-7634-0102
Mob: 07795-282-938
Email: louise@dwrassociates.co.uk

next – The reply from Lord Patten >>

The initial contact was a covering letter from  Simon Bishop, IBS Chairman. Read on…

PO Box 208
Havant
Hampshire
PO9 9BQ

12th August 2011

The Lord Patten
Chairman BBC Trust
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ

Dear Lord Patten,

RE: BBC – DOING LESS, BUT MAKING IT SOUND BETTER

I am Simon Bishop and am currently Chairman of the Institute of Broadcast Sound (see www.ibs.org.uk). The IBS is a UK based organisation promoting interaction, standards, and education for those who work professionally in audio, in TV, radio, and many other areas of the sound business.

We at the Institute have been becoming increasingly concerned about the decline in technical standards that seem to be becoming more prevalent in the UK’s broadcasting, and in particular with output from the BBC. The BBC has until now been lauded as a centre of technical excellence, and yet we, highly trained professionals, notice more and more occasions where it could have been done better, or rather more correctly.

In your role as Chairman of the BBC Trust, you are tasked as the ‘champion of viewers and listeners’. Our members, as well as being highly trained and skilled technicians, are also viewers and listeners, only with more than a passing interest in what they are listening to.

I enclose a letter written by Louise Willcox, a member of our Exec Committee. It encapsulates the thoughts of many of our members, and we would appreciate it if you could spare enough time to read what I realise is a not insubstantial tome. Our aim is to raise the profile of sound in broadcasting generally, and we wonder if there is any way that you might use your position at the BBC Trust to help us to do this.

Thank you for your time, and remember, without the words, most TV and radio is not just quiet, but plain boring, causing people to switch off.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Bishop, FRGS, MIBS, AMPS

P.S. – Whilst we have been compiling this letter, we have heard that the BBC is to make just about all of their most accomplished and skilled Trainers at Wood Norton, their prized Centre of technical learning, redundant. Another centre of world excellence compromised out of existence no doubt.

pt 2 next – The Letter >>>

First things first… the numbers.

In the last 6 months we have had 20 enquiries to join the scheme,17 people have joined and have managed to pair up 12 people and are waiting to find suitable mentors for 5 people and a mentee for one person, and if the maths looks wrong its because one person is both mentor & mentee!

The feedback I have received so far has been great, with both mentors and mentees finding lots of value in belonging to the scheme. To quote from one member

“The scheme really is a unique, invaluable resource for people like me and I hope more people get involved!”

As expected most of the mentees are in the location recording field, but we do have some who need OB, Studio and post production experience and the mentors we have cover a broad range of experience.

How it works

The way the scheme works is that mentors and mentees contact me with their details, using an email proforma that can be found here on the Mentoring page. I then enter them into the database and match up mentors and mentees according to geographical location and discipline.

I send them some information about what mentoring is, the scheme, how it works, and provide the mentor/mentee pair with each others contact details. After that its up to the two individuals to schedule meetings, work out what each of them wants out of the relationship and work towards fulfilling these goals. The relationship can last for as long or as short a time as they see fit; they can then ask for another mentor/mentee if they wish.

I am amazed that, given the geographical spread of our membership, we have had such success in pairing so many people. We have pairs in Scotland,the Midlands and the South East and have members waiting for mentors in Ireland and the South East. We also have a mentor available in South Wales. So if you are willing to volunteer your time as a mentor please get in touch. I will be putting up Mentor Wanted/ Mentor Available notices on the home page on the website so the membership will know where we have mentors & mentees available, but if you think the scheme is for you, please get in touch. We want to extend this successful scheme to more members.

In the last couple of weeks AMPS has announced to their members that they will also run a Mentoring Scheme. AMPS contacted the IBS about our scheme and we came to the conclusion that the most sensible course would be to share information, increasing the size and geographical spread of the pool of mentors/mentees.

Lets hope that this time next year I will be able to report that the scheme has even more members spread over the country. To do that we need more people to get involved, so if you think you could benefit from mentoring someone, or could benefit from having a mentor, get in touch.

Chris Maclean
IBS Executive Committee

The IBS has submitted the following as a response to the current OFCOM consultation on future use of Bands IV and V.

The IBS is a body representing audio professionals working primarily but not exclusively in radio and TV broadcast audio.

During the past six years we have been part of the PMSE industry body liaising with OFCOM on the DDR and DSO and their impact on PMSE activity throughout the UK.

We are therefore most disappointed to see that in this latest consultation from OFCOM there is no mention of PMSE as a current major user of UHF bands IV & V. In the diagram on page 3 the single channel 38 identified for PMSE use is most misleading. As OFCOM should already know, PMSE activity runs right across the whole of the UHF band from channel 21 – 30 and channel 38 – 60.(Post DSO) This access is managed by the band manager JFMG Ltd on a licensed basis utilising what is commonly called the Interleaved Spectrum but now often called White Space. PMSE access to this spectrum has existed for many decades and as the PMSE industry made plain to OFCOM during the DDR discussions it is essential that this spectrum is retained for PMSE’s continued use as current and foreseeable technological developments will not enable PMSE to utilise other spectrum with the same efficiency that is currently available.

PMSE is able to exist in the UHF bands IV & V largely because it co-habits the spectrum with what is now called DTT services. It has to be stated that UK consumers will not take kindly to having to make further changes to their broadcast TV equipment having just equipped themselves for DTT should OFCOM consider removing DTT from its current spectrum allocation in the future. To consider supplying broadcast TV services via cable and/or wireless broadband is not a realistic economic option for the UK given the geographical nature of population distribution. Fibre optic cabling to small rural communities is already discounted in the current UK broadband debate on cost terms alone.

In the consultation mention is made of future international harmonisation particularly with reference to the 700 MHz band. If this development is introduced in the UK, the resulting loss of the current DTT spectrum would cause a major reduction in available PMSE spectrum as well. This does not make economic sense given the importance of the PMSE industry to the UK entertainment and media industries. Following DSO the PMSE industry is already seeing a deficit in available spectrum when compared to that available with analogue broadcast TV services so the removal of the 700 MHz block would create a serious problem for PMSE services. It is already being challenged in the existing interleaved spectrum surrounding DTT with the possible introduction of so called license exempt cognitive White Space Devises.

It has to be said that the modern telecoms industry with its access to enormous financial and technological resources is better placed to develop access to other available spectrum rather than the already crowded UHF bands IV & V. The PMSE industry that currently uses these bands does not have those same resources to migrate elsewhere in spectrum terms.

In conclusion while accepting that technology is always advancing and who knows what is over the horizon, it must be stated clearly that the existing UHF bands IV & V allocations must be safeguarded for as long as is humanly possible for the sake of existing consumers and UK plc.

Malcolm Johnson

On behalf of the Chairman and Executive Committee of the IBS.

June 2011

You would have thought that a live transmission to cinemas in 5.1 would be broadly similar to a live surround sound TV transmission, and indeed that’s what I thought when I first started researching into the medium some four years ago. However, in fact there is a fundamental difference in approach which, although initially unsettling for those of us weaned on PPMs, can end up providing more creative freedom. Furthermore, this way of doing things is infiltrating the broadcast industry and is possibly about to change TV forever. Of course, I’m referring to loudness metering… but more of that later.

Johnny Lee Miller as the monster

I have now sound-supervised many National Theatre “NT live” transmissions, the latest being a relay of Frankenstein from the Olivier theatre on the South Bank. Directed by Danny Boyle and scored by Underworld, it was notable for two reasons: firstly both director and band were particularly interested and involved with the sound of the show; and secondly the two leading characters swapped roles after each performance, giving us almost two completely different shows to work with.

Inevitably, there are some compromises when translating one medium to another. At first it can seem virtually impossible to faithfully re-create the immediacy of a stage performance happening in front of you to a cinema presentation via satellite. So after a lot of thought the first thing I did was define a few rules that I thought might minimise any distractions. I wanted the cinema audience to be as connected to the stage as possible, so I panned the theatre audience mics only to the sides and back of the 5.1 sound space, reinforcing the feeling that the cinema audience were part of the show rather than decoupled from it. I also wanted to get perspective into the speech balance to give a presentation similar to that of a film or TV drama obtained using booms, but with – as far as possible – no mics visible to the audience.

Since the live link was to cinemas, I wanted to make use of the extended dynamics that such an environment can support, emulating within reason the full dynamics of the stage performance. The cinema format offers virtually unlimited headroom (well, a maximum 105dBA per speaker isn’t bad!), and the first stage of the process was going to see a production. Once in the auditorium I couldn’t help noticing the completely naked actor for the first 15 minutes of the show…. so nowhere to hide a radio-mic then! At this point I tried to enjoy the show as a punter rather than be too analytical – this experience became the blueprint for the transmission. As there’s so much going on it’s easy to get lost in technical minutiae and miss large parts of the show!

The OB trucks outside NT

After that first review of the show all departments then normally gather for a production meeting to go through technical aspects of the performance. However, since it was difficult to find a single date that everyone could attend we planned this particular show via email. Bowtie Television provided vision and presentation facilities, and we used a separate truck for the audio with a Studer Vista 8 console, and all the other familiar bits of audio gear in it.

FOH desk

The theatre’s in-house PA system is now fully digital, with a Digico SD7 front-of-house desk and MADI signal routing. As we use MADI for all our interconnects I thought it would be easy for us to run a fibre to FOH and pick up any lines we needed – but here lay the first hurdle! For our digital audio system to be synchronous with the in-house system we all had to be clocked from the same master generator. For the performance this was going to be provided by the Bowtie TV truck. However, the cable run was well over 200m and when we stuffed the video reference down one end of the cable pretty much nothing came out of the other! Added to that were the in-house team’s worries that an intermittent video reference might take the whole show down. The solution was a relatively new piece of gear: a MADI sample rate converter made by Direct Out Technologies (www.directout.eu). This device enabled FOH and the TV side of things to run completely independently of each other, avoiding any risk of the “domino effect.”

As we needed around 80 lines from the auditorium to us one of our own Studer stage-boxes was rigged at the FOH position, bring back audience mics and redundant feeds in case of problems with the MADI feed. The whole cast were to be radio-miked, but a number of Sennheiser MKH416 and Crown PCC boundary layer mics were hidden in and around the stage to capture ambience and anyone not wearing a radio-mic. These ambience mics were mixed with the direct radio-mic signals where possible to give the required perspective – the radio-mics having been time-aligned with the float mics to help.

We used two audience mic arrays. The first provided ambience and applause and comprised two front Sennheiser MKH416s and three slung Neumann KM140 at the rear. The second captured tighter laughter with four KM140s on arms rigged from the balcony lighting truss.

Rehearsals

Rehearsals

The first rehearsal is normally the first time we actually hear anything through the system, so everything is recorded direct to multitrack straight after the mic amps. This approach allows us to flip between mic amps and recorded signals with exactly the same gain structure and console signal processing, enabling us to rehearse over and over again. I’ve found that there’s no substitute for rehearsing a show at least a dozen times – it’s basically a live, three-hour film dub and we need to have as much of the script committed to memory as possible before the performance. To record the show we used two systems: a Merging Pyramix DAW with two MADI cards, and a Pro Tools HD Native rig with the new HD MADI interface and an Avid Mojo SDI converter which we’re testing. The Pro Tools DAW system recorded 64 tracks of 24-bit audio plus an SD video stream to help with rehearsals. Actually, it was most of a video stream as there’s a 2GB file size limit which we hit – we’re still investigating this as it just stopped working near the end of the show. Thank heavens for duplicate recording! In the meantime, if anyone knows a workaround for this, I’d be glad to hear it!

The sound crew is fairly large and the two radio-mic wranglers have possibly the hardest job in the show. Not only do they have to convince reticent actors to wear the mics, but they also have to hide them sufficiently well that they can’t be seen in a 30ft wide, high-definition close-up and without any rustling or thumping giving the game away. In practice it’s almost impossible to completely eliminate any noise, particularly when the lead insists on banging his chest (and mic) at regular intervals. I find it helps to shout very loudly at the screen whenever this happens (!) but I also put a compressor across his channel with the fastest attack time possible and a 0.2mS look-ahead to minimise the risk of speaker cones popping out in cinemas all over the world. Wherever possible we try to hide the mics in the actors’ hair, or pre-mic costumes, capes, hats and, occasionally, the props. When we did Hamlet we were continually switching between four different radio-mics for one of the cast.

Anyway, back to the crew: there’s also the FOH Mixer and stage assistant. The Bowite TV crew consists of a truck guarantor for comms and Dolby encoding as well as final monitoring, and two floor sound engineers. In the sound truck there are three people; myself and Paul Stannering, who hard mixes the radio-mics, and Ollie Nesham who records the stems and acts as guarantor for the truck. I match the sound perspective to the shot by using various combinations of stage mics with the radio-mics, and vary the speech, music and effects’ level and panning for dramatic effect.

Critical Viewing

After the rehearsal we all decamped to a cinema in central London to watch the recording, warts and all. This is where I have learned that no two cinemas sound the same, sometimes not even remotely similar! In one cinema it can sound too loud while in a second the same performance can sound too quiet, and it’s amazing that a reproduction level difference of 3 or 4dB can make a huge difference to the impact of the show. Some cinemas also sound very dull, and one extremely famous cinema that I won’t name hasn’t had a working LFE speaker for over a year. Anyway, Danny Boyle was there with Rick Smith from Underworld, and commented that he felt the soundscape wasn’t very involving and rather front-heavy. A load of notes later, I met up with Rick to massage the audio mix and go over any problems we could foresee for the transmission.

When we first started doing this sort of live relay I did a lot of research on sound levels and EQ. Now for a TV broadcaster, levels are easy – you peak to PPM 6 on both legs. However, when mixing for cinema you pretty much ignore the metering and just mix until it sounds right for you. The theory is that your monitoring environment is calibrated to be the same as that of the ‘standard’ cinema environment, and so what you hear is exactly what the audience will hear. In fact, via the dreaded Dialnorm speech is normalised to an RMS figure of -31dBFS, giving a consistent loudness whatever film is showing. This is the standard being transferred to the world of TV, hopefully putting an end to having to turn the volume down during the adverts and giving mixers more dynamic range to play with. Perhaps an article for another day…

The speaker level calibration for the film industry is slightly different to our familiar TV standards in that they align -20dBFS RMS pink noise to 85dBC for the front three channels and 3dB lower (82dBC) for the rears. In a TV mix room all five channels would be aligned to the same level. [This anomaly is because of the way the rear channel speakers were aligned with the old matrixed ProLogic surround system – Ed]. A complex band-limited measurement for the LFE contribution sees its level end up around 91dBC. However, the first problem with this alignment protocol in an OB truck is that it’s massively too loud! As the speakers are so close to the sound balancer the monitoring reference level needs to be between 3 and 8dB quieter than the standard film reference level to make sure the mix heard in the control room translates well to the screen. We actually ended up with 80dBC for the fronts, after taking a mix to the Pinewood Dolby Premier dubbing theatre during testing.

In a cinema there are limited controls to adjust the sound reproduction, centred on the Dolby volume knob. It’s normally supposed to be calibrated to a volume of ‘7’, but can be turned up or down by the projectionist, losing or gaining 3dB per step. What appears to happen is that the knob is set to 7 until someone complains that the latest blockbuster is too loud, whereupon it’s turned down and left until the next person complains it’s too loud or quiet. We are working on a solution to this inconsistency by transmitting a calibrated segment of speech, FX or music during the satellite tests before the main event. This should enable the projectionist to adjust the volume in the cinema to be at least roughly correct.

The second problem we have found is that the subjective affect of the X-curve equalisation varies enormously between theatres. The X-curve is basically an equalisation applied at the cinema just before the power amplifiers that is supposed to mitigate the subjective sound character of a speaker in a large auditorium. There are two variations of the X-curve intended for auditoria greater than, and less than, 150 cubic metres. It involves a gentle roll-off of either 3dB or 1.5dB per octave above 2kHz, with an optional bass roll-off. Unfortunately, because of the wide variation in cinema size and wall absorption, this appears to be a pretty hit or miss solution. Also, the standard way of calibrating a cinema involves taking an RTA measurement approximately two-thirds of the way back from the front which yields, at best, the response of the room at that particular point rather than any meaningful test of the whole system.

So after much listening at Pinewood and many other cinemas across the UK we have evolved a set of mastering tools for our live cinema transmission – one set each for speech and music transmissions which help to address these issues.

Sound Effects

Anyway, back to the rehearsal and we were joined by Rick Smith who gave us the detail on the motivation for the various sound effects heard throughout the performance so that I could start noting down the level and panning for each effect. I also put small amounts of delay in a lot of the lines to encourage a sense of depth and involvement, and I uses our TC System 6000 and Lexicon 960 to help with the surround effects. If we had been able to post produce the mix I would have used the sensational VSP surround processor in the Studer desk as this basically creates a virtual room in which you that can place any mono source, generating varying pre-delay and reverb in each of the five surround channels as the pan control is moved. With this technology it’s possible to make a close radio-mic appear to recede – meaning no need for float and hidden mics! Our transmission was entirely live, however, so not only can we not use VSP, but we can’t use any console automation or snapshots either as the performances vary enormously and unpredictably between rehearsals and transmissions.

Audience view (and the overhead 1200 bulbs)

One of the initial sound effects was a humming noise for the first few minutes, which is actually a modified sample of the ambient noise in the auditorium to hide the running noise of a particular lighting effect – a huge mirror suspended above the stage and front of the audience. It has 1200 dimmers behind it, feeding 1200 incandescent light-bulbs of various sizes hanging from it. When it was at full brightness it felt like a three-bar electric heater over your head! Plans to reproduce this in cinemas were (un)fortunately shelved at an early stage.

We had around 22 effects lines coming into us, with each line containing a mixture of effects and music, depending on the cue, and all at different levels. So, a lot to do which is why we rehearsed for two days before the second camera rehearsal. For this, Ben Cumberpatch and Jonny Lee Miller swapped roles, so we had a completely different performance to contend with too. Added to this, Jonny was losing his voice which meant I couldn’t rehearse the mic perspective properly, so we were getting a little nervous!

After this rehearsal recording we had a second cinema viewing (at a different cinema to the first review), and I discovered that the surround channels were almost inaudible! So, back to the truck for a little tweaking and another two days of rehearsal. This particular show was unusual in that we were recording the matinee performance for transmission a week later, and then the lead actors changed roles and we transmitted the evening performance live to 22 countries around the world. Emma Freud was the compère for both shows, presenting from the auditorium with a cabled Neumann KMS105 mic. I would have preferred something invisible in keeping with the performance, but in practice this was made impractical because anyone in the audience were permitted to ring a huge bell suspended above them. Also, the audience can make a surprising amount of noise when finding their seats after visiting the interval drinks bar!

After the show, the usual practice is a sigh of relief that it all worked as intended, a quick de-rig, and promptly to the bar to discuss the next production – in this case The Cherry Orchard in June. The series has been gaining in popularity with each production and details of each show can be found at www.NTlive.com if you would like to experience it for yourself.

A view from the receiving end

by Mike Felton MIBS

I had been intrigued by the concept of these live relays to cinemas hence I had badgered Conrad into writing an article about the process. Coincidentally I had received a rave review of this production from my daughter who was lucky enough to have seen it “in the flesh” at the National. Tickets were by then sold-out so I jumped at the chance of experiencing the relayed version at our local bijou Curzon Richmond.

I spoke to Conrad on the afternoon that I was due to see the relay and was rather surprised to learn from him that we would not be seeing a live transmission on this occasion but a recording of a matinee. This was a bit disappointing but explained why the version I saw had Benedict Cumberbatch as Dr F and not the “reversed roles” version that was advertised for that night’s live show.

As you will know from Conrad’s article he had a very tricky job in covering the action, particularly the monster who spends the first quarter of an hour writhing around the floor virtually naked. This specific challenge I surmised was achieved with the help of a large “scar” that looked like the crimped edge of a cornish pasty(!) that ran backwards over the head of the actor. This I presume enabled the cable route from the mic in what would have been the “hairline” position if he was not bald! I never did work out where the transmitter was…

Overall I thought the audio perspectives achieved by the contributions from the static mics worked very well and soon one’s suspension of disbelief was secure and the content took over and one watched the play quite naturally.

Some technical problems

Maybe I went on an unlucky night but we had a few reception problems. I was disappointed to find that the lip sync was out and unfortunately the worst way, i.e. sound leading. Conrad tells me that they transmit sync checks in the afternoon to which all the cinemas are supposed to line up to but in this case something must have changed between the test and transmission. The other less annoying problem was a small dropout that happened approximately every 30-40 secs throughout the whole transmission. Most worrying however was a complete loss of sound towards the end of the play which lasted maybe 5 secs. The return was preceded by a (mercifully!) short burst of full-scale shash (that’s loud!) As I say maybe I was unlucky in my choice of night.

From an aesthetic point I thought that the surrounds could have been a bit louder but that and the above problems underline the tricky variables involved in this sort of operation, i.e. although in theory the presentation setup is calibrated – as the originator you can never be sure it seems…

Overall it is a very worthwhile undertaking allowing as it does the possibility of seeing productions that for reasons of location or sold-out bookings would not be possible otherwise. Congratulations to Conrad for pulling it off!

The Voice of the Listener and Viewer’s TV Audibility Group (TVAG), formed in 2007, has been pushing for an objective survey to prove to broadcasters that inaudible dialogue in television programmes had become a major problem and one that needed addressing, urgently. On 1 June 2009 The Independent newspaper penned an article entitled, “Great drama – but can you hear a single word they are saying?” in which it was reported that Jay Hunt, then Controller BBC 1, had agreed to look into the issue – and indeed she had, with the key players including the following:

TVAG – Richard Bates, who retired in 1995 from the role of BBC Financial Controller, Regional Broadcasting and the instigator of TVAG. Peter Menneer, former BBC Head of Broadcasting Research from 1979 to 1992. David Walker, a former Head of Engineering Resources for the BBC until 1993. Louise Willcox working on the group as a volunteer, while also being an active sound supervisor and experienced dubbing mixer.

BBC – Jay Hunt, Controller BBC 1, followed by Danny Cohen, current Controller BBC. Tanya Motie, Channel Executive BBC One and BBC Three, and a highly motivated individual who introduced me to the TVAG. Tanya has played a crucial role in keeping the momentum going. Mike Armstrong, BBC Senior R&D Engineer, technical advisor bringing findings from previous R&D work in this area.

Channel 4 – Paula Carter, Viewers Editor, and another highly motivated character.

What’s Been Happening?

During the second week in August 2010, the BBC “Pulse” on-line audience research group of 20,000 people (around 8000 respondents per day), plus approximately a thousand 65-plus-year-olds who were not on-line (funded through the VLV with assistance from Widex), and a group of volunteers from the RNID, were all asked to focus specifically on the audibility and sound quality of the TV programmes they watched during the week. They were asked to comment only on programmes shown on BBC One, BBC Two, ITV 1, Channel 4, and Five.

During this review periods a lot of complaints were made, but the 21 worst offending programmes were earmarked for closer analysis. Tanya Motie and Paula Carter sent DVD copies of the BBC and Channel 4 programmes to David Walker and me. Unfortunately ITV 1 and Five decided not to play, but David and I assessed some of their programmes from off-air recordings, anyway.

David Walker performed his assessments using a small LCD TV, while I spent about ten days in total (in-between paid work) sitting in a room, curtains closed, listening to the shows on a mono 14-inch CRT telly (modified so that left and right channels from the DVD player were summed together). I set my monitoring level by listening to the first 30 seconds of programme – after the opening titles – and thereafter didn’t touch the volume control. If I couldn’t hear something I only allowed myself to spool back and listen again, not to turn the volume up. I desperately wished I had a jog-wheel transport controller – it would have saved so much time – and I’m surprised the pause button on my DVD remote didn’t break!

To log my assessments of each programme I created a spreadsheet, with separate pages for Mono, Stereo TV and Stereo hi-fi replay systems, typing comments into my laptop directly as I watched. Each program was allocated three columns, the first logging time-code or DVD Running Time, the second what I felt was wrong (or right) with the sound, and the last with what I thought had happened to make the sound substandard (or superb).

It was soon clear that the much publicised complaints about ‘loud music’ were just the tip of the iceberg.

On another page I wrote “General Comments” after I’d watched the whole programme. I hadn’t originally envisaged needing this section, but as I made my assessments I realised that the data and terminology I was collating in the main columns would ultimately need to be interpreted by people who were not sound ‘anoraks’. So I felt that it would help if they understood how that kind of show should properly (in my view) be made, providing a context for my principal comments and observations.

Part way through our assessments, David Walker and I met at the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) in London, to compare notes. First, though, we discussed our hearing faculties – David said he had some slight hearing loss; I declared my hearing to be fine. A bit glib perhaps, but I believe accurate based on a visit to a consultant in 2009 after my daughter had pointed out that I kept asking her to repeat things. After an audiometric test and examination, the consultant said I that had the hearing of a 35-year-old and that I should tell the daughter to stop mumbling! In any case, by and large David and I were getting the same results. The few anomalies we agreed were down to our different monitoring scenarios and his hearing.

After assessing all the programmes in mono, I ran out of ‘volunteer’ time. I listened to the first 10 minutes of a few of the programmes using my 36-inch Sony stereo TV but was unable to find the time to monitor every show on broadcast quality monitoring loudspeakers. Interestingly, though, on the stereo TV some dialogue became more audible, especially if the background – be it music or effects – had a wide stereo image. However, the general results were largely the same as for my original mono listening. In all, I managed to assess 17 shows; David’s assessments overlapped 70% of mine, and he assessed the one’s I couldn’t. It was soon clear that the much publicised complaints about ‘loud music’ were just the tip of the iceberg.

The full list of programmes reviewed is detailed at the bottom of this article.

Problems Identified

Documentaries/Features Programmes

• Concealed microphones muddying dialogue, and clothing noise overlaying dialogue.   Asked: what’s the matter with seeing a personal mic on a presenter in a documentary?
• Reverse perspective: presenter wearing an already indistinct mic buried under a noisy waterproof coat, looking over shoulder, back to camera, the voice getting less audible as he gets larger in shot.
• The combination of a radio mic on a presenter, and the camera mic for contributors!  Some astonishingly bad sound – none of which was subtitled.

I could go on for pages about the naff quality of the location sound I listened to. Needless to say, it’s all about money – or perceived lack of it – and self-shooting directors working without the safety-net of a trained audio professional. I can’t remember how many times I typed “words are plot!”

Magazine Programmes

Concealed microphones muddying dialogue, and clothing noise overlaying dialogue — what’s the matter with seeing a personal mic on a presenter in a documentary?

• The One Show: the aircon (and crew ‘noises off’) had a starring role. A glass box for a ‘studio’ with a brittle acoustic and, I assumed, retro-fitted aircon to deal with the heat. AC noise roared in under presenters after every insert – insert material that usually had wall-to wall-music all over it (more on that later). The live mix was fine – sound supervisors doing their best, probably with a few gadgets to help, in a bad location. (Aren’t there some empty ‘fit for purpose’ studios about 300m away…?)

Drama Programmes

• Actors giving vocally minute performances – a struggle to hear them over ambient background noise, and/or their own movement noise. Suffering from what I called “small screen means small voice” syndrome.
• Dub of background effects dominating small voice performances. Speculated: dubbing mixer either inexperienced or, more likely, under considerable time pressure – especially on ‘Continuing Drama Series’.
• Wide shots where actors gave very little voice. One scenario involved moving a large sofa – shot huge, dialogue virtually inaudible on my mono TV. There’s no way I could have talked that quietly (no surprise there!) whilst doing something so physical.  Speculated: that it was a brave freelance sound recordist who would push, more than once, for a louder performance these days.
• The pace of shooting. Shooting speed has been driven-up on continuing dramas like Casualty. Anecdotally, I knew some stressed directors took exception to being asked for longer rehearsal to accommodate complicated moves, or greater voice level.
• Scenes between two people, where one performer was barking at the other, but the other was whispering back.
• A high incidence of quiet actors also having very bad diction. As I sat in my darkened room, I imagined a radio drama producer I used to work for screaming “enunciate darling!”
• Accents were only really a problem when associated with poor diction.

Light Entertainment Programmes

• John Bishop’s Liverpudlian accent had been complained about, but I found only two places in his show where I couldn’t understand him. There, were, however, several instances of his performance being drowned beneath audience applause and/or laughter – some of which I suspect had been added at the ‘audio-sweetening’ dub and weren’t quite the correct length. Speculated: someone who is prejudiced against anything other than ‘received pronunciation’ would tend to blame the accent, rather than noticing other sounds interfering.
• Bad edits! Fast editing obviously adds pace. However, new-generation editors don’t seem to realize that when someone has said something that isn’t very distinct, the brain needs more processing time to make sense of it. The breath’s pause seems to be a thing of the past.

Sport Programmes

• Athletics OB pieces to camera, presenters wearing DPA headsets (which still couldn’t cope), their contribution obliterated by venue announcements and music emanating from a PA stack apparently just off camera. The ridiculousness of what I heard made me laugh out loud; for the sound supervisor I felt pity.

Then There is Music

I made it clear that, if the dialogue is already compromised, music will just make it harder to hear, no matter how appropriately written and balanced.

• Appropriate Music: There was some music that was very appropriate; tastefully timed and well balanced. However, in a couple of documentaries, despite the pace of editing and the quality of the mix being superb, chunks of the sync sound were horrid. I could imagine the dubbing mixers frustration. Speculated: self shooters were trying to do it all, and failing.
• Music as wallpaper: Speculated that an editor/director presented with mute, low quality or aurally unusable material from a self-shooting director, probably with no budget for a dub (not that one can rescue everything – as above), defaults to using music as filler.
• The issue was compounded by inexperience picture editors who didn’t understand:
• Dynamic range and loudness. Compressed, percussive music mixed too high – just totally inappropriate for use behind wide dynamic range speech.

1. Music with a lyric – rarely a good idea, unless chosen to be interwoven with voice-over or dramatic dialogue.
2. Music where the EQ conflicts with the EQ of the dialogue – no knowledge demonstrated of how one could do something about this.

• Music used instead of an audience: Classic example (non-celebrity) The Weakest Link. Liverpudlian(!) Anne Robinson’s accent was so ‘far back’ that, when she didn’t ‘project’, she lost out to the strident crescendos in the music. Perhaps not such a problem when we all know she’s going to say “You are the Weakest Link, Goodbye!”  However, some of the amateur contestants did not project or enunciate well either. The timed music beds are designed to get louder and evolve into more dense arrangements – creating anxiety and suspense. Ergo, the only solution was to keep the overall level of music a little lower in the balance, in my view. Speculated: that the sound supervisor and gram op were probably recording this show, ‘as live’, day-in, day-out and perhaps losing the will to live!
• Music written or selected for prestigious documentaries: I knew some shows being assessed had a fully-filled track-lay. I asked: why not hear more of these effects? For one show, the music laid in the final mix ensured only about 30% of that well crafted track-lay could be heard. Music with radically differing styles and pace were overlaid, without any idea of (musical) ‘form’ or a ‘house style’ being applied. Periods of only 10 seconds in an average of 15 minutes running-time where there was no music under presentation – this proportion sustained throughout an hour long show. Often, I could hear the words, but the tendency to have lots of short items, with lots of changes of direction – perhaps fuelled by a belief that the public can only concentrate for three minutes on any one thing – became exhausting, both aurally and psychologically.  
• Music in Sport Programmes: Athletics OB opening montage VTs – the commentary was barely audible, drowned-out both by crowd effects and the highly compressed music. Either no time to rehearse this before going on air, or an inexperienced sound supervisor employed.

It should also be said clearly that it’s really not all bad! There were four programmes that were absolutely fine, in our view. University Challenge, The Queen (the one staring Barbara Flynn), Raol Moat: Inside the Mind of a Killer and Morse. The late 1980’s production of Morse was particularly interesting. How sparse the mix was: low-level effects around dialogue; the scenes felt longer, with a lot less music than is the current fashion, helped by the fact that Barrington Pheloung’s arrangements tended to be quite transparent.

One Other Elephant in the Room

So, it is probably already happening that bad material, shot by inexperienced self-shooters, can be passed to inexperienced picture editors, then transmitted to air through Network Control areas where the sound mix is already an electronic function, programmed into the vision switcher. No sound professional involved, anywhere in the chain.

The one last hope for sound is the picture editor. However, experienced picture editors are becoming a rare breed, as we are! New recruits trained by universities, appear to get little or no insight into sound. So, it is probably already happening that bad material, shot by inexperienced self-shooters, can be passed to inexperienced picture editors, then transmitted to air through Network Control areas where the sound mix is already an electronic function, programmed into the vision switcher. No sound professional involved, anywhere in the chain.

A lot of e-mail traffic passed between myself, David Walker, Tanya Motie and Mike Armstrong during this project. In one I mentioned the inconsistency of people’s monitoring at home. For instance, the ‘3D mono’ function on my stereo TV makes much of the dialogue disappear! So I suggested that voice-overs or special trailers before programmes might be use to advise people to set up their TVs correctly before a broadcast starts. A Breakfast TV show appearance by Gary Clarke MIBS quite rightly mentioned that there was currently no guarantee that the balance we provide will be faithfully reproduced at home.

After our assessments were submitted, Tanya Motie organised re-mixes of sections of some of the programmes, and found that when background music and effects were reduced the audience was generally able to comprehend dialogue better. No surprises there, really! Mike Armstrong also checked issues such as loudness levels in programmes which had been flagged as problematic.

The BBC Solution

After an initial reluctance to get involved, the BBC and Channel 4 have been forced – by the sheer determination of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer’s TV Audibility Group – to recognise the public’s growing dissatisfaction with the increasingly inaudible dialogue on our small screens. After submitting our assessments, neither David Walker, nor I, nor the BBC Academy sound trainers, nor, as far as I know, anyone from BBC Studios and Post Production were asked what a possible solution might be.

However, I was asked if I would like to be involved in the BBC’s proposed solution: “a multi-textured experience (not just words) with examples of best and worst practice – so something tangible, practical, helpful. These on-line modules will be available externally and so can become an industry standard, but internally within the BBC it will be accompanied by a series of workshops including roll-out to all Executive Producers through the Exec Forums throughout the UK. Sound quality will become a formal additional responsibility of the Exec producer [I told them I thought it already was] and will need to be considered at sign-off.”  This is very much a BBC Vision answer to the problem. I declined.

I did not feel that ‘how-to’ videos could replace the lack of investment in TV sound training over the last – how many years? The industry is relying on multi-skilled media graduates to replace specialist professionals. I have been employed as a trainer on one week BBC Wood Norton modules to train media students, and I know that a week spent with a team of broadcast professionals in a proper studio guarantees the comment  that “we have learned more in one week here, than we have learned in the previous two years at university”.   Proof that there is no substitute for industry training.

There are currently only three BBC Academy TV sound-specific training courses – targeted at BBC Vision recruits. “Sound Recording on Location 1” is one. I am told that few return for “Sound Recording on Location 2” because the researchers that get sent on the first course have either finished their short-term contracts, or are no longer expected to cover sound. “Sound Skills for Self Shooters” is the third.

There is no ‘Sound Training Course’ at Television Centre any more (where prospective BBC sound supervisors from all over the country used to get individually mentored hands-on training in all genres of shows); that was stopped just before I became a sound supervisor in 1990. In fact, after April 2011, there will be only four television sound supervisors left at Television Centre, and I don’t know when the last TV sound trainee was employed there, or anywhere else in the country. I just know there are no BBC training courses for them.

On a Positive Note

All that said, I am truly gratified that a lot of comments from our assessments have obviously been used as the bedrock beneath the work that Tanya Motie has initiated since last October. Sound is definitely having its fifteen minutes of fame in the BBC. The Exec Forums are taking place; Anne Laking, BBC Vision’s Academy Partner, was interviewed by Radio 4’s Today programme on 16 March at 0840hrs (not buried at 0640!), and the BBC has produced seven on-line, publicly viewable videos – so far – which can be found at: www.bbc.co.uk/academy/collegeofproduction/search?page=1&q=Audibility

At a gathering at BBC Television Centre on 16 March, all those involved received thanks from Controller BBC 1, Danny Cohen. He also commented that Dr Brian Cox’s recent comments couldn’t have come at a better time to give the audibility issue additional publicity.

I met Tanya Motie for the first time in person, and she was keen for me to pass on that, when we sound professionals experience problems acquiring good sound, we should not fear raising this with the production team, and we should feel safe in the knowledge that there is a corporate will to do something about it, now.

On 21 March, I sent a mail to Tanya suggesting a soundie’s ‘whistle-blowers’ e-mail address, for professionals to pass on any problems. It was then that I discovered that Tanya Motie has ‘moved on’, as have several others who were involved. I suspect that, with all the current insecurity at the BBC, the-powers-that-be may, perhaps, consider that they’ve ticked this box, and that they, too, can move on.

We shall see – and hear.

My full, detailed, assessment reports can be viewed online by IBS members.
Simply log in to the IBS site and navigate to File Library.