Foley artists are responsible for beefing up a film’s background noise – to make it sound as “real” as dialogue. For instance, they recreate the sound of a bird flapping its wings by blowing up a pair of kitchen gloves and then slapping them together in time with the action on screen. And, by squeezing paper cornflour packets tightly together, they recreate the sound of somebody walking on snow. But now they’re starting to pack cornflour in tins. And tins won’t do.

When directors shoot a film, they’re worried about capturing the action and the actor’s voice. Nothing else. Not the sound of a sword scraping against a tree, or a court shoe tiptoeing across a marble floor. Well, the sword is probably made of plastic – and the “marble” floor is probably painted plywood. So, when it comes to the edit, things don’t sound like they’re supposed to. Which is where the Foley artist comes in – to make the film sound “real”.

A few years ago Alex Joseph, one of the country’s premier Foley supervisors, was asked to recreate the sound of a head being chopped off for Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven. “Some people would have gone with a watermelon,” he tells me. “Or a frozen cabbage.” Instead, Joseph opted for green coconut: “The outside is fibrous. So it cuts like skin. And the hard shell sounds like bone. Inside is the jelly, which sounds like blood. When you slice into it, it sounds just like a human head. I imagine.”

When Joseph is using organic material, he will buy or cut it on the day of recording. That’s because, in the rarefied world of Foley, a plant that was picked two days ago will sound different from one picked five days ago. For the scene in Harry Potter and the Goblet Of Fire, where Harry has to negotiate a living maze, Joseph says he went to great lengths to get “the sound of a privet maze and all its nuances – it had to sound alive and dangerous”. For Quantum of Solace, Joseph hired in some scaffolding and mocked up a Tuscan roof with tiles that he bought on eBay. And, in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, he actually jumped into a makeshift swimming pool with a sack of Nutrient Agar powder to make sure the chocolate river sounded thick enough. “I was swimming about in the stuff all day,” he says. “But it was very gloopy. I had to take four showers to get it all off.”

The art of sound began in 1927 – when Universal employee Jack Foley helped turn the film studio’s “silent” Show Boat into a full-on musical extravaganza. Because microphones could only pick up on dialogue, Foley had to add in the other sounds later. He projected the film onto a screen and recorded the footsteps, the movement, the props – all in one track. He walked with a cane to create the footsteps of three people. He acted out the film, all over again.

Digital has made the business of Foley much easier. In the early days, the “sync” was fundamental – the sound had to match exactly what was going on. Now, it can be manipulated to fit. Technology has moved on, but Foley is still all about the “performance”.

“A Foley artist can be playing a big brute one minute and a cute little girl the next,” says Joseph. “A footstep is not just a footstep – it can be angry, happy, sad, confused, clumsy, slick, swaggering, light, heavy, wet, dry, young, old, male, female, slutty, sophisticated… the list goes on. It’s the performance that gets across the meaning to the viewers. And that performance could only ever come from the human mind.”

Down a tiny lane, in the Buckinghamshire countryside, is the only studio in Britain to specialise solely in Foley. From the outside, Universal Sound looks like the home of a successful accountant. There’s a swimming pool in the basement, where the audio effects for Narnia were recorded, and the sounds for the Harry Potter computer games. In the middle of the house is the heart of the operation – three studios, with bunker-thick walls.

The main studio of Universal Sound looks like a student bedsit. In one corner there’s a car door, seat and steering wheel. In another there’s a kitchen. There’s also a bathroom and a living room with a sofa. “Each job brings a new prop,” says Foley artist Paul Hanks. And, by the looks of it, they never leave. There’s a suit of armour that Hanks wore for the fantasy series Game of Thrones, while Simon Trundle, Foley mixer, hit him with a mace.

Running along the wall of the studio, a Canadian miniseries is playing out in stop-start chunks. Hanks watches, and listens, picking out the important sounds. He then starts again, and records the Foley. Right now he’s struggling with the sounds of table football. If this was a different project – with a different budget – he would have rented a table. Instead, he’s ramming the handle of a broom into the spring mechanism of a toaster. “Too tinny,” says Trundle.

There’s no brief from the director of the Canadian miniseries. So it’s up to Hanks and Trundle to decide what needs to be recorded – and how. The best Foley allows for five days to produce a 20-minute film sequence – Hanks needs to have this 50-minute episode finished today.

The action culminates in a car, pulling up at speed, as a protagonist runs away. Hanks reaches for his box of “surfaces”, which contains everything from sand to gravel. He runs his suede gloves across Tarmac to recreate the sound of tyres. He then roots around in a box of shoes for “running”. He doesn’t match what the protagonist is wearing on screen – they wouldn’t sound right. “You don’t often walk in leather-soled shoes,” says Hanks. “They’re too click click. Desert boots are better.” Foley is the director’s friend. Often more than 80 per cent of film dialogue isn’t recorded “clean”. Maybe there was noise in the distance — a car, for instance. Foley can cover that up. It can fill in blanks, too.

“I remember on The Darling Buds of May,” says Hanks, “the story required there to be a horse in the stables behind the camera. But they had forgotten to film it. So they created the ‘feeling’ that there was another horse – with sound.”

Foley can also be used to rectify a continuity problem. If an actor is holding a file, but then forgets to bring it back into shot, a Foley artist can insert the sound of the file being put away off camera.

Joseph is in the studio next door, overseeing the Foley on Outside Bet, Bob Hoskins’s latest offering. Joseph has been responsible for the Foley on a wide range of film and television. But he still finds it a weird world. “And the people in it are slightly odd, shall we say. You are in dark rooms for too long. You do hear some stories about people doing horrible things to vegetables.”

Foley artists need imagination. “I go around Chinese supermarkets and select rather odd fruit and vegetables – things with odd textures,” says Joseph. He likes to use the scaly skin of a dragon fruit, for instance, as the scaly skin of a dragon. “And for the floating books in Harry Potter, I went down the Charing Cross Road in London to buy a lot of antique books. A newer book just wouldn’t have made the same sound.” Joseph even reworked classic Abba songs on Mamma Mia!, convincing a sceptical Benny Andersson to allow him to re-record the tunes with Foley artists cavorting in the dancers’ clothes.

Maybe it’s because of his training as a psychologist, but Joseph is interested in subliminal messaging. “Like the way Derren Brown flashes subliminal images to tell you something. But I use sound instead.” It’s a bit of a dark art. And one that he’s convinced will become ever more prevalent in the next few years, in computer games, for example.

“You can really play with people’s heads,” he says. “You could be implanting things that shouldn’t be there. I set up characters before they’ve even appeared in a game. Bad guys make a nasty sound, so that when they run on screen, before you even hear them speak, you’ve attached some psychological value to them. But you’re given the information in your subconscious.”

The work that Joseph is most proud of is the entire opening of Casino Royale. It’s a high-energy sequence, involving Bond and a villain chasing across a mess of girders and construction materials. “Most of what dominates the soundtrack of that sequence is Foley,” says Joseph.

It was quite a “literal” piece of Foley, and Joseph started by ordering four huge steel girders from a builder’s merchant. It then took five Foley artists to get the girders into the studio. The team then stuck microphones onto the girders – one at each end – with microphones on two Foley artists who then “recreated” the chase sequence in the studio. “It all went brilliantly,” says Joseph. “But I’m afraid the girders are still stuck in the studio.”

Foley doesn’t begin and end in the studio – artists like to listen out wherever they go. Which is why Joseph ended up recording his own dental work – “I record anything that I don’t have in the library.” When he was doing the Foley for Cold Mountain, the Anthony Minghella film set at the end of the American Civil War, Joseph hung out at a Wild West village near Gatwick. “As long as it was early in the morning,” he says, “before the planes started taking off.”

Foley is bespoke, which is why Foley artists hate the stock nature of off-the-shelf library sound effects. Take the so-called Wilhelm scream – a sound effect first used in 1951 for the film Distant Drums. It has become Hollywood’s go-to shriek. It’s a cinematic sound cliché – a joke among sound designers – and has now been used in well over 200 movies, including everything from Star Wars to Transformers.

“If you watch 30 films,” says Joseph, “I guarantee that you’ll hear 100 sounds you’ve heard before. After a while it’s annoying. It’s not just the Wilhelm scream. There’s a fox you hear in just about every film – including Gladiator, in the middle of a desert, even though it’s a fox from the UK. I suppose there’s nothing wrong with it, but that’s what I like about Foley. It’s absolutely unique in every film.”

****

Original article by Richard Johnson, Daily Telegraph 30 Oct 2011, reprint under NLA licence AL 00055357

RELATED ARTICLES

Sound of Hollywood could soon be virtual 30 Jul 2010
Over 2 you 13 Jul 2005

IPS members will be able to download videos of the theory presentations soon. 

The realities of comms out on the road

Practical mockup of typical facilities between control rooms and OBs

And this goes… where?

Setting up what goes where on a comms system

The cameraman was absolutely freezing…

One of the three bands…

One of the three monitor desks…

Hands on with the rock band broadcast mix…

photos by Simon Bishop

“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