Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Discuss hardware/software tools and techniques involved in capturing sound, in the studio, live or on location.

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Hugh Robjohns »

Tomás Mulcahy wrote:Maybe Hugh could chime in about the PA issue. I'd imagine when BBC came up with the fig 8 thing, they were using contemporary omni-ish PA stacks?

No, the original arrangement used column speakers -- basic line-arrays with limited bandwidth and controlled dispersion, primarily intended for speech reproduction, of course.

However, most studio installations now use more contemporary and familiar standard PA systems, and fig-8s are rarely used for audience mics. Suspended omnis or cardioids are more common these days.

I'd suggest broadband absorbers where the fig 8s are pointing would help as well, although deployed carefully so as not to damage the room ambience.

As MOF says, standard BBC TV studios have always had a very well-controlled reverb time -- the walls and ceiling are generally covered with absorber panels (both broadband and bass traps) -- those two-foot square boxes with wire mesh on the front seen so frequently on bare-studio shows like the Old Grey Whistle Test.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 43705 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Hugh Robjohns »

James Perrett wrote:I wonder if these sound complaints are starting to be noticed by the right people? I've just watched the new David Attenborough documentary on BBC1 and the narration is much clearer compared to the previous series where the music and effects were overpowering.

Yes, people are listening and there are ongoing efforts to improve things. I know there are a couple of quite active groups -- one representing the viewers/listeners and another the broadcast sound professionals -- that are involved in continuing discussions with the BBC and the other broadcasters (as well as the manufacturers through their own representation bodies) to try and address this problem through better understanding of the issues, more appropriate production and post-production techniques and processes, better direction, better acting, and so on, as well as better technology and design of TVs etc.

There are still challenges... And mistakes... But people really are trying!
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 43705 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by N i g e l »

CS70 wrote: I just listened to the YT video on Ah-ah at my studio and didn't find anything really objectionable with the sound

I watched that on my laptop, no problems on tiny (B&O) speakers or headphones.
[I do also like the A1 version of Take on Me :D ]

The BBC have famously had complaints in the past about "mumbling"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39038406

The only time I wrote in to complain was about a WWII documentary.
Bloke was stood on Blackpool beach watching a spitfire fly past "just listen to that engine!!!!!!!"
It was all a bit lost in the orchestral incidental background music.
Last edited by N i g e l on Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
N i g e l
Frequent Poster
Posts: 4826 Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:40 pm Location: British Isles

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by The Red Bladder »

I am possibly the only berk here who has worked in television back in the 60s, so with that in mind may I point to Hugh's statements here -
Hugh Robjohns wrote:I think there a lots of factors in this... The terrible sound quality of the built-in (and usually rear-facing) speakers of most flat-screen tellies certainly doesn't help.

And neither does the fact that most young TV directors seem to think they're aspiring Hollywood directors and approach their film-making with the wrong mindset completely.

And its made worse by the very nature of independent programme making, which often means post-production in film-style dubbing theatres with big screens and surround sound.

And then there's the training... Back in my day, the BBC effectively trained the entire UK industry. It doesn't anymore and hasn't for a long time. It's entirely reliant on universities and specialist colleges, and while a couple are good, I perceive a bias in expectations towards the film industry rather than TV.

Those are the reasons all gathered together in a nutshell (but missing a couple of important additional reasons).

1. Back in the 60 and through to the 90s, we were working through a fog of poor equipment (compared to modern digital) and very constrained budgets. The studio I worked at in the 60s had three cameras which had to do everything for two large and very busy studios. You had two camera shots, medium and close-up, as anything wde would leave viewers confused as to what was going on. With just 405 lines of black-and-white, you can't have loads of wide shots to tell a story. That meant that mics could be close to the actor and actors had to speak clearly.

2. Stories in dramas were driven by dialog, so words were important. Early TV was really just radio with pictures - you could turn the image off and still follow the story. Everything was verbal. Visual gags and cues were few and far between. Again, that meant clear enunciation of words - no mumbling!

3. Actors came to television from the stage and that meant declaring every word. The struggle to fight through the fog of 405 lines and poor audio was very similar to projecting to the gods in a theatre. Also EVERY actor had to study Shakespeare and the ham-acting of over-declaration of texts was very much 'en vogue'. Every Charlie on the boards thought they were Sir Laurence Olivier on the boards at the Old Vic. Today, they all think they must mumble like Dustin Hoffman!

4. The Sennheiser MKH416 only became widely adopted in the 80s and the latest version of that mic (now the absolute soundstage standard) is simply stunningly clear - so much so, that I am now often using it for music recording. Until then, we had all sorts of mics, none of which were all that good! Actors had to speak-up!

5. Modern speech is slurred. Even junior royals and the prime minister speak with semi-working-class accents that swallow syllables. This is just the way people pronounce their words and we have to live with it! A very stilted and over-clear pronunciation developed during the Victorian age and this evolved into 'The King's English' or 'Received Pronunciation' and more commonly 'BBC English' and unless you listen to the Queen or some member of the so-called upper classes of that vintage, you will not hear that anywhere.

6. Modern scripts are often poorly written by people with an incomplete command of the English language. A modern script is very likely to have grammatical mistakes and typical slurred idioms already written into it. For example, Maggie Smith's character in Downton Abby spoke the words "Then I must have said it wrong!" That is both a massive grammatical mistake and a Cockney idiom and certainly not the language of a 'dowager countess from the Edwardian era! (There were similar howlers in the BBC's 3rd-rate adaptation of 'War of the Worlds' last Sunday!)

7. As Hugh so rightly points out - every director wants to be Sam Mendes and every cameraman thinks they are Roger Deakins. (BTW - watch out for Mendes' and Deakins' new movie '1917' coming in December - I've seen some of the 'rushes' and if it lives up to that which I have seen so far, it is going to change the way movies are made and what we expect from an action movie!)

8. Add to that, broadcasters are viewing the final product on either very large 4K monitors and with 5.1 sound systems, or even in a proper viewing theatre - hardly the pokey little set-up most people have in the UK TV market in their living rooms and bedrooms!
The Red Bladder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3907 Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:00 am Location: . . .
 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Ariosto »

The Red Bladder wrote:I am possibly the only berk here who has worked in television back in the 60s, so with that in mind may I point to Hugh's statements here -
Hugh Robjohns wrote:I think there a lots of factors in this... The terrible sound quality of the built-in (and usually rear-facing) speakers of most flat-screen tellies certainly doesn't help.

And neither does the fact that most young TV directors seem to think they're aspiring Hollywood directors and approach their film-making with the wrong mindset completely.

And its made worse by the very nature of independent programme making, which often means post-production in film-style dubbing theatres with big screens and surround sound.

And then there's the training... Back in my day, the BBC effectively trained the entire UK industry. It doesn't anymore and hasn't for a long time. It's entirely reliant on universities and specialist colleges, and while a couple are good, I perceive a bias in expectations towards the film industry rather than TV.

Those are the reasons all gathered together in a nutshell (but missing a couple of important additional reasons).

1. Back in the 60 and through to the 90s, we were working through a fog of poor equipment (compared to modern digital) and very constrained budgets. The studio I worked at in the 60s had three cameras which had to do everything for two large and very busy studios. You had two camera shots, medium and close-up, as anything wde would leave viewers confused as to what was going on. With just 405 lines of black-and-white, you can't have loads of wide shots to tell a story. That meant that mics could be close to the actor and actors had to speak clearly.

2. Stories in dramas were driven by dialog, so words were important. Early TV was really just radio with pictures - you could turn the image off and still follow the story. Everything was verbal. Visual gags and cues were few and far between. Again, that meant clear enunciation of words - no mumbling!

3. Actors came to television from the stage and that meant declaring every word. The struggle to fight through the fog of 405 lines and poor audio was very similar to projecting to the gods in a theatre. Also EVERY actor had to study Shakespeare and the ham-acting of over-declaration of texts was very much 'en vogue'. Every Charlie on the boards thought they were Sir Laurence Olivier on the boards at the Old Vic. Today, they all think they must mumble like Dustin Hoffman!

4. The Sennheiser MKH416 only became widely adopted in the 80s and the latest version of that mic (now the absolute soundstage standard) is simply stunningly clear - so much so, that I am now often using it for music recording. Until then, we had all sorts of mics, none of which were all that good! Actors had to speak-up!

5. Modern speech is slurred. Even junior royals and the prime minister speak with semi-working-class accents that swallow syllables. This is just the way people pronounce their words and we have to live with it! A very stilted and over-clear pronunciation developed during the Victorian age and this evolved into 'The King's English' or 'Received Pronunciation' and more commonly 'BBC English' and unless you listen to the Queen or some member of the so-called upper classes of that vintage, you will not hear that anywhere.

6. Modern scripts are often poorly written by people with an incomplete command of the English language. A modern script is very likely to have grammatical mistakes and typical slurred idioms already written into it. For example, Maggie Smith's character in Downton Abby spoke the words "Then I must have said it wrong!" That is both a massive grammatical mistake and a Cockney idiom and certainly not the language of a 'dowager countess from the Edwardian era! (There were similar howlers in the BBC's 3rd-rate adaptation of 'War of the Worlds' last Sunday!)

7. As Hugh so rightly points out - every director wants to be Sam Mendes and every cameraman thinks they are Roger Deakins. (BTW - watch out for Mendes' and Deakins' new movie '1917' coming in December - I've seen some of the 'rushes' and if it lives up to that which I have seen so far, it is going to change the way movies are made and what we expect from an action movie!)

8. Add to that, broadcasters are viewing the final product on either very large 4K monitors and with 5.1 sound systems, or even in a proper viewing theatre - hardly the pokey little set-up most people have in the UK TV market in their living rooms and bedrooms!

Yes, yes and yes again! This is an excellent post that says it all, along with Hugh's great contributions.

In many ways we would be better off going back to concept that the picture is not worth a thousand words, and the words and music are extremely important, as is the writing. Most scripts these days can't even compete as toilet paper!
Ariosto
Frequent Poster
Posts: 920 Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 12:00 am Location: LONDON, UK

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Hugh Robjohns »

The Red Bladder wrote:Add to that, broadcasters are viewing the final product on either very large 4K monitors and with 5.1 sound systems, or even in a proper viewing theatre - hardly the pokey little set-up most people have in the UK TV market in their living rooms and bedrooms!

:-) Back in the 80s when I was a the forefront of broadcasting, When I finished editing a programme it had a 'tech review' which meant watching it critically -- usually with the director sat beside me -- on a 'Grade 1' CRT television (625 lines -- I'm not as old as Andrew! ;-) ) while listening on a 'Grade 1' speaker (usually an LS5/8) in a room with decent acoustics and lighting. Top quality for the day...

At the same we recorded the programme onto VHS and that tape was then taken up to the Producer who watched it on a standard domestic TV either in his office or at home before signing the programme off as fit for transmission. ... And the producer had probably never seen the script, either...

As Andrew says, that kind of independent 'domestic viewing' check is rarely performed these days, and a lot of shows -- especially the bigger budget stuff -- is signed off by production staff watching it in a professional viewing room with very high quality projection and powerful surround sound. Dark scenes, dynamic sound tracks, and mumbled dialogue are easily accepted in such environments, but render programmes unwatchable to the average viewer at home...
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 43705 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by The Red Bladder »

VHS and 625-line television? Sheer luxury!

At Granada (up to about 1967 or 8) we just had B&W cameras that had four lenses on a turret and the ones in Studios 1 & 2 couldn't be synced. Reel-to-reel videotape and a five-second gap between camera shots, so the tape had to have a magnetic liquid put on the gaps to see where the black-burst came and the editor had to cut into that and stick the bits together.

The outdoor Coronation Street set was at two-thirds real size (so the actors had to always stand away from the buildings) and the indoor stuff was all in one small studio. Studio One - about 200 sq m. The outdoor set was recorded on the one and only OB truck - that could be synced, as could the newsroom upstairs.

Colour was coming and so no money was spent on old B&W 405 stuff. Everything was cash-strapped and the OB truck was just a cardboard box in a hole in the ground. In fact, the cameras were so bad that the role of Ena Sharples was played by a whippet.

And the editing suite? Well, I say editing suite - until we got colour, we had to edit all our programmes on a sewing machine.

Microphones? Luxury! We used to dream of having real microphones! All we got was some bits of string, a couple of matchboxes and a hearing-aid valve! And if we could not make that work, the floor manager of Studio Two used to beat us to death.

But we were happy!

But when you tell that to engineers today, they just laugh in your face and drive you over in their sports cars!
Last edited by The Red Bladder on Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Red Bladder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3907 Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:00 am Location: . . .
 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Wonks »

The Red Bladder wrote: (BTW - watch out for Mendes' and Deakins' new movie '1917' coming in December - I've seen some of the 'rushes' and if it lives up to that which I have seen so far, it is going to change the way movies are made and what we expect from an action movie!)

So definitely over the top then! :D
User avatar
Wonks
Jedi Poster
Posts: 19210 Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am Location: Freethorpe, Norfolk, UK
Reliably fallible.

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by The Red Bladder »

Wonks wrote:So definitely over the top then! :D

In every sense of that expression - one of the lighting rigs (there were many) had 500kW of HMI lights in one array. Several were placed at intervals to reproduce the effect of a village on fire. Most of the movie is one continuous shot, filmed on a brand new large-frame camera developed by Arri.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNYrYUiMfg

You get a short glimpse of one of the arrays here at 1:35 and 2:15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSjs2hBa94
Last edited by The Red Bladder on Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Red Bladder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3907 Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:00 am Location: . . .
 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Wonks »

Looks totally unconvincing. Won't be seeing it.
User avatar
Wonks
Jedi Poster
Posts: 19210 Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am Location: Freethorpe, Norfolk, UK
Reliably fallible.

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by The Red Bladder »

Wonks wrote:Looks totally unconvincing. Won't be seeing it.

This is from someone who has just seen the film yesterday at a Directors' Guild of America special event in NY -

"Just saw 1917 and want to encourage all who might read this as strongly as possible to go see this film on the largest screen possible. Beyond astonishing on all levels. Total immersion.

The only other time I experienced this level of immersion within a movie was the long 'mental institution' shot in Werkmeister Harmonies, but that analogy is rough and doesn't really begin to compare to what happens onscreen in 1917."
The Red Bladder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3907 Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:00 am Location: . . .
 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by baward »

The Red Bladder wrote:Add to that, broadcasters are viewing the final product on either very large 4K monitors and with 5.1 sound systems, or even in a proper viewing theatre - hardly the pokey little set-up most people have in the UK TV market in their living rooms and bedrooms!

Bring back the Auratone! (oh, they did...)

I look forward to the day when you can mix your own sound (which it seems is not that far off. In general, I would be happiest with just the dialogue tracks(s).
Last edited by Hugh Robjohns on Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
baward
Regular
Posts: 431 Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 12:00 am
 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Sam Spoons »

baward wrote:I look forward to the day when you can mix your own sound (which it seems is not that far off. In general, I would be happiest with just the dialogue tracks(s).

I wish they did the sensible thing and restricted the centre speaker to dialogue and, maybe, the odd SFX, then we could balance the dialogue ourselves with a suitable decoder. I had hoped that might be the case but, having asked the question on here, the consensus is that the centre speaker does not isolate dialogue with any consistency so I haven't bothered yet.
Last edited by Sam Spoons on Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Forum Aficionado
Posts: 22918 Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:00 am Location: Manchester UK
Still mourning the loss of my 'Jedi Poster" status :)

People often mistake me for a grown-up because of my age.

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by The Red Bladder »

Centre speaker - this is where usually dialogue is lurking, the trouble is, most TV sounds systems do not have separate volume controls for the channels.

But we have a pukka viewing room here at Bladder Towers 2.5m screen, Genelec 7.1 surround and 24:10 mixing desk and I always (so far) have left the audio flat for all channels - no EQ, all eight or six channels at the same volume - and no problems with understanding dialogue whatsoever.

HOWEVER, there is a fundamental movie v. TV audio philosophy problem that Hugh touched upon. In a movie, the dialogue is of less importance than in a TV show. I would almost state that in an action movie, the dialogue is just another set of noises that belong to the overall sound design and the viewer should be able to follow the action without even knowing what is being said. A good script should push the story forward through acts and action and not words.

Conversely, a bad script is filled with much flapping at the lip, trying (and often failing) to explain to the audience what the hell is going on! The occasional plot-twist can be spoken ("Luke, I am your father!") and of course zippy one-liners to amuse the audience ("Go ahead, make my day!") are a must-have. Every good action movie has a string of ironic one-liners that make you sit up and take notice.

TV is still largely just radio with pictures, especially in the UK where TV sets are quite small and shows are dialogue-driven. A made-for-TV movie is being pulled between two stools. On the one side, there is the need to punch through the family living room banter, the small TV set with crappy audio and the need to explain several times to the audience what is going on. On the other side, it's a movie. It is trying to be big. It is mixed in 5.1 or 7.1 or even Atmos/DTS-X and the TV-mix is a fold-down from that.

Most importantly, in a movie, the dialogue comes from a different set of speakers and from a different direction. When folded down for TV, it comes from the same crappy little rear-facing speakers everything else comes from. If the dialogue is kept at the same volume as the score and overall sound design, it can get swamped on a small TV set. If it is made louder and/or sharper, it spoils the quality of the film.

And behind all this is an overriding HUGE difference in attitude between those who make movies and those who make TV. Each movie tries to be a work of art. It is a one-off, a unique experience that must stand alone. Making a movie is similar to going into battle: a year or two of planning, months of preparation and a couple of months of fierce action, followed by mopping-up and cleaning. Right at the end comes the assessment - did we succeed?

TV is a 9-to-5. Monday read-through, Tuesday and Wednesday walk-through, Thursday rehearsals, Friday taping. Rinse-repeat - Monday read-through . . . Retire at 65 and then wait for death.
The Red Bladder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3907 Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:00 am Location: . . .
 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Sam Spoons »

So if that's the case why can't I hear the feckin' dialogue over the background nonsense :headbang:
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Forum Aficionado
Posts: 22918 Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:00 am Location: Manchester UK
Still mourning the loss of my 'Jedi Poster" status :)

People often mistake me for a grown-up because of my age.

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Arpangel »

I'm always quite surprised at the high quality of the video and sound on 70's sit-coms, like The Good Life, Man About The House, Ever Decreasing Circles, etc etc etc. The lighting seems very good as well.
The worst program for sound was always The Old Grey Whistle Test, I don't know what the problem was, but it always sounded like all the instruments and performers were in different studios, it was all cold and seperated out, nothing felt mixed and it didn't gell.
Last edited by Arpangel on Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Arpangel
Forum Aficionado
Posts: 21966 Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:00 am
"I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil" Gandalf - J.R.R. Tolkien.

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Sam Spoons »

And you couldn't hear the dialogue, but that might have been down to 'Whispering Bob' ;)
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Forum Aficionado
Posts: 22918 Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:00 am Location: Manchester UK
Still mourning the loss of my 'Jedi Poster" status :)

People often mistake me for a grown-up because of my age.

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Arpangel »

Sam Spoons wrote:And you couldn't hear the dialogue, but that might have been down to 'Whispering Bob' ;)

Do you know what I mean though? OGWT just sounded sort of dead, and flat, cold. Everyone I knew just laughed at it, we just enjoyed the music anyway.
User avatar
Arpangel
Forum Aficionado
Posts: 21966 Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:00 am
"I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil" Gandalf - J.R.R. Tolkien.

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Hugh Robjohns »

Dynamics and spatial masking are the biggest parts of it.

In a cinema the reproduction system is large and loud. Peaks will be well up over 110dB SPL, and even very quiet dialogue will be well over 65dB SPL.

When the film is shown on TV, peaks will be 80-ish at most, and quiet dialogue will quite possible disappear into the domestic background noise level.

Most broadcasters implement some form of dynamic range control -- usually boosting the overall level and limiting peaks -- but it's not always very effective basically because a one-size-all approach really doesn't work very well. Ideally, the sound track should be actively remixed for TV, but no one has the budgets, time, or interest in doing that.

The other issue is the spatial masking one. In a cinema, 99% of dialogue comes from the centre speaker which is a long way away from the left and right speakers. This makes it relatively easy for the brain to separate dialogue from the rest of the music and effects using the 'cocktail effect'.

When reproduced at home on a TV, either there is no centre speaker (so centre dialogue is mixed in as a phantom centre), or if there is the physical separation between the centre and left/right edges is typically quite small... so it's not so easy for the brain to separate out the sound sources.

Andrew mentioned the downmixing aspect -- if your TV is switched to stereo but receives a surround source, it downmixes that source according to a set of rules encoded with the material. The LFE track is always discarded, but the surround channels are mixed into left and right at a prescribed level, as is the centre channel at an independently set level.

Dolby's original concept was that the film's producers would decide on the optimum downmix values (and dynamic range control parameters, actually) , and that data would follow the film whereever it was shown. However, the broadcasting practicalities have meant that each broadcaster simply imposes its own static set of downmix values and compression settings. The last time I checked, Sky's set the downmix values for the centre at -3dB and surround at -6dB. The Beeb's settings were very similar.

So, whereas it might be desirable in some cases to have a higher level of centre dialogue in the downmix because of the busy music and effects, say, the broadcaster won't pass that on or adjust it's transmission settings itself.

What you can potentially do, as an end user, is adjust your system at home to have more centre-dialogue in the downmix... but few TVs let you do that. Most home-theatre surround system do, though.

As for centre dialogue and TV... most TV sound supervisors tend not to use an exclusive centre-channel dialogue as they do in film. They Instead, most prefer to use a phantom centre. There are a variety of reasons, but the main one is complaints that centre-only dialogue just doesn't sound right in a domestic viewing context. It 'isolates' the sound of whoever is talking rather than integrating them into the rest of the soundtrack.

H
Last edited by Hugh Robjohns on Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 43705 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Hugh Robjohns »

Arpangel wrote:OGWT just sounded sort of dead, and flat, cold.

A combination of limited technical facilities, limited production time, live performances, and the constraints of TV broadcasting...
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 43705 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Sam Spoons »

Thanks for the explanation Hugh :thumbup:
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Forum Aficionado
Posts: 22918 Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:00 am Location: Manchester UK
Still mourning the loss of my 'Jedi Poster" status :)

People often mistake me for a grown-up because of my age.

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Tomás Mulcahy »

The Red Bladder wrote:TV is a 9-to-5. Monday read-through, Tuesday and Wednesday walk-through, Thursday rehearsals, Friday taping. Rinse-repeat - Monday read-through . . . Retire at 65 and then wait for death.

Nihilism FTW. Bringing in guests as often as possible so you can pinch a lunch voucher seems to be the standard method to make what you described more bearable.
Last edited by Tomás Mulcahy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tomás Mulcahy
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3007 Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:00 am Location: Cork, Ireland.

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Jake Knott »

Tomás Mulcahy wrote:My favourite example of great live TV dialogue/ sound is University Challenge. Teams are on super-cardioid desk mics, desk is acoustically treated and the 3:1 rule is (almost) always adhered to. Presenter has a lav where the bas tilt is deployed to add to the gravitas. Defo fig 8s on audience as well. I think that format is about 50 years old?

Haven't been around these parts for a while, but popped in and found this. I've been the sound supervisor for this show since 2001, and your comments are most kind. Here's a bit more info if anyone's interested.

The desk mics are currently Sennheiser 8040 cardioids; I've tried 8050 hypercardioids and although the extra suck was welcome it caused the dialogue while the teams chat to each other to go more off-mic. The desks aren't great acoustically, being mostly wooden tops with glass panels for TV flatscreens, but it works ok with the proximity of the mics.

Roger Tilling performs the VOs live in the studio; he sits next to the audience and has a Sennheiser 416.

Jeremy has a Sony ECM77 omni lav mic, mainly because a desk mic would pick up noise from his question cards, as well as being blocked sometimes by them. It's always put on the same position high on his tie, on the right side away from the teams, and then as you spotted it has a specific EQ curve to make it work. His desk DOES have some acoustic treatment on the raised edges to stop the "honk" from the height and distance of his tie mic.

All mics have 5:1 soft-knee compression tickling for normal speech, and go into a group with 10:1 to even out and give a nice average speech level. No auto-mixer is used; the show is hard-mixed by hand with lots of fader movements. There's also a CEDAR DNS 1500 stereo noise reduction unit across the group because there's quite a high noise floor from the studio lights.

Audience is about 70 people, and are covered with 4 Audio Technica cardioids dropped from the roof to about 8 feet above their heads. Lots of gain for the occasional laughs, 10:1 pre comp and then 50:1 on the main audience group. Whole mix then goes through a final TC6000 brickwall at - 3dbFS for R128 compliance, and goes off to the edit.

The whole mix is kept at around - 23 LUFS, and I deliberately keep the loudness range fairly small so it hopefully translates ok on domestic tellies.

(Just to contrast with the comments on large mix environments, I mix this and all our other shows with a pair of Harbeth Monitor 20 bookshelf speakers which sit just behind the meter bridge.)
Last edited by Jake Knott on Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Jake Knott
New here
Posts: 6 Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 12:00 am Location: Manchester

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Hugh Robjohns »

Brilliant -- thanks for all the detail Jake. Really interesting.

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 43705 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual... 

Re: Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Post by Eddy Deegan »

Jake Knott wrote:Here's a bit more info if anyone's interested.

That was fascinating stuff. Thank you Jake.
User avatar
Eddy Deegan
Moderator
Posts: 9988 Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
Some of my works | The SOS Forum Album projects | My Jamuary 2025 & 2026 works
Post Reply