Sound Perspective and “The Hunt”
Chick Antony
I wonder if anyone can help me? I have been trying to complain at the dreadful sound balance between Music and Narration on “The Hunt”. I know that it is some sort of BBC/Open University collaboration so it is possible that no-one in the BBC is even indirectly responsible but I would like to feel that I am communicating with someone who has some responsibility for sound in TV yet all I can get is a promise that the complaint will be logged and passed on.
Does anyone who reads this know if perhaps such a person still exists? Having been retired and out of touch for a generation, I can’t now even guess who might be responsible.
Pat Heigham
Sadly, this complaint is only too frequent, as evidenced by letters in the “Radio Times” – not just for “The Hunt” but many other programmes.
I am in touch with Kate Hopkins who, as Sound Editor is responsible for creating the FX which are impossible to obtain by conventional means, as there is no microphone to match a 1000mm camera lens! However, she is not the re-recording (dubbing) mixer who balances the final track.
I was irritated by the frequent use of the same piece of music, rather than the narration/music balance.
It has been suggested by my film guild (Association of Motion Picture Sound) that a broadcast engineered for 5.1 surround sound might be wrongly mixed down/combined for 2-channel listening, but we do not know what matrixing is employed at the server loading for transmission, for any particular programme. I’m not totally sure of my facts here, but I can draw upon my film colleagues who balance for TV transmission, for further enlightenment!
Geoff Hawkes
I must say I hadn’t noticed the problem with the sound on “The Hunt”, but it was nonetheless interesting what has been noted above about mics mis-matching the lens length. What irks with me, is when watching an exterior scene in a drama and we see the characters way-off in wide-shot yet remarkably hear the sound in close-up. I ask myself “What happened to the principle of sound perspective as explained from Day 1 in our Ration Books?” I accept that it would be silly to hear faint indistinct voices as would be the case in reality other than very briefly but it still seems unnatural to me when it happens, as though we were bugging them. It is clever how the actors are fitted with concealed mics and I sometimes wonder where they are hidden, though occasionally you can see a small bulge under their shirt or jumper, as I believe I could on one in “Capital” tonight. I don’t know if booms are still used for interior scenes, other than on series like “Eastenders”? Are they on shows like “Casualty”, “Dr Who” or “Call The Midwife”?
As to background music, I think back to “Groundforce” where the action was liberally accompanied by a brass band playing chirpy tunes and I used to wonder “Why, what on earth is a brass band doing in that person’s garden?” I wouldn’t have wanted them in mine, continually sounding off while I was working, nor I guess would the neighbours have thought much of it. It was uncalled for and unnatural it seemed to me, but then so are many of the wobbly hand-held camera shots or other techniques used in drama which draw attention to the camera and away from reality. In life the world doesn’t appear like that, so why do it?
Much of what seems annoying to me, is no doubt due to a director wanting to make a name for him/herself for a particular style and I suppose they have to be different to be noticed. I hope it works for them, but isn’t the product supposed to be made for the consumer, not just to satisfy the maker?
Mike Giles
I haven’t seen much of “The Hunt”, but I can well imagine the problem. The issue with most television is that the production team, and others, are solely interested in their own product and don’t worry as to how it fits with the rest of the output. For cinema this is more understandable, as, apart from popcorn, the audience has little to distract and they are unlikely to be watching one show followed and preceded by others. But for television, the box in the corner is not the only elephant in the room and the current programme is not the only one that will “entertain” the household over the course of several hours. So what I find most discomforting is not so much the style of individual programmes, but that the whole evening can become flooded with “music” which may or may not have relevance to the action. My particular bête noire is pizzicato strings – used on almost everything where all that can be said has already been said in triplicate, from cooking shows, to clothes and pottery!
I have always thought that the technical and ancillary attributes of most programmes should be inconspicuous by nature of their excellence and transparency. There are quite a few good examples, where I cannot honestly remember if music features, or if the sound perspective jars, because the overall production, particularly the script and performances, is an organic whole, with no one element topping the others.
Hugh Sheppard
What a succinctly presented observation from Mike Giles as to the role of background music. It neatly brings in the dilemma of channel-viewing or of viewing one programme at a time. In turn, that relates to the role of what was once called ‘Presentation’ and the segue from one programme to another – when that wasn’t dictated by the Masters of Marketing and the filter of Red Bee media, as was.
I’ve just checked: Ericsson signed a 7-year playout deal earlier this year for BBC: “….one of the world’s leading public service broadcasters…” their blurb says.
When was the last time anyone saw a BBC junction that wasn’t also a commercial? Yes, but feel the width…
Dave Mundy
The ‘segue’ between one program and another was carried out in ‘Quality Check’, just down the corridor from Pres. A and B. On my Sound Training course we had to sit in there and log every program junction, pre. and post, and the logs went to the duty engineer, Alan Foster, to whom you had to justify your actions. Many years later, when BBC1 was showing the Great North Run in 16:9 on a 4:3 channel I rang Red Bee and had a long conversation with the supposed duty man. Nothing happened to correct the fault. I mentioned quality check to him and made the comment that it wasn’t the BBC as we knew it. He agreed that it wasn’t the BBC and ‘had I rung in for a chat’! No, I said, I was complaining about a transmission fault, but nothing changed until the next program!
Derek Martin
How refreshing it has been to watch “London Spy” which included whole scenes completely devoid of background music – just pure silence, lovely!
Pat Heigham
Although retired, I still keep in touch with my colleagues working in sound for Feature Films.
There are some very experienced production mixers who insist on two boom operators for major films, and while they may not use Fisher booms, at least the mikes are used on poles, thus hopefully perspective and acoustic matching the shot can be achieved.
However, it has become the norm for two or more cameras to play on a scene, and here’s the rub! They are not matching sizes – one will hold a wide shot, while others are on close-ups. That precludes a boom getting in for close perspective. Thus all speaking actors are radio miked these days, and some actors refuse to do any post sync re-recording (ADR). Mikes are getting smaller, and easier to hide, but period costumes and unfriendly materials (silk, for example) can be a pain. A good relationship with the wardrobe dept. is essential. (Hairy chested males do not take kindly to gaffer taped mics next the skin!)
Sometimes mics can be hidden in the hair line, but with hi-def cameras now, the hair and make-up depts have enough problems with wig joins as it is.
The Americans are experimenting with covering the boom poles with green material sleeves and ‘painting’ them out in electronic editing – we wonder how they cope with mike shadows!
I have been enjoying Michael Portillo’s train journey programmes, although I am irritated by hand held shots which are not steady – made all the more noticeable when intercut with angles where the camera was on the legs. It is telling that these programmes are ‘directed and filmed by’ whoever! Now, are these cameramen/women who are good at framing shots, or directors who believe they know how to point the camera? And do they get a double paycheck!
With wobbly hand-held, one might get away with it on the small screen, but in a cinema, the smallest deviation from steadiness in the picture frame is unacceptable when blown up to a 30ft or larger projection, and TV screens are getting bigger, too!
That said, the stabilised Cineflex cameras used for ‘The Hunt’ are something else! Brilliant, even when on a jib arm anchored to a Landrover hurtling after a cheetah across the African grasslands!
Alasdair Lawrance
Don’t know about the Portillo programmes, but the giveaway is usually ‘Additional Camera’ or ‘Additional footage’ on the credits, if they don’t whizz through too quickly. It explains the amazing WobbleScope.
I’m also intrigued at the credits which appear before a ‘Directed and Filmed’ credit. ‘Series producer’, ’Sequence Producer’, ‘Edit producer’, etc. etc.
I would love to see the Job Descriptions!
Bernie Newnham
As a retired producer, once a cameraman, I ended my full time career as “Directed and Filmed by”.
No – I didn’t get paid twice, I just worked harder, combining my production head with my technical head, and later with my editing head. There are advantages and disadvantages in working without a crew, which I could – and have – happily lecture(d) on. I too have no idea what all those people on the Portillo credits do, because if it’s anything like when I did that stuff, there would have been just two or possibly three people on location with him. I wonder if they got to stay in the posh hotels too? It’s a show I would love to have done.
(Click on the picture below to see a larger or clearer version of this picture:
Click the “X” button (top right) to close the newly opened picture.)
Terry Meadowcroft
Personal mics and their mis-use have fuelled the plummet in sound quality today. Recording using ‘iso’ personals is commonly used now, (so we can ‘…do it all in Post…’) and shows a complete misunderstanding of the way we human beings hear things, by the Producers and Directors of our programmes. Please, please. bring back the boom (or fishpole) and let’s re-start hearing voices as they sound in room space, and not as they would sound from under a scarf next to the voicebox (which sadly is now the norm in news reports which is why we can’t hear them!).
A while back I saw Sherlock Holmes turn on his heel to give his back to the camera, dash from front of stage to back of stage, and still, back to camera at the far end of the room, talk out of the window which was now in front of him, throughout which move his voice stayed a foot from his mouth, as listening with ear to chest.
Then I realised that the scourge of personal micing had finally arrived!
Dave Plowman
“…sound from under a scarf next to the voicebox…”
A plus one from here. But then I’ve been banging on about it for years. My impression is very very few indeed are interested in decent vocal quality on TV sound. Where it might just make lighting or shooting the thing a tiny bit more complicated.
But of course TVs today have even worse quality speakers than was once the case – even although a few years ago many would have thought this impossible. Virtually none even point forwards. So sound quality even on a massive OLED widescreen TV costing thousands isn’t of any importance. No wonder if the source material is so poor.
“…Then I realised that the scourge of personal micing had finally arrived!…”
Sadly, it happened well before that.
The first series or two of Inspector “Morse” in the 1980s was largely boom. Then went over to radio mics, with dire results (as far as I was concerned). And that really set the ‘standard’ for drama ever since. Especially since all the US imports use radios.
The odd thing is I’ve heard both an experience executive producer and picture editor saying they prefer the sound of personal mics. Makes it sound more ‘real’ to them.
When I was dubbing, I’d often spend some time matching a scene shot on radios to what I’d expect on a boom. Careful EQ, adding some room reverb to each line relative to camera position. With time, you could get a decent enough match.
These days it seems to be just what comes off the mic itself – not even any EQ to get decent clarity. Even on studio progs where there is no excuse for not doing so.
Major Tim Peake in space
Pat Heigham, Graeme Wall
The audio from the Space Station was lipsync on our guy’s contribution – live? but the stuff from the theatre in Baikonur was well out! The Space station is 400km above Earth. If the signals from Baikonur went via satellite, they are around 36,000km away!
So! Space station signals much faster!
Bernie Newham
I watched the approach on NASA TV. Pictures were amazing for a good long time, as they flew right over our heads. They were supposed to dock on auto at that point but backed off, and then started a manual approach. Then they lost telemetry from both the Soyuz and the ISS and the only contact was audio. Very 1960s.
(Click on the picture below to see a larger or clearer version of this picture:
Click the “X” button (top right) to close the newly opened picture.)
on a similar theme …
John Nottage
I went to see a live relay of “The Winter’s Tale” from The Garrick Theatre in London at a local venue on 26th November 2015. The sound was ahead of the picture all through by several frames – very hard to watch. Lots of the audience complained.
In the interval I buttonholed the engineer who was feeding the satellite sound through a mid-sized Behringer digital desk. He didn’t know how to put a delay in the sound feed without creating an echo effect. He insisted the tests had been in sync. It was also apparent that the interviews coming down the line in the interval were also in sync! The second half of the play was as out of sync as the first. It sounded like the engineer had a go at inserting a delay at one point because the sound got in sync, but with a massive echo – he quickly gave up. I can only assume that as the pre-tx tests and interval stuff were in sync, that the fault lay in the source at the theatre. I wasn’t convinced that all the cameras were timed the same: I’m sure sometimes the error was more, sometimes less. I didn’t get to see any credits, so I don’t know which company was doing the theatre transmission. I’d love to know if the delay fault was noted at any other venues? The Aldeburgh Cinema is putting on a repeat recording – I wonder if that is out of sync too?
Call the Midwife – Anachronism
Dave Plowman
I was watching “Call the Midwife” This episode was basically about the contraceptive pill – introduced to the UK in 1961, Google says. And there was a storm. And the storm blew down the TV aerial, which was shown. A UHF one. Perhaps they should have been watching Dr Who?
Odd they went to the bother of finding a period TV set, though.
Dave Buckley
There was a reference to the show they were watching when the aerial came down – “The Black and White Minstrel Show.”
The recent editions of “Call the Midwife” were set around 1960/1, and the “The Black and White Minstrel Show.” ran from 1958 – 1978, so it would be in period.
Bill Jenkin
If they had ITV there would have been both band I and band III VHF aerials.
Plus of course they got the polarization wrong as well as the actual aerial.
If they were in Poplar they would be looking at Crystal Palace / Croydon. Both with vertical polarization. The aerial shown was for horizontal polarization.
Incidentally I wouldn’t know where to begin in listing the things which would never have happened in that episode regarding the “bargee” family (not a term which would ever have been used by a boater).
Pat Heigham
Talking of aerials, this reminds me: I heard a story that during the filming of “Dr. Dolittle” (1967) in Castle Coombe, Wiltshire, the company required the dismantling of TV aerials in the village, and replaced them with a cable feed from a hilltop positioned booster receiver.
All residents complied with the exception of one difficult woman, who refused, so her aerial was concealed by a bit of ‘dingle’ (leafy tree branch) for the wide shot. When she discovered that everyone was getting superb pictures, she wanted to have the cable. I believe that she got a short, sharp answer!
Ian Hillson
Also in a recent episode of “Call the Midwife” set in 1961, Dr Turner volunteered to sing “Summer Holiday”, apparently – which was released in 1963.
It’s alright, they wouldn’t have got a UHF signal in 1961 whichever polarization they’d tried!
Dave Plowman
I’m sure ‘they’ would take endless trouble to make sure any TV programme mentioned or seen would be period. But technical details usually come under the ‘no-one will notice’ banner.
I well remember working on a “The Bill” which revolved around the technicalities of bombs controlled by timers. The ASM had made bombs that looked rubbish, and had very obvious flaws to the plot – like plug-in mains timers complete with 13 amp plugs.
And, of course, by the time I (and others) commented on this we were making the episode, so too late to do anything.
“The Bill” had an excellent maintenance/engineering department. If the ASM had asked them to make something that looked the part, I’m sure they’d have been delighted to get involved in the production, rather than just being back room boys. It would come as no surprise if they had a bomb making expert anyway.
John Howell
I was on the “Eastenders” Lot on 4th January 1985 and a van turned up, the occupants proceeding to rig Band 1 TV aerials on the Albert Square ‘houses’. Good on the designer I thought, attention to detail!
But this must have looked odd to any anoraks in Borehamwood as the last of the VHF TV transmitters had been turned off the day before!
Eurovision Song Contest 2016
John Vincent
I found the Eurovision Song Contest almost unwatchable.
Over the top lighting effects and frenetic camerawork. Technical showing off making the artists invisible at times.
John Howell
I was going to suggest The Eurovision Lighting & Effects Contest. As for the results sequence it looked like a Sky sports results programme, I didn’t know where to look.
On the sound front the music was fairly well handled with some impressively wide ‘stereo’ from time-to-time. But there were several curious occurrences during Graham Norton’s voice-overs. For no apparent reason the level of the whole mix would dip for by about 4 or 5 dBs and recover over the next few seconds. It sounded like a limiter kicked into action by a sound we didn’t hear. Odd!
Dave Plowman
Why was Graham Norton’s vocal quality so poor? Surely there can’t be a problem getting a decent wideband circuit these days?
Stan Appel, Peter Neill, Bill Jenkin
The director didn’t direct the show, but must have had a vision mixer on auto pilot! Apparently the vision mixer is pre-programmed and synced to the backing tracks. The vision mixing is achieved entirely automatically by a device called Cuepilot.
Chris Eames
Nothing new in that. The late, great, Richard Pigg always claimed that, on a fast TOTP cutting sequence, he only listened to the music, and trusted the cameramen to produce the shots. The difference was that if, in spite of that, you were not ready on shot, he would reprogram himself, and change the cut!
Now a computer program that did that would be really something!
