Pat Heigham
My film sound Guild (Association of Motion Picture Sound) is very concerned at the current and past criticism of audio intelligibility, since the members who worked on “Jamaica Inn”, for instance are experienced practitioners and in fact the Re-recording Mixer won a BAFTA for other work in the same week as the offending episode was transmitted.
We should be keen to know exactly what happens to the audio chain during transmission, as our discussions reveal that there does not seem to be the degree of complaints about other channels and that it transpired that the BBC were not adhering correctly to the R128 standard (which I personally do not understand).
Quote from one Re-recording Mixer:
The only material there’s a problem with is drama that’s performed with thick accents or mumbling. The two big ones, Jamaica Inn and Happy Valley, both have clear paper trails from the location sound team all the way through to post stating that the performances are unintelligible. All have been ignored or dismissed by directors. We absolutely must not let the mumbling issue become a ‘technical’ problem. The BBC have been broadcasting some r128 content incorrectly, but for broadcast r128 is better for audibility and clarity than ppm6.
He also says:
I also know that they had to have subtitles on the Avid for “Jamaica Inn” when they were cutting because the picture editors had no idea what people were saying.
If anyone has a clear knowledge of the audio transmission chain, then we should love to be enlightened. Whether there is a problem with mix-downs from 5:1 to two channel stereo, for instance.
Warwick Cross
Although I longer work for BBC Broadcast/Red Bee Media/Ericsson BMS, the situation at the point I walked out of the door 6 or so months ago (that is, in 2015) was:
All BBC One/Two/Three/Four/CBeebies/CBBC assets were always delivered with stereo audio.
Where HD productions were mastered with 5.1 surround, these channels were delivered as discrete tracks in addition to the stereo pair.
For SD distribution:
-
The viewer always received the delivered stereo mix which is just passed through unprocessed.
For HD distribution:
-
If 5.1 discrete tracks were delivered, these are passed through unprocessed and then encoded into a Dolby E stream on the output to BBC distribution. The 5.1 metadata is accordingly also passed through unmodified. The conversion to Dolby D for DSat distribution is made downstream in the BBC distribution environment.
-
If only a stereo pair was delivered, then it is stereo encoded into the Dolby E stream with Dolby 2.0 metadata.
I have no reason to think this has changed since I left.
Now, my guess is that the majority of the public gnashing of teeth over “Jamaica Inn”, etc was made by viewers watching in SD. If that’s the case, then pointing of any fingers at 5.1 processing after the audio post finishing stage would appear to be a red herring.
Dave Plowman
Most can easily change from SD to HD. If there were an intrinsic problem with surround on HD while listening in stereo, it would have been noticed by now.
they had to have subtitles on the Avid for “Jamaica Inn”
Then that rules out the red herring of the transmission chain. 5.1 etc is created in dubbing – long after editing.
Alasdair Lawrance
Editors needing sub-titles? Tells you all you need to know.
Dave Plowman
I’d take the story with a pinch of salt. How would they have got these subtitles? Someone would have had to write them. But they’d work to a marked up script – at least initially. Easy to work out what someone is saying when you have the script in front of you – a point often made, when doing the recording.
John Howell
Agreed. They would have had to subtitle every take of every scene/shot and be 100% accurate. What’s the shooting ratio in electronic drama ? And if the subtitles were on the cut pictures the grabbing of a reaction shot from another take could mean unrelated subtitles. No I don’t think so.
Peter Neill, Nick Ware, Geoff Fletcher, Ian Hillson, Alasdair Lawrance, John Howell
They could have used voice recognition software to create the subtitles. Oh but …
Or, how about text to speech software? That would solve all the problems. Just show it the script, job done. Can’t be worse than that god-awful mumbling, can it?
Or how about semaphore? You could have a little square superimposed in a corner of frame with a little bloke in it waving his two flags..
Monty Python got there first …
Or we could have morse code at the top of frame like we used to see with VIT-C. People wouldn’t notice, I’m sure.
Or we could have Brian Blessed and Janet Street-Porter doing all the voices. No mumbling there !
Brian Curtis
Or perhaps you could gather all the actors from the production in a studio where they would be properly mic’ed, told to "perform" their lines "correctly" in "lip sync" to the picture shown on a big screen and that could be used as the "dialogue track". Oh wait a moment don’t we have that, isn’t it "ADR" – bit expensive though!
Dave Plowman
This can be the problem with a series. The actors involved may well be out of contract by the time the need for ADR is realised at post. And can be very expensive – or indeed impossible – to get them in for it.
But then it’s a nonsense it is needed. It is obvious when dialogue is unintelligible on the set, so that’s the time to sort it.
Hugh Sheppard
I was at the VLV Spring Conference where Charlotte Moore blustered on drama audio issues.
This has certainly reached the BBC’s top table, but I doubt if today’s BBC could resolve all the overlapping issues without going out to 3rd parties. Depending on who they ‘consult’ the outcome is bound to be partisan, as production and technical teams vie to say ‘Don’t blame me Guv’.
Pat’s analysis is no doubt spot-on. It should be the starting point for sorting all this out – although of course that should have been done already. If it hasn’t, perhaps the Guild should liaise with the RTS as perhaps the only party to which the outcome is important that is both authoritative and disinterested. I’d personally lay much at the door of stereo – Dolby 5.1 issues that Pat mentions.
Something has to be done!
Dave Plowman
I’d then ask why it only affects some productions made in 5.1 – and also affects some only made in plain ol’ stereo?
Peter Cook
I definitely watched “Jamaica Inn” in HD and the sound was often inaudible. Need not have bothered with HD as many of the pictures were so dark as to make things invisible. On the plus side you can read subtitles very well against black!
Basically it seems that broadcasters treat viewers with contempt. In the middle of a BBC weather forecast just now the sound level dropped by about half whilst talking. Now you hear me now you don’t. Earlier on ITV after quite a loud advert it was a grab the remote moment when Meridian 6pm news started almost inaudibly.
Nick Ware
We watched “Jamaica Inn” (three consecutive nights from 21 to 23 April 2014). and series 2 of “Happy Valley” (from 9th February 2016) in stereo on Freesat HD and on higher than domestic quality active monitor speakers. Both were on BBC1 HD and both were simply dreadful. We gave up on HV midway through ep2. I don’t remember series 1 being that bad.
At the time of the “Jamaica Inn” debacle, one of the official excuses regurgitated was dialect. My wife is Cornish, and found it largely unintelligible too.
I don’t claim to be an expert, but the whole issue seems to be more complex than one might think, and can’t just be put down to ghastly mumbling and/or things you can’t say, do, or try to insist on when you’re freelance. As I understand it, there’s no separate stereo dub, and the folddown from 5.1 to stereo is done in your TV or set top box. If ‘dialnorm’ is set incorrectly, errors occur affecting the amount of centre channel (dialogue) there is in the mix with front left and right (music and effects) channels. Dialogue too low, and the music is too loud (the usual complaint). These errors seem to me to result in some loss of HF as well as low dialogue level against music and effects. It’s curious that it’s never the other way round! If the original was mumbled and muffled, there’s obviously a whole series of factors compounding the problem. Add to those, crap TV internal speakers, and maybe the washing machine spinning and an extract fan going, and it’s hopeless.
By contrast, “The Night Manager” (from 21st February 2016), also on BBC1 HD, was excellent and a joy to watch and listen to. I have yet to discover why.
Alasdair Lawrance
Agreed about "The Night Manager" a thoroughly professional and excellent programme. Here in the Midlands, local opt outs are all over the shop, to the extent that we now automatically nurse the remote during the pres. link to the news, knowing the level will jump a lot. And then at the end of the local weather forecast, the reverse happens.
The ‘Shakespeare Live!’ on Saturday 23rd April 2016, it was excellent. No problems with sound, and only a couple of duff shots that I saw in almost two hours (it over-ran by about 30 mins) Lots of wide shots, too, no booms or slung mics visible.
Martin Eccles
What a tour de force in radio mic placement was “Shakespeare Live! from the RSC” on BBC2 23rd April.
A few thin cables down the back of the neck but no visible microphones over the ear lobe. No off mic sound on head turns, maybe a little unnaturally close with no “space” around the voices but an excellent sound balance.
How about this for an “in the wig” two radio mic arrangement from the live “Sound of Music” that was on ITV 20 December 2015…
(Click on the picture below to see larger version:
use your Browser’s BACK button to return to this page)
Dave Mundy
Remember the scare stories about mobile phones and brain tumours? How about two radio mic transmitters strapped to your skull for hours on end! Duh!
Nick Ware
Bear in mind that a radio mic Tx only puts out 20mW or so, which is a fraction of what a mobile phone chucks out if it’s some distance from the nearest cell. A cameraman friend of mine who’s constantly on his mobile usually has one bright red ear and one pale pink by the end of the day!
Bernie Newnham, Tony Scott, Warwick Cross
The format that delivery takes these days is normally AS-11 DPP files.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/production/articles/technical-requirements
“…The BBC requires all network television programmes to be delivered as AS-11 DPP files unless there is a specific agreement for a programmes to be delivered on tape.
…
All programmes delivered to the BBC must be fully editorially and technically checked and ready for transmission prior to delivery…”
The physical media ‘norm’ for virtually all other broadcasters was to receive in an Aspera P2P dropbox with MD5 checksum metadata to confirm file integrity on the end of either the public internet or a dedicated fibre. Being the BBC, my guess would be dedicated fibre.
Bernie Newnham
I just exported a ten minute piece (a number of trails) from Premiere Pro using AVC Intra 100 1080 MXF – I think that corresponds to AS11 – and it was about 8Gb. So maybe 50Gb per hour. Easy to fit on an SD card and stick in the post if that’s what you wanted to do. A bit different to this –
Terry Meadowcroft
My take on the drama sound problem is this:
Multi-camera shoots used to use multiple takes with one camera. This allowed widespread use of boom mics.
Drama schedules to save money are now ridiculous. No time for anything but multiple cameras. Personal mics are now the order of the day; in drama they have to be hidden.
Personals have to be used with greatest care, positioning is paramount. Even when positioned optimally their reproduction of actors’ voices is horrible. Ever tried listening to someone with your ear tight into the body, wherever that is on the body. Course not, sounds unnatural. Personal mic 6 inches from the mouth of an actor can give a level variation at the mic of about 8-ish dB by simply moving the head, looking up, down, sideways (inverse square law).
So: unnatural sound pickup, sound levels all over the place.
Voices in drama in ‘the olden days’ sounded nice because they were picked up by a mic in free air at some distance from the mouthpiece, not next to chest or vocal chords, never under clothing. Just as the voice is meant to be heard.
Ergo, the existence of personals is, in my opinion, the greatest enemy of good voice reproduction in modern drama productions, no matter how much effort and intelligence is used in attempting to get good sound from them.
The other biggest problem is the crumbling of the status of Sound Recordist, (indeed, technicians in general) so their advice is easily ignored by directors.
Geoff Fletcher
The term “multi camera shoot” to me has always meant several cameras shooting the same scene at one time with numbered sequential shots cut by a vision mixer and recorded as a whole complete scene, or else each camera being recorded independently and the resulting "footage" edited into a cohesive whole in post production. I don’t see how multiple takes with ONE camera can be rightfully described as a MULTI camera shoot.
Roger Bunce
I think you’ve cracked it – the solution to all these problems. You could shoot the performance in one take, using multiple cameras – like they do, to save money.
BUT – here’s the clever bit – the Director could write a shooting script, in advance, telling everyone where the close-up and wide-shots were going to be. Then you could use a boom! It could dip in for the close shots and out for the wide ones. Not only would you get clear dialogue, you would also get naturalistic sound perspective, with acoustics matching the shot sizes. That would be amazing!
Better still – A Vision Mixer could do a real-time edit, just as a rough cut. Then everyone could SEE the exact cutting points. The Boom Op could learn the shot sizes, and the Cameramen could match shots – avoid crossed eye-lines, jump cuts, reverse looking-room, etc. In fact – and here’s a really wacky thought – you could have sequences where there aren’t any cuts. The shot could ‘develop’ from one composition to another – the camera moving in coordination with the performance (rather than wobbling at random) – linking wide frames and close ones in a single shot, with the boom constantly hovering just out of sight. It would be a whole new art form – performance camerawork, or multi-camera choreography!
Hang on – I’ve just thought – if the rough-cut was really good, you could transmit it! No need for any post production. Save a fortune!
And – WOW – You could even transmit TV Dramas LIVE! Like having a theatre performance in your own living room!
I’m surprised that no one has thought of it before.
Alasdair Lawrance
The money -men are, in general, philistines, only interested in the race to the bottom. So long as it’s coloured and moving, what more do you need?
Dave Plowman, David Denness
What is the schedule these days? For “Happy Valley”, how many days per 1 hour episode? Assuming 10 hours per day ‘on camera’? And not forgetting how long in the edit and sound dubbing, oh I forgot sound doesn’t matter.
Alasdair Lawrance, Ian Hillson
More nonsense from ‘Doctor Digital’ on p. 49 of “Radio Times” (30th April – 6th May) – aided and abetted by Charlotte Moore, who is, apparently, ‘BBC Channels Controller’ who is quoted as saying –
“…It’s often several circumstances, and it’s quite hard to isolate if there’s one particular problem. It’s often several different problems coming together…”
She also ‘…recently made it clear that it’s a tricky issue…’
(Also quoted in other newspapers some days previously.)
Speakers in TVs get some of the blame, “…being cheap, pointing backwards at the wall and lacking the space they need to resound…”, whatever that may mean.
The piece ends by saying you should either buy a sound bar for £30 or £1200 for a Sonos Playbar and sub., or “…if all else fails, there’s always the subtitles…”
So now we know how far we’ve sunk.
The only sensible bit seems to be from Danny Cohen right at the end, suggesting people plan for clear sound before a frame is shot. Now there’s a novelty!
John Howell (Hibou)
I’ve never heard such a load of waffle, everyone says it is a combination of problems, and how difficult it is to find the causes. WELL GET ON AND DO IT!
Identify a potential production, attach an observer, an experienced sound practitioner to ‘follow’ the production’s progress, planning, read-throughs, site visits, locations, stages, edits, dubs and go to the screenings to get people’s comments. It would be tough on crew members, particularly the recordist and dubbing mixer but it may reveal where the standards are being eroded. If the people who ‘take this really seriously’ want it sorted something like this has to happen.
By the way, why does everyone ‘go back to the edit’ to sort these problems out? why not the dubbing suite or have things changed so much since I retired 16 years ago?
Hibou, (with much ruffled feathers).
Alasdair Lawrance
Brilliant idea….and perhaps we could call this person, oh, I dunno, something like “Sound Supervisor’? How does that er…sound?
Dave Plowman
It’s re-inventing the wheel. It was known from the first days of talkies that if you can’t get decent intelligibility from the actual filming (for whatever reason), you post sync.
When live TV started this was impossible. So techniques were developed for doing it all in one. Quiet studios with decent acoustics. The best microphones available in the best position. And of course talent who understood their art for the circumstances.
Perhaps someone would explain to me how the basic rules have changed.
Albert Barber
Just a thought. I wondered if there is someone who might do a report on recent sound problems rather than say it was different in my day?
Of course it was different. Warwick put up an interesting post on the transmission aspect which I think may be a key problem of the multiple systems. In simple terms there is stereo, surround sound encoding for stereo, converted mono from stereo, mono and 5.1 and 7.1 and our deteriorating hearing.
There is transmission sound, decoded sound, sound level standards and of course production standards.
The other point it where is the haloed highly regarded BBC engineering department. My view is that the BBC gets someone who can speak with authority.
So, if someone can write a positive response I may be able to put it under some noses in the BBC who may thank us as a group and bring some sense to us just saying it was better in our day, which it was, but technology has moved on.
Alasdair Lawrance
I think that’s a very good idea. Can I start by being a bit heretical and say that I’m not convinced that 5.1 is a terrific idea for a lot of TV programming, and I find commercial DVDs very variable, in particular with their use of LFE.
I’ve only heard 5.1 work well under demonstration conditions where I suspect the material is specially shot, and you’re ushered to very near the ’sweet spot’.
I also find it very difficult to tell the differences between the various formats – DTS, the various flavours of Dolby etc.
I’ve not heard any 7.1 material, but my suspicion is that this is just another two channels of confusion!
Is there an infallible way of setting up 5.1 in the domestic setting, with maximum WAF?
Dave Plowman
I think that we all know from Evesham etc, if not from home, that even plain stereo demands you are in the sweet spot – and in a room with reasonable acoustics – for the very best results. Go to surround, and it becomes more critical. Hence the inclusion of a centre (dialogue) channel for where there is more than one person.
However, if it was a ‘mixdown’ problem associated with 5.1 originated material, it would have been rather obvious by now. Because it would be music and or FX drowning out the dialogue – even if listening in mono.
Now if it was this, many people can tell the difference between speech and music and FX.
Dialogue on TV is invariably a simple mono signal. I’m not aware of any technical fault which can make the dialogue sound like it’s had all the upper mid and HF removed – while leaving the music and FX untouched, or one that can covert well spoken dialogue into mumbling.
I remember reading elsewhere that someone claiming to have been on the sounds ‘crew’ of Jamaica Inn (not the recordist) said it was all perfectly audible when recorded. Although just how a member of the sound crew would know that without being the recordist, I dunno.
The other problem is, of course, not all productions are as bad. Identifying which ones were likely to be at risk could be difficult.
John Howell (Hibou)
Would it not be reasonable for a boom op. on the sound crew to hear a playback? Despite being ‘Lo Fi’ he/she could have made the judgment even if the sound was fed to the radio system, (i.e. ‘Motorolas’). Or if really experienced had stood next to the camera.
I agree that picking a production could be a problem, a good starting point would be a period piece with a ‘thriller’ plot, meaning whispering and dramatic music. When the ‘observer’ was introduced (they would have to be introduced, they couldn’t go undercover and do this job) the production would go out of their way not to incur criticism of the sound.
And I suppose the real stumbling block would be who pays for this observer?
Mike Jordan
I went to the BBC demonstration of 4K TV in BH Concert Hall. They were promising 22:1 audio (yes seriously) but one of the pieces was of basketball at the London Olympics – quite unwatchable as the screen was so big that it was constant head movement whether one liked to or not – and the audio hadn’t been mixed at all so as the guys ran up and down (very few close-ups as only about 2 cameras in the UK at the time) the squeaky boot sounds never tracked!
Rubbish!
Pat Heigham
I am able to report that The Association of Motion Picture Sound has prepared a press release, see below, to be sent all around, including Ms. Moore, offering help via general points as to possible causes of poor audio.
As AMPS members work on sound for high-end TV drama, as well as cinema features, they are well aware of the actual causes, but for the moment, particular productions are not being singled out – that could come later. I have secured permission to post it to Tech-ops now.
AMPS would welcome any sensible comments, which I can pass on to the AMPS Council.
The Association of Motion Picture Sound (AMPS) has released the following statement regarding the recent issues relating to unintelligible dialogue on TV dramas:
The Association of Motion Picture Sound (AMPS) has a membership of world class creative sound technicians including many BAFTA, Oscar and Emmy winners. We believe the issue of dialogue intelligibility has multiple causes but ultimately one effect, which is losing the involvement of the audience.
There are a number of factors involved in the production and capture of good dialogue in TV drama and replicating it in the home environment. Performances that include whispering or mumbling of dialogue from actors can be one of these. A director or writer, often being very familiar with the script, may not be aware the performance may be difficult to understand by an audience hearing it for the first time. There may also be technical issues associated with multi camera shooting that make the use of boom microphones impossible and create a dependency on radio microphones. Some costume choices are not radio microphone friendly. Additionally, many dramas are shot on locations that are not acoustically suitable. These factors all contribute to the complaints by the public of ‘I can’t understand what the actor is saying’.
We are happy to engage in discussions to help improve the intelligibility of performances presented to viewers and maintain the highest technical sound standards for TV drama. Should the BBC or any other organisation want to draw on our combined expertise in finding the best solution to this issue we are more than happy to help. We can be contacted at admin@amps.net.
Dave Plowman
“…Complaints over muffled dialogue in high-profile TV dramas show that this is a regular source of irritation for viewers. Two years ago, another BBC One drama, Jamaica Inn, generated more than 2,000 complaints about mumbled conversations; its adaptor, Emma Frost, admitted that it “sounded like listening through mud”.
In 2013, Director-General Tony Hall highlighted difficulties with hearing dialogue in drama as one of the issues he wanted to confront. “Actors muttering can be testing,” he said. “I don’t want to sound like a grumpy old man but I think muttering is something we could have a look at.” …”
For those who may not have seen the full article:
https://rts.org.uk/article/sounding-inaudible-dialogue-rife-among-dramas
Nice to see an IPS (old IBS) member quoted, rather than the usual ‘spokesman’.
