Proms last night.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:

I was also told that the surround was always actually 4.0, so no
center or LFE. However despite that, analysis of some Proms duly
showed that LFE and center did get used at times.

So I have the impression that in practice, things can vary and that
those in the hall don't always do what I'd been told! From my end of
the chain, hard to know who is responsible, or why.

Real 5.1 is what I've "seen" this and previous year(s).


FWIW I'm not sure what Brian was using to decode the audio. It
wouldn't surprtise me to find that some TV RXs muck up handling
aspects like gain scaling in the audio streams or get the changes
from strereo - surround wrong when it comes to the result being
always mixed up/down to whatever audio setup they have. So it might
be an RX problem.

Looking at B9ths Ode it seems unlike previous years, there was no DRC
meta in the "normal" aac place. There was some (up to 5dB cut) in the
DVB/DSE extension. Mixdown meta in the same extension was as normal for
proms = -3dB surround and -6dB C and Programme reference level was
-23dBFS. Of course I have no idea what FreeviewHD TVs do/are supposed to
do with this WRT target levels etc. as the DTG spec is members only, I
don't know how different it is to the open DVB/AAC specs.

More Generally on the few films I've looked at, the BBC seem to use
"normal" AAC DRC far less now than a couple of years ago, though I don't
look that much so could be wrong.

The proms were always very light touch anyway, but films were once going
+/- 10dB, in fact much the same as the Dolby DVD version in one case.

In article , Andy
Furniss [email protected] wrote:
Bill Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:59:35 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

snip

thanks _U_F_ interesting.

For an interesting article on how the proms are done you could look at
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov1...cles/proms.htm

and thanks Bill for the link.

FWIW I bought a copy of 'Hi Fi World' yesterday and it also has an article
on the arrangements for this year's Proms. Issue cover-dated October 2015.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:55:33 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

So I have the impression that in practice, things can vary and that
those
in the hall don't always do what I'd been told! From my end of the
chain,
hard to know who is responsible, or why.

Neither do I, but.... I guess 4.0 would solve the Jamaica Inn problem.

If you remove the thought of three speakers at the front (with all
dialogue
having to go down the centre), then this enables you to work to a stereo
pair.
So in working in 4.0 you dont need to produce a stereo fold down mix, you
just send FL + FR as stereo. Thus preventing the J.I. f.up!
.....a crappy solution!

My recollection of the Jamaica Inn broadcast is that chunks of it were
incomprehensible as a result of some of the leading actors mumbling
their lines. I don't think making the dialogue louder in relation to
ambient effects would have made it any clearer. In fact, some of the
scenes for which I had to switch on the subtitles were indoor scenes
with hardly any sound except dialogue. Some of the actors were clearer
than others too, so it definitely seems to have been down to them, not
the sound mix. Perhaps the director thought that mumbling would be
more realistic, but then the director would have known the script, so
may not have realised that there was a problem with intelligibility.

Your recolection is correct..... as a viewer.

Behind the scenes, everyone in telly (who was not a sound tech.) was blaming
the actors, for mumbling.
The actors blamed the sound recorders, for doing a crap job.
The sound recorders did their job perfectly.

The press, meanwhile, had a goldfish memory.
But, as is always the way, why let that get in the way of a good story?


J.I. was edited in a f.expensive suite in Soho.
7.2. sound system, unblowable speakers, massive screens, money no object,
VERY experienced editors. (This is privately owned. i.e. Not at our cost,
via BBC)
During the edit process everything was precisely as it should be. Dialogue
was perfectly clear.
The finished item was rendered to 5.1 surround sound, with all dialogue on
the front centre channel.

The press, ALL of them, were present at a preview screening.
At that screening many were impressed, and all dialogue was perfectly
audible. No mumbling, nothing 'too' quiet or inaudible.

Then came transmission day.
Somewhere, someone, did not provide a stereo fold down track for
transmission.
i.e. Just Lt + Rt

A further faux-pas came when the 5.1 audio was sent to air...... as stereo.
i.e. FL + FR

FL + FR contain little or no dialogue, that goes down the centre channel.
Unless youre adding C to FL or FR, then the only dialogue in the speakers
will be the small amount the surround processor added at the edit stage.

Thus, it 'appeared' that actors mumbled their lines, when in actual fact,
they delivered perfectly.
The sound recorders delivered perfectly too.
As did the editors.
................As was demonstrated at the press screening..... which was
presented in a 5.1 equipped auditorium!!
But no-one in the press could remember that once all the smelly brown stuff
entered the air pump!

Compounded schoolboy errors at late stages.

Afterward the BBC carried out an internal investigation, which appears to
have been buried!

Yet, this was not the first time this occured. IIRC, the previous year a
Brian Cox series (poss. Human Universe) suffered the same problem, viewers
complaining the effects were downing out the dialogue.

http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf





Rod.

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:46:50 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

My recollection of the Jamaica Inn broadcast is that chunks of it were
incomprehensible as a result of some of the leading actors mumbling
their lines. I don't think making the dialogue louder in relation to
ambient effects would have made it any clearer. In fact, some of the
scenes for which I had to switch on the subtitles were indoor scenes
with hardly any sound except dialogue. Some of the actors were clearer
than others too, so it definitely seems to have been down to them, not
the sound mix. Perhaps the director thought that mumbling would be
more realistic, but then the director would have known the script, so
may not have realised that there was a problem with intelligibility.

Your recolection is correct..... as a viewer.

Behind the scenes, everyone in telly (who was not a sound tech.) was blaming
the actors, for mumbling.
The actors blamed the sound recorders, for doing a crap job.
The sound recorders did their job perfectly.

The press, meanwhile, had a goldfish memory.
But, as is always the way, why let that get in the way of a good story?


J.I. was edited in a f.expensive suite in Soho.
7.2. sound system, unblowable speakers, massive screens, money no object,
VERY experienced editors. (This is privately owned. i.e. Not at our cost,
via BBC)
During the edit process everything was precisely as it should be. Dialogue
was perfectly clear.
The finished item was rendered to 5.1 surround sound, with all dialogue on
the front centre channel.

The press, ALL of them, were present at a preview screening.
At that screening many were impressed, and all dialogue was perfectly
audible. No mumbling, nothing 'too' quiet or inaudible.

Then came transmission day.
Somewhere, someone, did not provide a stereo fold down track for
transmission.
i.e. Just Lt + Rt

A further faux-pas came when the 5.1 audio was sent to air...... as stereo.
i.e. FL + FR

FL + FR contain little or no dialogue, that goes down the centre channel.
Unless youre adding C to FL or FR, then the only dialogue in the speakers
will be the small amount the surround processor added at the edit stage.

Thus, it 'appeared' that actors mumbled their lines, when in actual fact,
they delivered perfectly.
The sound recorders delivered perfectly too.
As did the editors.
...............As was demonstrated at the press screening..... which was
presented in a 5.1 equipped auditorium!!
But no-one in the press could remember that once all the smelly brown stuff
entered the air pump!

Compounded schoolboy errors at late stages.

Afterward the BBC carried out an internal investigation, which appears to
have been buried!

Yet, this was not the first time this occured. IIRC, the previous year a
Brian Cox series (poss. Human Universe) suffered the same problem, viewers
complaining the effects were downing out the dialogue.

http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf

I hope I'm allowed to disagree. Yes, in modern TV programmes dialogue
is frequently drowned out by loud effects or music, but not in the
case of Jamaica Inn. Much of the uninteligible dialogue was adequately
loud and not accompanied by any spurious effects. Also, the fact that
some *actors* were perfectly clear while some weren't suggests to me
that intelligibility was a function of their diction and not the
technology. Not only that but the complaints began to roll in after
the first episode, and there were so many that the BBC had to respond,
saying they would nmake some technical adjustment (which I assume to
mean a remix) that would improve it, but subsequent episodes were no
better. I think I ended up leaving the subtitles on all the time.

It's too easy to blame the technology or the engineers, or just to
describe the cause of something as "technical problems", in the hope
that the finger of blame won't embarrass any individual who might
otherwise have to answer for it. I've been present on many a TV shoot
where the sound recordist has been overruled by the director when
asking for another take on account of diction, or when advising
against the use of radio mics, or that some electrical appliance needs
to be switched off or a window closed.

I think the problem really is that directors have read the script,
they can hear the dialogue live on set, and they know the words by
heart, and many of them are unable to be objective about how it will
sound to somebody hearing it for the first time. Also, like all people
who get to be in charge of things, some of them are not very good at
taking advice from others, even those who are experienced specialists
at their own tasks.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:46:50 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

My recollection of the Jamaica Inn broadcast is that chunks of it were
incomprehensible as a result of some of the leading actors mumbling
their lines. I don't think making the dialogue louder in relation to
ambient effects would have made it any clearer. In fact, some of the
scenes for which I had to switch on the subtitles were indoor scenes
with hardly any sound except dialogue. Some of the actors were clearer
than others too, so it definitely seems to have been down to them, not
the sound mix. Perhaps the director thought that mumbling would be
more realistic, but then the director would have known the script, so
may not have realised that there was a problem with intelligibility.

Your recolection is correct..... as a viewer.

Behind the scenes, everyone in telly (who was not a sound tech.) was
blaming
the actors, for mumbling.
The actors blamed the sound recorders, for doing a crap job.
The sound recorders did their job perfectly.

The press, meanwhile, had a goldfish memory.
But, as is always the way, why let that get in the way of a good story?


J.I. was edited in a f.expensive suite in Soho.
7.2. sound system, unblowable speakers, massive screens, money no object,
VERY experienced editors. (This is privately owned. i.e. Not at our cost,
via BBC)
During the edit process everything was precisely as it should be. Dialogue
was perfectly clear.
The finished item was rendered to 5.1 surround sound, with all dialogue on
the front centre channel.

The press, ALL of them, were present at a preview screening.
At that screening many were impressed, and all dialogue was perfectly
audible. No mumbling, nothing 'too' quiet or inaudible.

Then came transmission day.
Somewhere, someone, did not provide a stereo fold down track for
transmission.
i.e. Just Lt + Rt

A further faux-pas came when the 5.1 audio was sent to air...... as
stereo.
i.e. FL + FR

FL + FR contain little or no dialogue, that goes down the centre channel.
Unless youre adding C to FL or FR, then the only dialogue in the speakers
will be the small amount the surround processor added at the edit stage.

Thus, it 'appeared' that actors mumbled their lines, when in actual fact,
they delivered perfectly.
The sound recorders delivered perfectly too.
As did the editors.
...............As was demonstrated at the press screening..... which was
presented in a 5.1 equipped auditorium!!
But no-one in the press could remember that once all the smelly brown
stuff
entered the air pump!

Compounded schoolboy errors at late stages.

Afterward the BBC carried out an internal investigation, which appears to
have been buried!

Yet, this was not the first time this occured. IIRC, the previous year a
Brian Cox series (poss. Human Universe) suffered the same problem, viewers
complaining the effects were downing out the dialogue.

http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf

I hope I'm allowed to disagree. Yes, in modern TV programmes dialogue
is frequently drowned out by loud effects or music, but not in the
case of Jamaica Inn. Much of the uninteligible dialogue was adequately
loud and not accompanied by any spurious effects. Also, the fact that
some *actors* were perfectly clear while some weren't suggests to me
that intelligibility was a function of their diction and not the
technology. Not only that but the complaints began to roll in after
the first episode, and there were so many that the BBC had to respond,
saying they would nmake some technical adjustment (which I assume to
mean a remix) that would improve it, but subsequent episodes were no
better. I think I ended up leaving the subtitles on all the time.

It's too easy to blame the technology or the engineers, or just to
describe the cause of something as "technical problems", in the hope
that the finger of blame won't embarrass any individual who might
otherwise have to answer for it. I've been present on many a TV shoot
where the sound recordist has been overruled by the director when
asking for another take on account of diction, or when advising
against the use of radio mics, or that some electrical appliance needs
to be switched off or a window closed.

I think the problem really is that directors have read the script,
they can hear the dialogue live on set, and they know the words by
heart, and many of them are unable to be objective about how it will
sound to somebody hearing it for the first time. Also, like all people
who get to be in charge of things, some of them are not very good at
taking advice from others, even those who are experienced specialists
at their own tasks.


In that, youve epitymised precisely what was written in the industry
press...... by everyone who did not work in sound.
i.e. Everyone who didnt really know.

IF episode 1 was so bad for the public, then why did NO-ONE complain at the
press screening??????
Because it was presented in a 5.1 auditorium.
Dialogue down the centre speaker, perfectly inteligable.
Thus, the finished product was perfect..... in 5.1


Fact remains, FL + FR were transmitted as a stereo pair (as heard by the
masses).... which just does not work.

The 'technical adjustment' required to render the situation was to go back
to the suite and redo the audio mix in to produce a correct stereo fold
down.
That is, you cant just add C to FL, and C to FR, and call it Lt Rt. It just
doesnt work like that. You have to actually 'produce' a stereo mix
separately.
BUT, to do so would take longer than to the next episode, because you would
require all the masters again.
But you cant do that, because the post-production house has moved on to the
next project. That suite is busy again.

So some other compromise was arrived at, sadly, too late, and not good
enough.

There ARE two fingers of blame. Delivery from the post house, and Tx.


Rod.

In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
IF episode 1 was so bad for the public, then why did NO-ONE complain at
the press screening?????? Because it was presented in a 5.1 auditorium.
Dialogue down the centre speaker, perfectly inteligable. Thus, the
finished product was perfect..... in 5.1

That may be so. But an alternative possibilities that occur to me a

That the sound level in the - presumably large presentation room / theatre
used for a large 'press screening' was BLOODY LOUD. Thus exploiting the
level compression in human hearing to make things audible which would be
missed when the sound was being played at a lower level.

Alternatively, that the sound setup and room acoustic were far better than
in most home TV systems/rooms. Thus making the speech clearer and far less
muddled into other sounds.

The sad reality is that many home TV/cinema systems have lousy sound.

No idea which of the above may or may not be a 'reason'. But any of them
could be.

I recall the complaints people made when the BBC News tended to start with
loud deep 'drumming' as the announcer gave the headline topics. This
drumming tended to 'boom out' in some TV systems, and people with poor
hearing and poor equipment couldn't hear what was said. Yet it sounded fine
to producers listening on decent monitors.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[snip stuff about Jamaica Inn]
Yet, this was not the first time this occured. IIRC, the previous year a
Brian Cox series (poss. Human Universe) suffered the same problem, viewers
complaining the effects were downing out the dialogue.

http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf

I hope I'm allowed to disagree. Yes, in modern TV programmes dialogue
is frequently drowned out by loud effects or music, but not in the
case of Jamaica Inn. Much of the uninteligible dialogue was adequately
loud and not accompanied by any spurious effects. Also, the fact that
some *actors* were perfectly clear while some weren't suggests to me
that intelligibility was a function of their diction and not the
technology. Not only that but the complaints began to roll in after
the first episode, and there were so many that the BBC had to respond,
saying they would nmake some technical adjustment (which I assume to
mean a remix) that would improve it, but subsequent episodes were no
better. I think I ended up leaving the subtitles on all the time.

It's too easy to blame the technology or the engineers, or just to
describe the cause of something as "technical problems", in the hope
that the finger of blame won't embarrass any individual who might
otherwise have to answer for it. I've been present on many a TV shoot
where the sound recordist has been overruled by the director when
asking for another take on account of diction, or when advising
against the use of radio mics, or that some electrical appliance needs
to be switched off or a window closed.

I think the problem really is that directors have read the script,
they can hear the dialogue live on set, and they know the words by
heart, and many of them are unable to be objective about how it will
sound to somebody hearing it for the first time. Also, like all people
who get to be in charge of things, some of them are not very good at
taking advice from others, even those who are experienced specialists
at their own tasks.


In that, youve epitymised precisely what was written in the industry
press...... by everyone who did not work in sound.
i.e. Everyone who didnt really know.

I do really know what I really heard with my own ears - some actors as
clear as anything and others so unintelligble I had to spool back and
switch on the subtitles to discover what they'd said. If some actors
can make themselves understood and some can't, how can that be a
function of the technology?

I only listen through high quality external loudspeakers and not the
built-in ones of the TV set, so programmes have every chance to
present themselves properly, and yet occasionally somebody says
something I can't make out at all. I remember this particular
programme as being so bad I just left the subtitles on.

IF episode 1 was so bad for the public, then why did NO-ONE complain at the
press screening??????
Because it was presented in a 5.1 auditorium.
Dialogue down the centre speaker, perfectly inteligable.
Thus, the finished product was perfect..... in 5.1

I don't know the etiquette of a press screening, never having been to
one. Is it permissible to complain? Would anyone feel free to do this
in front of a crowd? Might a journalist not simply assume that what
was being presented was a work in progress and that any imperfections
would be ironed out for the actual broadcast? That's the way it
usually is in theatre - "It'll be all right on the night".

Fact remains, FL + FR were transmitted as a stereo pair (as heard by the
masses).... which just does not work.

The 'technical adjustment' required to render the situation was to go back
to the suite and redo the audio mix in to produce a correct stereo fold
down.
That is, you cant just add C to FL, and C to FR, and call it Lt Rt. It just
doesnt work like that. You have to actually 'produce' a stereo mix
separately.
BUT, to do so would take longer than to the next episode, because you would
require all the masters again.
But you cant do that, because the post-production house has moved on to the
next project. That suite is busy again.

So some other compromise was arrived at, sadly, too late, and not good
enough.

There ARE two fingers of blame. Delivery from the post house, and Tx.

I'm sure they did what they could, but in the end you can't make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear (or you can't polish a turd, to use a
popular variant). I'm old enough to remember listening regularly to
medium wave radio in the evening, with a useful bandwidth of about
5kHz and a dynamic range probably around 30dB on a good day, with
hiss, crackles, adjacent channel splatter, telephone dialing clicks
and TV 405 line scan harmonics all over it, but still it was possible
for professional actors and presenters to make themselves understood,
without any fancy studio mixing to improve it, if that's what it does.

Rod.

On 03/09/2015 09:58, Roderick Stewart wrote:
[snip stuff about Jamaica Inn]

I do really know what I really heard with my own ears - some actors as
clear as anything and others so unintelligble I had to spool back and
switch on the subtitles to discover what they'd said. If some actors
can make themselves understood and some can't, how can that be a
function of the technology?

I didn't watch the programme, so can only take a theoretical viewpoint.
If the assumption made is that this was a 5.1 recording with just two
channels broadcast, some actors would by chance be standing in the place
which was broadcast and some would be peripheral to it. That would give
a mix of speech clarity depending on where the actor was placed in a scene.

Jim

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
[snip stuff about Jamaica Inn]
Yet, this was not the first time this occured. IIRC, the previous year a
Brian Cox series (poss. Human Universe) suffered the same problem,
viewers
complaining the effects were downing out the dialogue.

http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf

I hope I'm allowed to disagree. Yes, in modern TV programmes dialogue
is frequently drowned out by loud effects or music, but not in the
case of Jamaica Inn. Much of the uninteligible dialogue was adequately
loud and not accompanied by any spurious effects. Also, the fact that
some *actors* were perfectly clear while some weren't suggests to me
that intelligibility was a function of their diction and not the
technology. Not only that but the complaints began to roll in after
the first episode, and there were so many that the BBC had to respond,
saying they would nmake some technical adjustment (which I assume to
mean a remix) that would improve it, but subsequent episodes were no
better. I think I ended up leaving the subtitles on all the time.

It's too easy to blame the technology or the engineers, or just to
describe the cause of something as "technical problems", in the hope
that the finger of blame won't embarrass any individual who might
otherwise have to answer for it. I've been present on many a TV shoot
where the sound recordist has been overruled by the director when
asking for another take on account of diction, or when advising
against the use of radio mics, or that some electrical appliance needs
to be switched off or a window closed.

I think the problem really is that directors have read the script,
they can hear the dialogue live on set, and they know the words by
heart, and many of them are unable to be objective about how it will
sound to somebody hearing it for the first time. Also, like all people
who get to be in charge of things, some of them are not very good at
taking advice from others, even those who are experienced specialists
at their own tasks.


In that, youve epitymised precisely what was written in the industry
press...... by everyone who did not work in sound.
i.e. Everyone who didnt really know.

I do really know what I really heard with my own ears - some actors as
clear as anything and others so unintelligble I had to spool back and
switch on the subtitles to discover what they'd said. If some actors
can make themselves understood and some can't, how can that be a
function of the technology?


Because the one thing everyone forgot, yourself included: the recorded sound
is not transmitted as it was recorded.
i.e. post production processing. Just like the pictures were rendered and
graded, the sound was eq'd and processed.

Unlike 'the old days', sound is not merely 'dubbed' any longer.
A soundscape is created.


Dialogue was recorded perfectly.
Then in the edit process the decision may have been to add bias to various
characters depending on where they are in the scene.
That is, placing their voice somewhere on the 2D plane created by surround
sound.

Through a 5.1 system, this would produce perfect audibility, and physically
put them somewhere.
In the electronic domain, it may have been the case that one there was less
of one characters voice down the centre channel, with more of it down
(perhaps) FR. Again, with a 5.1 system this would push them to the right.
With just FL + FR they would be more inteligable than someone who was not.


Thus, _some_ characters may have been more inteligable than others.


Leap back a few years before J.I., we had the invasion of big budget
american series, Heroes, Flash Forward, Mad Men.
These made BIG money for the producers.
ITV had proved it could strike back, with Downton. (Now they're scratching
their arse for a replacement!)
So Auntie wanted a crack at the whip, and do you blame her?
J.I. had HIGH production values all the way through, and world wide interest
(no thanks to Daphne du Maurier).
It was produced in 5.1, so it could be sold all over the world, and shown in
cinemas even.
Except there was a faux pas at the point of delivery to the BBC!




I only listen through high quality external loudspeakers and not the
built-in ones of the TV set, so programmes have every chance to
present themselves properly, and yet occasionally somebody says
something I can't make out at all. I remember this particular
programme as being so bad I just left the subtitles on.

So did the whole nation!!


IF episode 1 was so bad for the public, then why did NO-ONE complain at
the
press screening??????
Because it was presented in a 5.1 auditorium.
Dialogue down the centre speaker, perfectly inteligable.
Thus, the finished product was perfect..... in 5.1

I don't know the etiquette of a press screening, never having been to
one. Is it permissible to complain? Would anyone feel free to do this
in front of a crowd? Might a journalist not simply assume that what
was being presented was a work in progress and that any imperfections
would be ironed out for the actual broadcast? That's the way it
usually is in theatre - "It'll be all right on the night".

No.
A press screening is a press screening. It is never a 'w.i.p.'
And come one, you know the British press, they never take prisoners.
If it sounded dreadful they would have shredded the BBC for wasting our
money!



Fact remains, FL + FR were transmitted as a stereo pair (as heard by the
masses).... which just does not work.

The 'technical adjustment' required to render the situation was to go back
to the suite and redo the audio mix in to produce a correct stereo fold
down.
That is, you cant just add C to FL, and C to FR, and call it Lt Rt. It
just
doesnt work like that. You have to actually 'produce' a stereo mix
separately.
BUT, to do so would take longer than to the next episode, because you
would
require all the masters again.
But you cant do that, because the post-production house has moved on to
the
next project. That suite is busy again.

So some other compromise was arrived at, sadly, too late, and not good
enough.

There ARE two fingers of blame. Delivery from the post house, and Tx.

I'm sure they did what they could, but in the end you can't make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear (or you can't polish a turd, to use a
popular variant). I'm old enough to remember listening regularly to
medium wave radio in the evening, with a useful bandwidth of about
5kHz and a dynamic range probably around 30dB on a good day, with
hiss, crackles, adjacent channel splatter, telephone dialing clicks
and TV 405 line scan harmonics all over it, but still it was possible
for professional actors and presenters to make themselves understood,

They DID make themselves understood. It was NOT the actors.
It WAS recorded perfectly. It was NOT the sound recorders.


without any fancy studio mixing to improve it, if that's what it does.

A sound scape was created, because thats what you do on big budget projects,
to make it really good.
Its not just like the BBC were showing off here, ALL big budget productions
do.

Perfectly recorded dialogue is processed in the edit, so as to give it
presence, resonance relevant to the surroundings, and a physical space
amongst five speakers.
The soundscape only works correctly when you have all five (or six)
components to contruct it.
FL + FR just will not do the job, theres three parts missing.
Similarly, the stereo soundscape has to be contrsucted too.


Result is that it might sound like someone in the next hotel room on one
speaker, but perfect on the other. Then what if you disconnect that one
speaker?
Suddenly it sounds like the transmission!

Had the programme been transmitted in 5.1, and every viewer listened to that
mix, I sincerely doubt there would have been any complaints regarding the
sound quality.

Pity.
Could have made Auntie some serious money!

And going back to an even earlier point, mixing the proms down to 4.0 would
prevent ALL of this stupidity.



Rod.

On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 10:28:02 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:


I do really know what I really heard with my own ears - some actors as
clear as anything and others so unintelligble I had to spool back and
switch on the subtitles to discover what they'd said. If some actors
can make themselves understood and some can't, how can that be a
function of the technology?

I didn't watch the programme, so can only take a theoretical viewpoint.
If the assumption made is that this was a 5.1 recording with just two
channels broadcast, some actors would by chance be standing in the place
which was broadcast and some would be peripheral to it. That would give
a mix of speech clarity depending on where the actor was placed in a scene.

I didn't make any assumptions. I just listened. Some actors were as
clear as anything and some of them mumbled.

I also listened to the episodes that were broadcast *after* the
complaints, and presumably after whatever adjustments had been made.
Nobody sounded as if they were off-mic or badly recorded, but some of
them sounded as if they weren't saying the words clearly. Maybe it was
a misguided attempt at a local accent in the name of "authenticity" or
something, but if so, I could hear it well enough but could only make
out what was being said by means of the subtitles.

Jamaica Inn is not the only programme I've seen that had this problem,
just one of the worst examples I can recall. When I find myself
reaching for the remote control to switch on the subtitles, yet again,
when a particular actor starts talking, I don't suspect the
technology. Logic says it's something to do with that actor.

Rod.