Proms last night.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 16:44:38 +0100, "NY" wrote:

I got the impression that "there was a technical problem" was a euphemism
for "some of the actors have poor diction" to avoid embarrassing those
actors.

Exactly what I've been trying to say. If I had a pound for every time
I heard that particular euphemism while I was working in TV, I'd be,
well, I'd have a few quid wouldn't I?

It always seemed important not to upset or embarrass the actors, but
to misrepresent the engineers was of no consequence at all.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 01:11:08 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

[snip long technical explanation]

How on earth am I supposed to discribe how the 5.1 mix was built and why it
may well produce the problem you describe?
......without a long abstract technical explanation?


But viewers (incorrectly) only got two of the five components required to
recreate 5.1. No wonder it sounded like someone with a sock in their
mouth.

It didn't sound sock-in-mouth to me. Even if it had, how could a
technical issue make it sound thus only when some actors were
speaking?

Because of where they were physically placed in the mix.




Again, a human faux pas somewhere left the BBC _without_ their requested
_stereo mix_.

The result was _the wrong audio pair_ was sent to air instead.

If you say so, but I never would have guessed.

Neither would the other x million viewers.


Everything sounded very
clear to me, except that when some of the actors were speaking, only
some of them and one bloke in particular who affected a very strong
accent, I had to spool back and switch on the subtitles to make out
what they were supposed to be saying. This had nothing to do with
where they were in the soundstage. It only depended on who was
speaking. I'm truly baffled that you think this could have a technical
cause.


Another comparison I thought of today....
The RAH comment that started this thread, it all takes place in one
auditorium.
Sports OBs which have 5.1 audio, also take place within an auditorium.
To cover these the mics are laid out in around the venue predetermined
places, and grouped together in a predetermined way, before being passed to
the surround processor.
What goes in the far left, comes out of the far left.

When shooting dramas, there are no mics laid out around the set.
There are generally just mics on, or close to, the actors.
Atmos is recorded serately.
So you end up with a plethora of mono mic tracks.
None of them have any stereo or 5.1 detail.
If you were to just add all of those, in mono, to the 5.1 mix as mono (a-la
1978), the scene would sound very dead and dry, and (frankly) crap in
comparison to the american invasion!

The soundscape is then artificially built.... in a computer. It does not
exist in the real world.
Dialogue of individual actors is placed within that virtual landscape.
Atmos, which _may_ be stereo, is also placed in to it.

The construction of the virtual landscape can affect how each individual
audio track is sent to each of the six discrete channels in many ways...
-amplitude
-frequency shift
-phase shift
-delay/advance
-reverb/echo/slap
-eq/notch
-gating/compression/expansion
i.e. special effects are applied to _every_ mono source.

Whoever is editing this doesnt sit there and fiddle with all those for each
mono source, they just tell the computer where they want the sound to
appear. IT does all the fancy number, we just listen to it.

So each audio source _can_ vary greatly from others in how it is reproduced
from individual 5.1 channels.

And of course, the computer EXPECTS you to have all six (or five) speakers
present to reproduce what it created.
Which the viewing nation did not.


There may very well have been a mixup with the tracks *as well* as
poor diction from a few of the actors, but the only effect I was aware
of was the poor diction. Perhaps the mixup with the tracks only
affected the multitudes who listened through the speakers in their TV
sets.

Fair point, which would be the majority of the nation.
BUT..... did auntie transmit the full 5.1 audio for it anyway?
If not, then they too got the wrong audio.


I guess it might affect mono listeners differently from stereo
ones for instance, but whatever it was, it didn't stop me *hearing*
the actors in perfect audio clarity, just *understanding* what some of
them were trying to say.

Because the composing computer may have created an audio function which
requires more speakers to reproduce the dialogue correctly.


Rod.

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 01:11:08 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

[snip long technical explanation]

But viewers (incorrectly) only got two of the five components required to
recreate 5.1. No wonder it sounded like someone with a sock in their
mouth.

It didn't sound sock-in-mouth to me. Even if it had, how could a
technical issue make it sound thus only when some actors were
speaking?

Again, a human faux pas somewhere left the BBC _without_ their requested
_stereo mix_.

The result was _the wrong audio pair_ was sent to air instead.

If you say so, but I never would have guessed. Everything sounded very
clear to me, except that when some of the actors were speaking, only
some of them and one bloke in particular who affected a very strong
accent, I had to spool back and switch on the subtitles to make out
what they were supposed to be saying. This had nothing to do with
where they were in the soundstage. It only depended on who was
speaking. I'm truly baffled that you think this could have a technical
cause.

There may very well have been a mixup with the tracks *as well* as
poor diction from a few of the actors, but the only effect I was aware
of was the poor diction. Perhaps the mixup with the tracks only
affected the multitudes who listened through the speakers in their TV
sets. I guess it might affect mono listeners differently from stereo
ones for instance, but whatever it was, it didn't stop me *hearing*
the actors in perfect audio clarity, just *understanding* what some of
them were trying to say.


Yes, from what I heard, I'd say that the problem was first and foremost
with the diction of a certain actor (I'm sure he knows who he is!), which
may have been exacerbated by a strange sound mix. He had a similar
mumbling diction to Lester Piggot or Jack Ashley, MP (the latter was
deaf).

When they sorted out the problem for the subsequent episodes, was it
simply providing the correct 5.1 - stereo conversion or was it a case of
going back to the original dialogue and music/effects tracks and remixing
from scratch to increase the level of one relative to the other (or at
least centralising the dialogue more in the sound stage)?

(AFAIK) It was a bodge produced from the 5.1 mix.

But to reproduce the stereo mix they would have to go back to the masters
and the edit suite.
But that would have moved on to the next project, and may well take longer
than there is to the next episode goes to air.



I got the impression that "there was a technical problem" was a euphemism
for "some of the actors have poor diction" to avoid embarrassing those
actors.

Well what else can you say to the public?
Too much detail and you get grief for it





As a matter of interest, is it generally the production company or the
broadcaster who is responsible for the 5.1 - stereo conversion? What
about HD - SD conversion - is the broadcaster provided with an HD and an
SD master or do they do HD-SD conversion (and 5.1- stereo) on the fly?

Production company and post production facilities house are responsible for
delivery:
http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf

There is no 5.1 to stereo conversion.
Its a separately produced mix.


HD is downconverted 'on the fly' at the time of transmission. Its one of the
few things thats easy to do now.
......might even be Arqiva that do this.

_Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:

As a matter of interest, is it generally the production company or
the broadcaster who is responsible for the 5.1 - stereo
conversion? What about HD - SD conversion - is the broadcaster
provided with an HD and an SD master or do they do HD-SD
conversion (and 5.1- stereo) on the fly?

Production company and post production facilities house are
responsible for delivery:
http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf



There is no 5.1 to stereo conversion. Its a separately produced
mix.

Those watching in HD (assuming the sound was broadcast as 5.1) would be
hearing an on the fly down mix though. I have no idea if 5.1 was
broadcast, or, if it was, only SD listeners had the dialogue issue.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 21:35:47 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

But viewers (incorrectly) only got two of the five components required to
recreate 5.1. No wonder it sounded like someone with a sock in their
mouth.

It didn't sound sock-in-mouth to me. Even if it had, how could a
technical issue make it sound thus only when some actors were
speaking?

Because of where they were physically placed in the mix.

You don't give up, do you? I have already said that the
unintelligibility of the dialogue that required me to switch on the
subtitles was related to *who* was speaking, and not "where* they
were. This is why I attribute it to the diction of the actors
concerned (just some of them) and not a technical issue.

I appreciate that position in the mix *can* affect intelligibility,
but that's not what was happening here. I've got ears, and enough
listening experience to know the difference.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 21:35:47 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

But viewers (incorrectly) only got two of the five components required
to
recreate 5.1. No wonder it sounded like someone with a sock in their
mouth.

It didn't sound sock-in-mouth to me. Even if it had, how could a
technical issue make it sound thus only when some actors were
speaking?

Because of where they were physically placed in the mix.

You don't give up, do you? I have already said that the
unintelligibility of the dialogue that required me to switch on the
subtitles was related to *who* was speaking, and not "where* they
were. This is why I attribute it to the diction of the actors
concerned (just some of them) and not a technical issue.

I appreciate that position in the mix *can* affect intelligibility,
but that's not what was happening here. I've got ears, and enough
listening experience to know the difference.

I suppose the acid test is: did the intelligibility of the relevant actors
improve noticeably in the episodes which *were* broadcast with the correct
stereo (derived from 5.1), compared with the episodes where the incorrect
components of 5.1 were broadcast instead?

If there were no noticeable difference, it's the actors...

I didn't notice any difference, by the way! The corrected episodes sounded
different - less woolly - but the actors who I had problems with
understanding in the first episode were just as unintelligible in later
episodes.

By the way, was Mary Yellan (Jessica Brown Findlay) supposed to look so
androgynous? :-) Is that how she was described in the book?

"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message
o.uk...
_Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:

As a matter of interest, is it generally the production company or
the broadcaster who is responsible for the 5.1 - stereo
conversion? What about HD - SD conversion - is the broadcaster
provided with an HD and an SD master or do they do HD-SD
conversion (and 5.1- stereo) on the fly?

Production company and post production facilities house are
responsible for delivery:
http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/w...andardsBBC.pdf



There is no 5.1 to stereo conversion. Its a separately produced
mix.

Those watching in HD (assuming the sound was broadcast as 5.1) would be
hearing an on the fly down mix though.

No such workflow exists.


I have no idea if 5.1 was
broadcast, or, if it was, only SD listeners had the dialogue issue.

Lots of luvvies complaining in industry press were watching 'HD'.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 21:35:47 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

But viewers (incorrectly) only got two of the five components required
to
recreate 5.1. No wonder it sounded like someone with a sock in their
mouth.

It didn't sound sock-in-mouth to me. Even if it had, how could a
technical issue make it sound thus only when some actors were
speaking?

Because of where they were physically placed in the mix.

You don't give up, do you?

Irony. Sometimes it bites you in the ass!


I have already said that the
unintelligibility of the dialogue that required me to switch on the
subtitles was related to *who* was speaking, and not "where* they
were. This is why I attribute it to the diction of the actors
concerned (just some of them) and not a technical issue.

But the technical issue concerned may have produced such an effect one the
dialogue of an individual.
What if a certain selection of effects were applied to just that one
individual?
......then the dialogue of just that individual would be affected, and hard
to hear.
Especially more so when you are only presented with two of five (required)
components.



I appreciate that position in the mix *can* affect intelligibility,
but that's not what was happening here. I've got ears, and enough
listening experience to know the difference.

You're 'an expert'.


Rod.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 21:35:47 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

But viewers (incorrectly) only got two of the five components required
to
recreate 5.1. No wonder it sounded like someone with a sock in their
mouth.

It didn't sound sock-in-mouth to me. Even if it had, how could a
technical issue make it sound thus only when some actors were
speaking?

Because of where they were physically placed in the mix.

You don't give up, do you? I have already said that the
unintelligibility of the dialogue that required me to switch on the
subtitles was related to *who* was speaking, and not "where* they
were. This is why I attribute it to the diction of the actors
concerned (just some of them) and not a technical issue.

I appreciate that position in the mix *can* affect intelligibility,
but that's not what was happening here. I've got ears, and enough
listening experience to know the difference.

I suppose the acid test is: did the intelligibility of the relevant actors
improve noticeably in the episodes which *were* broadcast with the correct
stereo (derived from 5.1), compared with the episodes where the incorrect
components of 5.1 were broadcast instead?

The 'correct stereo' which was transmitted from that point on was a bodge.
It was _derived_ from the supplied 5.1 mix.
It sort of works, but it's not done correctly.
You can not put back what is not there.
To produce a legitimate 'correct stereo' mix you must start over with the
original media.


If there were no noticeable difference, it's the actors...

I didn't notice any difference, by the way! The corrected episodes sounded
different - less woolly - but the actors who I had problems with
understanding in the first episode were just as unintelligible in later
episodes.

Because they were working from an artificially produced 5.1 mix.
They didnt have the 'clean' mono dialogue tracks.



By the way, was Mary Yellan (Jessica Brown Findlay) supposed to look so
androgynous? :-) Is that how she was described in the book?


"Artistic licence, luvvie."

"_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote in message
...
The 'correct stereo' which was transmitted from that point on was a bodge.
It was _derived_ from the supplied 5.1 mix.
It sort of works, but it's not done correctly.
You can not put back what is not there.
To produce a legitimate 'correct stereo' mix you must start over with the
original media.

Ah, so normal practice is for the stereo and the 5.1 to be separately mixed
from the source material? I hadn't realised that. I thought that a single
mix was always made, in 5.1, and then the stereo version was derived from it
by suitable combination of the 5.1 channels.

I'd thought that what was broadcast after everyone started to complain was
what should have been broadcast from day 1. That's the impression I got from
the BBC responses to the criticism.

I presume that the programme maker has produced the correct stereo mix now,
to be used when (if?) Jamaica Inn is repeated. I wonder which version
they've used on the DVD and BluRay releases.

Presumably those people who listened in 5.1 would have heard everything OK,
so it would be interesting to learn whether those people had more problems
with some characters than others.



All this is a long way short of a documentary (I've no idea which one) that
I saw a few years ago. The location sound (eg talking heads interviews) and
the music/effects were fine but the voiceover narration was at a very low
level and was completely drowned by any music/effects. It sounded to have
the correct tonal range, so it was unlikely to be out of phase L+R or any
similar elementary mistake. I'm surprised this error wasn't picked up before
broadcast.