You are here

Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

All about the tools and techniques involved in capturing sound, in the studio or on location.

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

Postby MOF » Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:38 pm

they insist on 96kHz sample rate because they read somewhere that it is better!

It is, at the recording/mixing stage, along with 24bit (though I think oversampling at 44.1/48khz helps there, but a gentler roll off slope at 96khz is preferable) but from what I've read I don't think there's any advantage at the distribution stage.
MOF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:00 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:17 pm

MOF wrote:... a gentler roll off slope at 96khz is preferable...

Just for clarity, the anti-alias and/or reconstruction filters in systems operating at 96kHz are exactly as steep as those in a 44.1 or 48kHz system. However, they start an octave higher up!
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 25848
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

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

Postby MOF » Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:08 am

Just for clarity, the anti-alias and/or reconstruction filters in systems operating at 96kHz are exactly as steep as those in a 44.1 or 48kHz system. However, they start an octave higher up!

Thanks Hugh, that’s what I meant.
MOF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:00 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby John Willett » Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:41 pm

The Red Bladder wrote:
John Willett wrote:If you compressed the CD with a light touch the same way as vinyl, then the CD would be far far better. :thumbup:
I have one customer that comes to me for a series of classical piano pieces about once a year and every time the label wants the thing LOUDER "We need at least another 10dB!" they insist!

I've tried arguing the point, but to no avail! The funny part is that they insist on 96kHz sample rate because they read somewhere that it is better!

Madness for a classical piece - a reason NOT to purchase the CD.
User avatar
John Willett
Jedi Poster
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Oxfordshire UK
John
Sound-Link ProAudio
Circle Sound Services
Sound-Link are UK Distributors for: Microtech Gefell, ME-Geithain, AETA, HUM, Håkan, Meyer Turtle

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

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:46 pm

The context is needed before this kind of statement can be judged.

There are and will always be cases where a degree of dynamic reduction is required to make the music acceptable for 'ordinary' domestic listening. This is probably especially true of live recordings, but applies to studio works too.

It is quite normal, and necessary to raise the quietest sections to be more easily audible to a casual listener, without the loudest bits then blowing the speakers off the shelf!

Raising the ppp sections by 10dB or so is not an unreasonable expectation or requirement in most cases, but it does obviously need to be done sympathetically...

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 25848
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

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

Postby ef37a » Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:31 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:The context is needed before this kind of statement can be judged.

There are and will always be cases where a degree of dynamic reduction is required to make the music acceptable for 'ordinary' domestic listening. This is probably especially true of live recordings, but applies to studio works too.

It is quite normal, and necessary to raise the quietest sections to be more easily audible to a casual listener, without the loudest bits then blowing the speakers off the shelf!

Raising the ppp sections by 10dB or so is not an unreasonable expectation or requirement in most cases, but it does obviously need to be done sympathetically...

H

Quite! The argument for distributing 24 bit recordings comes up from time to time. Such requests ignore the fact that the 90dB range of CD is already far too great for almost any domestic enviroment. A 'house' level of even 30dB SPL is enjoyed by very few I would say? (my place, dead of, reads 25-28dBC but I think that is about the noise limit of my cheapo meter) Stick 90dB on top and you need one hell of a hi fi system!

Dave
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11171
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk

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

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:44 pm

I think Sony/Philips decision to provide a 16-bit format with a 90-ish dB signal-noise range in the CD format is absolutely spot on... It's very sad that it's almost never been used sensibly. ... although there is still time... :lol:

Working with a nominal (average) level of -20dBFS -- as Sony originally intended -- still leaves the noise floor 70dB or so further down -- and probably 20-30dB below the quietest bits of music -- and thus the noise floor remains inaudible in all normal home setups, yet the system is still capable of a healthy 20dB headroom for the peak transients when required.

A slightly higher sampling rate would have been better and 60kHz would have been perfect for everyone's needs... but, sadly, the technology wasn't quite ready for that when they wanted to launch the format.

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 25848
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

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

Postby Arpangel » Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:12 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:It is quite normal, and necessary to raise the quietest sections to be more easily audible to a casual listener, without the loudest bits then blowing the speakers off the shelf H

You've played the Garage Door then..... :D
User avatar
Arpangel
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:00 am

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

Postby Folderol » Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:39 pm

Arpangel wrote:
Hugh Robjohns wrote:It is quite normal, and necessary to raise the quietest sections to be more easily audible to a casual listener, without the loudest bits then blowing the speakers off the shelf H

You've played the Garage Door then..... :D
Haven't we all? :shh:
User avatar
Folderol
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9739
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:00 am
Location: The Mudway Towns, UK
Yes. I am that Linux nut.
Onwards and... err... sideways!

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

Postby Martin Walker » Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:08 pm

ef37a wrote:Quite! The argument for distributing 24 bit recordings comes up from time to time. Such requests ignore the fact that the 90dB range of CD is already far too great for almost any domestic enviroment. A 'house' level of even 30dB SPL is enjoyed by very few I would say? (my place, dead of, reads 25-28dBC but I think that is about the noise limit of my cheapo meter) Stick 90dB on top and you need one hell of a hi fi system!

I quite agree Dave - I bought a load of CD albums from one French company some years ago, and they had an excellent reputation for sonic performance.

However, I rather went off them when they started releasing more expensive 24-bit digital downloads alongside the standard 16-bit versions. I simply find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of listeners would be able to hear any difference on already mastered output :headbang:


Martin
User avatar
Martin Walker
Moderator
Posts: 14979
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:44 am
Location: Cornwall, UK

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

Postby ef37a » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:26 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:I think Sony/Philips decision to provide a 16-bit format with a 90-ish dB signal-noise range in the CD format is absolutely spot on... It's very sad that it's almost never been used sensibly. ... although there is still time... :lol:

Working with a nominal (average) level of -20dBFS -- as Sony originally intended -- still leaves the noise floor 70dB or so further down -- and probably 20-30dB below the quietest bits of music -- and thus the noise floor remains inaudible in all normal home setups, yet the system is still capable of a healthy 20dB headroom for the peak transients when required.

A slightly higher sampling rate would have been better and 60kHz would have been perfect for everyone's needs... but, sadly, the technology wasn't quite ready for that when they wanted to launch the format.

H

"Only arskin" But does the final sampling rate matter Hugh for a read only product? So long of course it is 20kHz capable. Surely 60kHz would have reduced playing time a fair chunk?

Dave.
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11171
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk

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

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:45 pm

Martin Walker wrote:However, I rather went off them when they started releasing more expensive 24-bit digital downloads alongside the standard 16-bit versions. I simply find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of listeners would be able to hear any difference on already mastered output :headbang:

It would be interesting to do a null comparison and see what additional audio information is contained in those bottom eight bits. I'm betting on exclusively noise -- ambient room noise, electronic noise, or dither noise.... :lol:

I only read Hi-Fi News and Record Review when I'm on a train journey these days -- the hi-fi world is just too bonkers for monthly outings... but their tech reviews are still very good, and one of the regular sections is a review of the latest download releases -- most of which are 24/96 or higher sample rates. They always publish spectrograms of these downloads, and its interesting/disturbing/disappointing to see how many are either up-sampled from base rates, or have obvious technical problems in the ultrasonic region.

Thankfully, I suppose, no one can hear these problems and no one tests for them, so the record companies can get away with it most of the time... But the punters still insist the sonic value of their 192kHz nonsense... :headbang:

I've said it here before... it is highly educational to invest in a simple 'bat detector' and then go take a listen to the 30-60kHz spectrum in the recording venue. It's frightening how many 'whistles' and hoe much noisy stuff there is from LCD screens, SMPS power supplies, lighting systems, and other stuff... Thank goodness the microphones mostly roll-off above 15-20kHz... :D

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 25848
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

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

Postby ef37a » Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:24 am

WRT the original question...Yes!

Just now listening to Breakfast on R3 and the link chap (Petrock?) was at a comfortable, easily understandable volume. Then came the 4th mvmnt of Tchaikovsky's 4th, the one with the big drums and loud brass. Total wimp! The drums were several dBs under the VO.

I do understand that dynamics have to be controlled for radio (actually this is Freeview through a modest 5.1 system) but come on!

Dave.
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11171
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk

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

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:10 am

I agree entirely.

Petroc's voice was peaking between PPM 4 and PPM5, and the loudest parts of Tichykowoski ;) barely reached PPM4 -- I've just played back the listen again file and viewed on my studio meters!

I found that rather surprising too... I would have expected the big bits to be banging out close to PPM6, and it was a good 8dB lower than that.

Don't know if there's a policy decision to hold things down in the breakfast programme, or if it was being mixed by someone with a hangover.... :D

I'll see what I can find out.

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 25848
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Previous