You are here

Is TV/ video/ film sound getting worse?

Page 5 of 5

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

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:38 pm
by MOF
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.

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

PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:17 pm
by Hugh Robjohns
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!

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:08 am
by MOF
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.

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:41 pm
by John Willett
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.

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:46 pm
by Hugh Robjohns
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

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:31 pm
by ef37a
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

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:44 pm
by Hugh Robjohns
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

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:12 pm
by Arpangel
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

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:39 pm
by Folderol
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:

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

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:08 pm
by Martin Walker
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

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

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:26 pm
by ef37a
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.

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

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:45 pm
by Hugh Robjohns
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

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

PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:24 am
by ef37a
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.

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

PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:10 am
by Hugh Robjohns
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