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 Dan LB » Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:39 am

James Perrett wrote: I also notice that the host has two lav mics - could this be the reason for the problem as, now I've reached the Harry Connick Jr section, the problem appears worse on the hosts mic?

I would add that I'm being very picky here - there are plenty of UK TV programmes that have similar issues if you listen to them through a decent sound system as improving this would probably require constantly riding faders with the chance that you would miss something important.

Ah sorry, now I understand what you're talking about, yes, it would appear that both the presenter's lav mics were open on the broadcast mix. In studio I tend to ride the faders between those two mics depending on what section of the show we're in and what direction the presenter is facing. A single mic on the presenter's tie would work so much better I feel.

On listening back to some of last night's show on headphones, it appears that the PA was a little on the hot side too which ends up colouring the broadcast mix - my bad :oops: It's a fine balance as the production team like the PA to be fairly punchy. The studio audience was configured differently yesterday too to accommodate the full NSO.
User avatar
Dan LB
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Wicklow, Ireland

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

Postby Tomás Mulcahy » Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:35 am

Dan LB wrote:
James Perrett wrote:
On listening back to some of last night's show on headphones, it appears that the PA was a little on the hot side too which ends up colouring the broadcast mix - my bad :oops: It's a fine balance as the production team like the PA to be fairly punchy. The studio audience was configured differently yesterday too to accommodate the full NSO.
Hi Dan, great to hear from someone on the production! And I'm relieved to hear that I'm not the only one hearing it. And super relieved to see that it's been taken seriously. I know a live broadcast can't be perfect, but I strongly believe that adding phasing or reverb to dialogue makes the audience (subconsciusly) switch off because the brain has to work harder to extract the signal.

Phasing from the PA has been there for years as well, particularly when audience is faded up at the end of a musical performance. What are the audience mics? The BBC way is to use fig 8s overhead with the PA in the null. Works really well, as you'd expect from the Beeb. Maybe the PA is getting on open lavs?

My favourite example of great live TV dialogue/ sound is University Challenge. Teams are on super-cardioid desk mics, desk is acoustically treated and the 3:1 rule is (almost) always adhered to. Presenter has a lav where the bas tilt is deployed to add to the gravitas. Defo fig 8s on audience as well. I think that format is about 50 years old?
User avatar
Tomás Mulcahy
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1809
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Cork, Ireland.

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

Postby The Bunk » Sun Nov 17, 2019 12:16 pm

Back to the whole "actor" issue, I've recently been watching a lot of old Black and White / B Movie films on the "retro" channels such as Talking Pictures and TCM. In many of them you'll see some legendary actors (Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough in one film in particular immediately spring to mind) at the start of their careers. In most cases there is no soundtrack, no music or sound effects, certainly no CGI or trickery etc; so the whole film is made by, and depends on, the acting alone. And to me that makes for a much better film than any amount of gumph thrown into the mix. I was watching "Independence Day" last night (I really had nothing else to do!) and it was just so overblown and badly done I couldn't watch any more..
User avatar
The Bunk
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:00 am
Location: SW London

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

Postby Brian M Rose » Sun Nov 17, 2019 1:54 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:And I've lost count of the number of times location sound recordists have told me they've raised an issue on set about inaudible dialogue and been overruled. And in a freelance industry there's a limit to how far you can push the point if you want to work tomorrow...

Quite! Time was when it was not only valid, but a requirement of BBC Film Dept to put "SUP" (Shot Under Protest) on the clapper board. Even as a freelance cameraman working for the Beeb I was expected to do this. But back then, the very idea of not having a proper sound crew was unthinkable.
At least working in radio (even if it's local hospital/community radio) you have to get the sound absolutely right.
And yes, those very expensive flat screen televisions. The built-in sound is often indeed quite useless - just bought a Panasonic sound bar to prove the point....
Brian M Rose
Regular
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:00 am

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

Postby Tomás Mulcahy » Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:49 pm

CS70 wrote:I just listened to the YT video on Ah-ah at my studio and didn't find anything really objectionable with the sound (of course I'm used to the Norwegian way of speaking English.. you should try my Italian accent :D ).
LOL. It was the overly-loud music that was the most objectionable. I'm not using the horrific built in speakers on the TV. Instead I have an original pair of JPW mini monitors with a cheap but good class D amp driving them. Not studio monitors, but they're usually nice and clear with an engaging sound. So maybe it is just me/ my setup.

MOF wrote:I don’t have anything against multi-tasking so long as there is sufficient training and time to do each task well plus a willingness to be trained.
Agreed. We've a few graduates who are top notch and guess what, they get the gigs. So we must be doing something right LOL.
User avatar
Tomás Mulcahy
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1809
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Cork, Ireland.

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

Postby Ariosto » Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:09 pm

Brian M Rose wrote:
Hugh Robjohns wrote:And I've lost count of the number of times location sound recordists have told me they've raised an issue on set about inaudible dialogue and been overruled. And in a freelance industry there's a limit to how far you can push the point if you want to work tomorrow...

Quite! Time was when it was not only valid, but a requirement of BBC Film Dept to put "SUP" (Shot Under Protest) on the clapper board. Even as a freelance cameraman working for the Beeb I was expected to do this. But back then, the very idea of not having a proper sound crew was unthinkable.
At least working in radio (even if it's local hospital/community radio) you have to get the sound absolutely right.
And yes, those very expensive flat screen televisions. The built-in sound is often indeed quite useless - just bought a Panasonic sound bar to prove the point....

I often have the TV sound routed to a good amplifier and then to two 4 foot high speakers, or sometimes to headphones. Amazingly different to the rubbish that comes through the TV speakers!

I've worked as the sound person on some amateur movies in the past, and have complained on outside sequences that the dialogue was not good, and not at all clear, to be told that we can fix it in post. But it never happened, so I gave up on that game. When I once directed my own video, I made sure the dialogue was crystal clear, and the sound effects and music (all supplied by myself and my wife) did not intrude on the dialogue. In the editing stage, the very good cameraman picked a different take to my preference, and when I asked why he said the colour balance was slightly off in the one I wanted. I had to point out that the acting was slightly off in his version, and in mine the acting was much better. I know which one I wanted. Strange he didn't understand that the acting is much more important, as he had a daughter who was a well known professional actress !
Ariosto
Frequent Poster
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 12:00 am
Location: LONDON, UK

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

Postby Dan LB » Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:32 pm

Tomás Mulcahy wrote:Hi Dan, great to hear from someone on the production! And I'm relieved to hear that I'm not the only one hearing it. And super relieved to see that it's been taken seriously. I know a live broadcast can't be perfect, but I strongly believe that adding phasing or reverb to dialogue makes the audience (subconsciusly) switch off because the brain has to work harder to extract the signal.

100% agree with you on all of this. I do take my job very seriously, as do my colleagues, and despite a lot of negative attitudes towards RTE, we're not all lazy, carefree and incompetent.

Phasing from the PA has been there for years as well, particularly when audience is faded up at the end of a musical performance.

Absolutely, and I do hope if/when we replace the PA at some stage things will get better. The current system is 30 years old and not fit for purpose. Not trying to make excuses, but most of us try our absolute best within the time, technical and budget constraints.

What are the audience mics?


This is most likely the biggest problem I feel. Currently the audience mics consist of an XY pair of AKG C451s supplemented by Sennheiser MKH416s and some very cheap Thomann shotguns!! :headbang:
I will talk to the powers-that-be about changing the way we do this.

The BBC way is to use fig 8s overhead with the PA in the null. Works really well, as you'd expect from the Beeb.

Sounds like an excellent plan! :thumbup:

Maybe the PA is getting on open lavs?

It is to a degree yes, and I hope a new PA system will help matters somewhat in this regard.

Dan
User avatar
Dan LB
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Wicklow, Ireland

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

Postby James Perrett » Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:00 pm

I wonder if these sound complaints are starting to be noticed by the right people? I've just watched the new David Attenborough documentary on BBC1 and the narration is much clearer compared to the previous series where the music and effects were overpowering.
User avatar
James Perrett
Moderator
Posts: 9899
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:00 am
Location: The wilds of Hampshire
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration. JRP Music Facebook Page

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

Postby Tomás Mulcahy » Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:15 pm

OMG Dan LB it's so good to read your response!! This is great. We can all understand where RTE's reputation came from- the lack of funding over the years has negatively impacted morale I think- but there are so many productions down through the years that have been world class. "Hands" was one that always impressed me and more recently Love/Hate is a classic. There are many more. The Late Late has exemplified Irish culture and the many positve social and political changes. Long may it last.

Maybe Hugh could chime in about the PA issue. I'd imagine when BBC came up with the fig 8 thing, they were using contemporary omni-ish PA stacks? So a newer system might not be necessary? Although I would think a line array would improve things? I'd suggest broadband absorbers where the fig 8s are pointing would help as well, although deployed carefully so as not to damage the room ambience.
User avatar
Tomás Mulcahy
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1809
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Cork, Ireland.

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

Postby MOF » Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:56 pm

I'd suggest broadband absorbers where the fig 8s are pointing would help as well, although deployed carefully so as not to damage the room ambience.

TVC studios were very dead acoustically and the audience was up against those 'dead' walls so I don't think ambience was ever a problem.
MOF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 1:00 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:35 pm

Tomás Mulcahy wrote:Maybe Hugh could chime in about the PA issue. I'd imagine when BBC came up with the fig 8 thing, they were using contemporary omni-ish PA stacks?

No, the original arrangement used column speakers -- basic line-arrays with limited bandwidth and controlled dispersion, primarily intended for speech reproduction, of course.

However, most studio installations now use more contemporary and familiar standard PA systems, and fig-8s are rarely used for audience mics. Suspended omnis or cardioids are more common these days.

I'd suggest broadband absorbers where the fig 8s are pointing would help as well, although deployed carefully so as not to damage the room ambience.

As MOF says, standard BBC TV studios have always had a very well-controlled reverb time -- the walls and ceiling are generally covered with absorber panels (both broadband and bass traps) -- those two-foot square boxes with wire mesh on the front seen so frequently on bare-studio shows like the Old Grey Whistle Test.
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 28996
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 Hugh Robjohns » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:43 pm

James Perrett wrote:I wonder if these sound complaints are starting to be noticed by the right people? I've just watched the new David Attenborough documentary on BBC1 and the narration is much clearer compared to the previous series where the music and effects were overpowering.

Yes, people are listening and there are ongoing efforts to improve things. I know there are a couple of quite active groups -- one representing the viewers/listeners and another the broadcast sound professionals -- that are involved in continuing discussions with the BBC and the other broadcasters (as well as the manufacturers through their own representation bodies) to try and address this problem through better understanding of the issues, more appropriate production and post-production techniques and processes, better direction, better acting, and so on, as well as better technology and design of TVs etc.

There are still challenges... And mistakes... But people really are trying!
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 28996
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 N i g e l » Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:25 am

CS70 wrote:I just listened to the YT video on Ah-ah at my studio and didn't find anything really objectionable with the sound

I watched that on my laptop, no problems on tiny (B&O) speakers or headphones.
[I do also like the A1 version of Take on Me :D ]

The BBC have famously had complaints in the past about "mumbling"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39038406

The only time I wrote in to complain was about a WWII documentary.
Bloke was stood on Blackpool beach watching a spitfire fly past "just listen to that engine!!!!!!!"
It was all a bit lost in the orchestral incidental background music.
N i g e l
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:40 pm
Location: British Isles

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

Postby The Red Bladder » Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:49 am

I am possibly the only berk here who has worked in television back in the 60s, so with that in mind may I point to Hugh's statements here -
Hugh Robjohns wrote:I think there a lots of factors in this... The terrible sound quality of the built-in (and usually rear-facing) speakers of most flat-screen tellies certainly doesn't help.

And neither does the fact that most young TV directors seem to think they're aspiring Hollywood directors and approach their film-making with the wrong mindset completely.

And its made worse by the very nature of independent programme making, which often means post-production in film-style dubbing theatres with big screens and surround sound.

And then there's the training... Back in my day, the BBC effectively trained the entire UK industry. It doesn't anymore and hasn't for a long time. It's entirely reliant on universities and specialist colleges, and while a couple are good, I perceive a bias in expectations towards the film industry rather than TV.
Those are the reasons all gathered together in a nutshell (but missing a couple of important additional reasons).

1. Back in the 60 and through to the 90s, we were working through a fog of poor equipment (compared to modern digital) and very constrained budgets. The studio I worked at in the 60s had three cameras which had to do everything for two large and very busy studios. You had two camera shots, medium and close-up, as anything wde would leave viewers confused as to what was going on. With just 405 lines of black-and-white, you can't have loads of wide shots to tell a story. That meant that mics could be close to the actor and actors had to speak clearly.

2. Stories in dramas were driven by dialog, so words were important. Early TV was really just radio with pictures - you could turn the image off and still follow the story. Everything was verbal. Visual gags and cues were few and far between. Again, that meant clear enunciation of words - no mumbling!

3. Actors came to television from the stage and that meant declaring every word. The struggle to fight through the fog of 405 lines and poor audio was very similar to projecting to the gods in a theatre. Also EVERY actor had to study Shakespeare and the ham-acting of over-declaration of texts was very much 'en vogue'. Every Charlie on the boards thought they were Sir Laurence Olivier on the boards at the Old Vic. Today, they all think they must mumble like Dustin Hoffman!

4. The Sennheiser MKH416 only became widely adopted in the 80s and the latest version of that mic (now the absolute soundstage standard) is simply stunningly clear - so much so, that I am now often using it for music recording. Until then, we had all sorts of mics, none of which were all that good! Actors had to speak-up!

5. Modern speech is slurred. Even junior royals and the prime minister speak with semi-working-class accents that swallow syllables. This is just the way people pronounce their words and we have to live with it! A very stilted and over-clear pronunciation developed during the Victorian age and this evolved into 'The King's English' or 'Received Pronunciation' and more commonly 'BBC English' and unless you listen to the Queen or some member of the so-called upper classes of that vintage, you will not hear that anywhere.

6. Modern scripts are often poorly written by people with an incomplete command of the English language. A modern script is very likely to have grammatical mistakes and typical slurred idioms already written into it. For example, Maggie Smith's character in Downton Abby spoke the words "Then I must have said it wrong!" That is both a massive grammatical mistake and a Cockney idiom and certainly not the language of a 'dowager countess from the Edwardian era! (There were similar howlers in the BBC's 3rd-rate adaptation of 'War of the Worlds' last Sunday!)

7. As Hugh so rightly points out - every director wants to be Sam Mendes and every cameraman thinks they are Roger Deakins. (BTW - watch out for Mendes' and Deakins' new movie '1917' coming in December - I've seen some of the 'rushes' and if it lives up to that which I have seen so far, it is going to change the way movies are made and what we expect from an action movie!)

8. Add to that, broadcasters are viewing the final product on either very large 4K monitors and with 5.1 sound systems, or even in a proper viewing theatre - hardly the pokey little set-up most people have in the UK TV market in their living rooms and bedrooms!
The Red Bladder
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2629
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:00 am
Location: . . .
 

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

Postby Ariosto » Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:10 pm

The Red Bladder wrote:I am possibly the only berk here who has worked in television back in the 60s, so with that in mind may I point to Hugh's statements here -
Hugh Robjohns wrote:I think there a lots of factors in this... The terrible sound quality of the built-in (and usually rear-facing) speakers of most flat-screen tellies certainly doesn't help.

And neither does the fact that most young TV directors seem to think they're aspiring Hollywood directors and approach their film-making with the wrong mindset completely.

And its made worse by the very nature of independent programme making, which often means post-production in film-style dubbing theatres with big screens and surround sound.

And then there's the training... Back in my day, the BBC effectively trained the entire UK industry. It doesn't anymore and hasn't for a long time. It's entirely reliant on universities and specialist colleges, and while a couple are good, I perceive a bias in expectations towards the film industry rather than TV.
Those are the reasons all gathered together in a nutshell (but missing a couple of important additional reasons).

1. Back in the 60 and through to the 90s, we were working through a fog of poor equipment (compared to modern digital) and very constrained budgets. The studio I worked at in the 60s had three cameras which had to do everything for two large and very busy studios. You had two camera shots, medium and close-up, as anything wde would leave viewers confused as to what was going on. With just 405 lines of black-and-white, you can't have loads of wide shots to tell a story. That meant that mics could be close to the actor and actors had to speak clearly.

2. Stories in dramas were driven by dialog, so words were important. Early TV was really just radio with pictures - you could turn the image off and still follow the story. Everything was verbal. Visual gags and cues were few and far between. Again, that meant clear enunciation of words - no mumbling!

3. Actors came to television from the stage and that meant declaring every word. The struggle to fight through the fog of 405 lines and poor audio was very similar to projecting to the gods in a theatre. Also EVERY actor had to study Shakespeare and the ham-acting of over-declaration of texts was very much 'en vogue'. Every Charlie on the boards thought they were Sir Laurence Olivier on the boards at the Old Vic. Today, they all think they must mumble like Dustin Hoffman!

4. The Sennheiser MKH416 only became widely adopted in the 80s and the latest version of that mic (now the absolute soundstage standard) is simply stunningly clear - so much so, that I am now often using it for music recording. Until then, we had all sorts of mics, none of which were all that good! Actors had to speak-up!

5. Modern speech is slurred. Even junior royals and the prime minister speak with semi-working-class accents that swallow syllables. This is just the way people pronounce their words and we have to live with it! A very stilted and over-clear pronunciation developed during the Victorian age and this evolved into 'The King's English' or 'Received Pronunciation' and more commonly 'BBC English' and unless you listen to the Queen or some member of the so-called upper classes of that vintage, you will not hear that anywhere.

6. Modern scripts are often poorly written by people with an incomplete command of the English language. A modern script is very likely to have grammatical mistakes and typical slurred idioms already written into it. For example, Maggie Smith's character in Downton Abby spoke the words "Then I must have said it wrong!" That is both a massive grammatical mistake and a Cockney idiom and certainly not the language of a 'dowager countess from the Edwardian era! (There were similar howlers in the BBC's 3rd-rate adaptation of 'War of the Worlds' last Sunday!)

7. As Hugh so rightly points out - every director wants to be Sam Mendes and every cameraman thinks they are Roger Deakins. (BTW - watch out for Mendes' and Deakins' new movie '1917' coming in December - I've seen some of the 'rushes' and if it lives up to that which I have seen so far, it is going to change the way movies are made and what we expect from an action movie!)

8. Add to that, broadcasters are viewing the final product on either very large 4K monitors and with 5.1 sound systems, or even in a proper viewing theatre - hardly the pokey little set-up most people have in the UK TV market in their living rooms and bedrooms!

Yes, yes and yes again! This is an excellent post that says it all, along with Hugh's great contributions.

In many ways we would be better off going back to concept that the picture is not worth a thousand words, and the words and music are extremely important, as is the writing. Most scripts these days can't even compete as toilet paper!
Ariosto
Frequent Poster
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 12:00 am
Location: LONDON, UK

PreviousNext