TV volumes

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

I know we have been here before but not only do people hate the mumbling on
some dramas and films mixed up with background music or sound effects, but
recently you might for example find an old episode of Last of the Summer
Wine, and set your volume then find the adverts and often the next show, say
Jonathan Creek, is over loud.
I have obviously not done detailed investigations on Drama or other
channels, but it seems to me that some programs have a wide dynamic range
that deafen at one extreme but are weak at other times, whereas adverts are
compressed to be near peak all the time, a bit like Radio 1!. Last of the
summer wine is in the middle somewhere.
I notice in audio editors that you get terms like normalise or normalise
peak etc, and wondered if there is any easy way to create an output that
sounds the same when confronted by such disparate extremes.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

[JNugent]

On 11/01/2022 04:12 pm, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

> I know we have been here before but not only do people hate the mumbling on
> some dramas and films mixed up with background music or sound effects, but
> recently you might for example find an old episode of Last of the Summer
> Wine, and set your volume then find the adverts and often the next show, say
> Jonathan Creek, is over loud.
> I have obviously not done detailed investigations on Drama or other
> channels, but it seems to me that some programs have a wide dynamic range
> that deafen at one extreme but are weak at other times, whereas adverts are
> compressed to be near peak all the time, a bit like Radio 1!. Last of the
> summer wine is in the middle somewhere.
> I notice in audio editors that you get terms like normalise or normalise
> peak etc, and wondered if there is any easy way to create an output that
> sounds the same when confronted by such disparate extremes.
> Brian

I sympathise.

You could try using a stereo compressor between the signal stage and the
amplification stage (all analogue, of course).

This sort of thing... maybe...

<https://www.thomann.de/gb/rolls_sl_33b.htm?glp=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA8vSOBhCkARIsAGdp6RRFVAHUMmD0-cD-kEYlrEyJSVCjBfX1qb7Fy2TOFBSsaWEw4Ruo8fIaAoV5EALw_wcB>

[Roderick Stewart]

I realise it's not an option available to you, but I'm often glad of
the fact that most programmes on the streaming services as well as
broadcast have optional subtitles. I find myself using them a bit more
lately, for what I can divide into three clear reasons-

1. Actors mumbling or speaking too fast.

2. Dialogue badly recorded, i.e. muffled, too reverberant, or swamped
by background sounds.

3. Dynamic range of the final mix much too high for living rooms, so
that a volume setting low enough to keep music and effects below
annoyance results in the dialogue being too quiet to hear properly.

I know it's not just me. My hearing may not be what it once was, but I
practically never need to switch the subtitles on for old movies, or
TV programmes made in the 60s or 70s provided a videotape copy
survives. It's almost entirely recently produced material that needs
them. There's probably a conclusion to be derived from that.

Rod.

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

Yes I agree. Yes subtitles is a bit pointless for me. I have a limiter here,
and although that can help the eternal pumping of the volume is very
fatiguing to actually listen to.
I also noted the other day that some US shows of the real crime variety can
suffer from the drowning out of the narrator. These aware not audio
described. they are narrated over the old footage or re enactments going on
at the same time. I did wonder if the programs were originally produced in
multi channel and the compromises used by the sterofication were
contributing to the issue of inaudibility generally. Anyone out there
listening to the surround mixes of common mumble ridden shows?
It often gets worse if there is true AD too of cours.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nuertghce4bcvp9sl...@4ax.com...

[Tony Gamble]

On 12/01/2022 08:24, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Yes I agree. Yes subtitles is a bit pointless for me. I have a limiter here,
> and although that can help the eternal pumping of the volume is very
> fatiguing to actually listen to.
> I also noted the other day that some US shows of the real crime variety can
> suffer from the drowning out of the narrator. These aware not audio
> described. they are narrated over the old footage or re enactments going on
> at the same time. I did wonder if the programs were originally produced in
> multi channel and the compromises used by the sterofication were
> contributing to the issue of inaudibility generally. Anyone out there
> listening to the surround mixes of common mumble ridden shows?
> It often gets worse if there is true AD too of cours.
> Brian
>

One of the problems comes from sound decoding to produce (say) five
channels. Centre, left/right front and left/right back.

A lot of televisions have two speakers and draw on the left/right front
information.

If the dialogue is coded to the centre channel and the left/right front
used for the atmospheric sound that is what you'll hear on a basic two
speaker tv. Often there is a bit of dialogue on these two side channels
- but it is equally often muffled by the sound effects.

The breakthrough for us was to push the sound through our AV kit and
feed a small cube speaker, located at the bottom of the tv, with the
info from the centre channel.

On many programs such as the news this is not necessary. But films and
tv drama often need that centre speaker. The reason why the programme
directors don't hear the problem is because almost all the time they are
previewing their output in viewing theatres with surround sound audio.

When this problem came to light around ten or so years ago the programme
makers were instructed to watch their programmes on crude tvs so they
heard the problem. Now nobody bothers and simply blames it on mumbling
actors.

Having said that we still find ourselves running films with the
subtitles more and more often. We watched Gosford Park yesterday and the
subs were essential to a full understanding of what was going on.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:35:02 +0000, Tony Gamble
<tonyg...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>A lot of televisions have two speakers and draw on the left/right front
>information.
>
>If the dialogue is coded to the centre channel and the left/right front
>used for the atmospheric sound that is what you'll hear on a basic two
>speaker tv. Often there is a bit of dialogue on these two side channels
>- but it is equally often muffled by the sound effects.
>
>The breakthrough for us was to push the sound through our AV kit and
>feed a small cube speaker, located at the bottom of the tv, with the
>info from the centre channel.

This shouldn't be necessary. 2 channel stereo always used to be
checked for mono compatibilty, sometimes with a pair of cheap
loudspeakers in the control room, in recognition of the fact that most
listeners would be using ordinary equipment in domestic environments.
You'd think with the popularity of home video (which has been
available for - how many years now?) it would be routine to monitor
5.1 track stereo for downwards compatibility for the same reason.

There would even be some justification for creating a separate "living
room mix" during original production, for those who don't live in
castles with 3 foot thick walls, rather than trying to downgrade a
finished track that had been mixed to deafen people in cinemas.

Rod.

[John Hall]

In message <nuertghce4bcvp9sl...@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes

>I realise it's not an option available to you, but I'm often glad of
>the fact that most programmes on the streaming services as well as
>broadcast have optional subtitles. I find myself using them a bit more
>lately, for what I can divide into three clear reasons-
>
>1. Actors mumbling or speaking too fast.
>
>2. Dialogue badly recorded, i.e. muffled, too reverberant, or swamped
>by background sounds.
>
>3. Dynamic range of the final mix much too high for living rooms, so
>that a volume setting low enough to keep music and effects below
>annoyance results in the dialogue being too quiet to hear properly.
>
>I know it's not just me. My hearing may not be what it once was, but I
>practically never need to switch the subtitles on for old movies, or TV
>programmes made in the 60s or 70s provided a videotape copy survives.
>It's almost entirely recently produced material that needs them.
>There's probably a conclusion to be derived from that.

I endorse all of that. One program for which I've resorted to subtitles
is "Doctor Who", where the background music seems often to be foreground
music and Jodie Whittaker mumbles. (In contrast Mandip Gill, as one of
the Doctor's companions, speaks beautifully clearly.)
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

[NY]

"Tony Gamble" <tonyg...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j47lm8...@mid.individual.net...

> On many programs such as the news this is not necessary. But films and tv
> drama often need that centre speaker. The reason why the programme
> directors don't hear the problem is because almost all the time they are
> previewing their output in viewing theatres with surround sound audio.
>
> When this problem came to light around ten or so years ago the programme
> makers were instructed to watch their programmes on crude tvs so they
> heard the problem. Now nobody bothers and simply blames it on mumbling
> actors.

It would seem to be blindingly obvious that a competent sound mixer should
mix the dialogue so it is equally intelligible on mono, stereo and 5.1
devices. Also, preview it at normal listening volume, not at the "volume
turned up to 11" setting that you get in cinemas to give really punchy,
deafening sound effects.

A lot of the problem is that sound effects continue at normal volume when
there is dialogue, rather than using the effects to set the scene and then
dipping the level of them a bit so the dialogue is intelligible.

But by far the biggest problem of dialogue audibility, particularly with
younger actors, is enunciation. Even with no other background sound, and
with a microphone placed optimally, some actors mumble and swallow the
beginnings and endings of words (*). I'm not advocating John Gielgud-style
over-enunciation for projecting to the back of a theatre in a Shakespeare
play. Just reasonably clear intonation - with whatever accent is needed - so
there are actually a few consonants thrown in among the nasal vowels.


(*) A Lester Piggott or Jack Ashley MP voice - and they had the excuse of
being partially/totally deaf.

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/01/2022 11:26, NY wrote:
> A lot of the problem is that sound effects continue at normal volume when
> there is dialogue, rather than using the effects to set the scene and then
> dipping the level of them a bit so the dialogue is intelligible.

A similar thing I have noticed is that when there is a singer with a
piano accompaniment there is a tendency to have the piano nicely audible
during the introduction, and then not adjusting it when the singing
starts. The result is that I can hear the singing but the piano is too
loud and it is almost impossible to hear the words of the song.

Jim

[Tony Gamble]

On 12/01/2022 13:27, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> A similar thing I have noticed is that when there is a singer with a
> piano accompaniment there is a tendency to have the piano nicely audible
> during the introduction, and then not adjusting it when the singing
> starts.  The result is that I can hear the singing but the piano is too
> loud and it is almost impossible to hear the words of the song.
>
> Jim
>

That's the job of the pianist, Jim.

Not the audio engineer.

Odd how so many accompanists these days look at the piano and not the
soloist. How is the soloist going to indicate when they want to speed up
or slow down?

This should be compulsary reading>
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Am-Too-Loud-memoirs-accompanist/dp/0140024808

Tony

[charles]

In article <j487fo...@mid.individual.net>,

Tony Gamble <tonyg...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> On 12/01/2022 13:27, Indy Jess John wrote:
> >
> > A similar thing I have noticed is that when there is a singer with a
> > piano accompaniment there is a tendency to have the piano nicely audible
> > during the introduction, and then not adjusting it when the singing
> > starts. The result is that I can hear the singing but the piano is too
> > loud and it is almost impossible to hear the words of the song.
> >
> > Jim
> >

> That's the job of the pianist, Jim.

> Not the audio engineer.

If there's a separate mic for the piano, it's the audio engineer to get the
balance right. Been there, done that, but I didn't buy the T-shirt.

> Odd how so many accompanists these days look at the piano and not the
> soloist. How is the soloist going to indicate when they want to speed up
> or slow down?

Perhaps they are looking at the music. Anyhow, orchestral musicians can not
only look at the music, but also the conductor.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Max Demian]

The modern trend is for "naturalistic" speech, where people talk the
way they do in real life. This is all right in real life, where you
usually are used to how they speak and probably know roughly what
they are going to say. You can also ask for them to repeat themselves
or ignore them as it doesn't matter. None of this applies to a TV
drama; where the missing words might be a vital plot point.

--
Max Demian

[Tony Gamble]

On 12/01/2022 16:19, charles wrote:

>
> If there's a separate mic for the piano, it's the audio engineer to get the
> balance right. Been there, done that, but I didn't buy the T-shirt.

Not what they do in a concert hall. The pianist, if he/she is any good,
balances themselves to the soloist.

> Perhaps they are looking at the music. Anyhow, orchestral musicians can not
> only look at the music, but also the conductor.
>

A good accompanist knows the tune.

T

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/01/2022 14:38, Tony Gamble wrote:
> On 12/01/2022 13:27, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> A similar thing I have noticed is that when there is a singer with a
>> piano accompaniment there is a tendency to have the piano nicely audible
>> during the introduction, and then not adjusting it when the singing
>> starts. The result is that I can hear the singing but the piano is too
>> loud and it is almost impossible to hear the words of the song.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
> That's the job of the pianist, Jim.
>
> Not the audio engineer.

To some extent that is true. However the audio engineer should have
pre-set the balance between voice and piano so that they sound good
together. Then the piano introduction would still be audible, and being
the only source of sound at that time there would be nothing competing
with it. It is also within the gift of the pianist to play the
introduction a bit louder than the rest if some emphasis is required.

Jim

[Ashley Booth]

Pity subtitles are not available on catch up. Why?

--


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Robin]

On 13/01/2022 09:40, Ashley Booth wrote:
> John Hall wrote:
>
<snip?

>>
>> I endorse all of that. One program for which I've resorted to
>> subtitles is "Doctor Who", where the background music seems often to
>> be foreground music and Jodie Whittaker mumbles. (In contrast Mandip
>> Gill, as one of the Doctor's companions, speaks beautifully clearly.)
>
> Pity subtitles are not available on catch up. Why?
>

I have the option of subtitles on iPlayer, ITV Hub, My4,...

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[JNugent]

Sometimes they are. I expect it might vary with the variety of catch-up.

[Pete Forman]

[top posting for Brian]

I remember being disappointed when multi-channel audio was being
introduced that it was only stereo+n. It was a missed opportunity to
have separate channels for dialogue, music, laugh track, etc. that the
end user could pick and choose from.

"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> I know we have been here before but not only do people hate the
> mumbling on some dramas and films mixed up with background music or
> sound effects, but recently you might for example find an old episode
> of Last of the Summer Wine, and set your volume then find the adverts
> and often the next show, say Jonathan Creek, is over loud.
> I have obviously not done detailed investigations on Drama or other
> channels, but it seems to me that some programs have a wide dynamic
> range that deafen at one extreme but are weak at other times, whereas
> adverts are compressed to be near peak all the time, a bit like Radio
> 1!. Last of the summer wine is in the middle somewhere.
> I notice in audio editors that you get terms like normalise or
> normalise peak etc, and wondered if there is any easy way to create an
> output that sounds the same when confronted by such disparate
> extremes.
> Brian

--

Pete Forman

[NY]

"Pete Forman" <petef4...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ysfbl0f...@gmail.com...
> [top posting for Brian]


And it's a shame that AD seems to be implemented in two different ways on
different channels. You either get programme sound on one stream and AD (but
nothing else) on the NAR stream. Or else you get programme sound on one and
programme audio overlaid with AD on the NAR stream. Do decoders for picking
up NAR have two different switchable modes to cater for this? Or do they
assume that "everyone" makes NAR=prog sound+AD, and "no-one" makes NAR=AD
only which requires mixing of the two streams?