SOT: BBC poor sound / technical issue

_Lenny_ wrote on 4/23/2014, 10:24 AM

As reported widely, including here: http://tinyurl.com/mnndf8q, the BBC is blaming technical issues on the poor sound of a recently broadcast drama.

The BBC has been very vague, and hadn't made clear what the technical issue was, and why it couldn't be rectified during the broadcast. I find this suspicious as I clearly recall programmes being interrupted to address both sound and visual problems.

I suspect it was a case of poor, inconsiderate mixing as hinted at in the above article. I'm wondering if it was a surround sound mix gone wrong...

Over recent weeks I've noticed that it's much harder for me to watch HD broadcasts as the sound levels are all over the place. And even with SD channels there are huge variations between the broadcasters. I resent having to adjust the volume on my television whenever I change channels!

Comments

Kraznet_UK wrote on 4/24/2014, 2:38 AM

Yes I've been reading about the Jamaica Inn sound problem saga. I watched some of it after complaints had been lodged about the first episode. It seemed to me the main problem was the delivery of the actors. They all seemed to be speaking so quietly and in a vague West of England accent. The word mumbling was used for quite a few people who complained. I think the director should have got them to put a bit more energy in their delivery. Quite a few of the scenes were shot outside on the moors and I imagine it would be hard to bring up the levels without increasing the background noise. So the actors should have spoken more clearly.

I agree with you about the varying levels of broadcasts in general and even within documentaries. I'm constantly having to adjust the level. One thing that constantly irritates me is the overwhelming "background" music in many documentaries. The BBC seemed have an obsession with tinkly piano's as well.

_Lenny_ wrote on 4/24/2014, 10:21 AM

Being shot on the moors is not an excuse for poor audio. They could have used concealed microphones as they do for some film productions, or there's ADR.

I watched a clip on iPlayer but the scene was so dark it was almost black, and initially I thought it was an audio only clip. An excerpt was played on the BBC news, and I couldn't hear a thing. With the sound turned all the way up, I still couldn't make out what was being said. It was a combination of very low sound levels and a clear case of mumbling.

No way should that mix have made it to the broadcast stage. Maybe the Vegas 13 Loudness Meter should have been employed?!

rraud wrote on 4/24/2014, 10:34 AM

Technical issues aside, I too often encounter mumbling low-talking actors and will often point this out to the director or 1st AD. Whether they address it is up to them.

musicvid10 wrote on 4/24/2014, 12:16 PM

Projection, diction, vowel formation, and breath support are all teachable skills.
It's become a lost art, largely due to on-subject miking.
Not that it's a bad thing; however, a commercial production needs both . . .

Spectralis wrote on 4/24/2014, 1:00 PM

It's about cutting costs. The BBC and other production companies are producing programs without dedicated sound recordists and other specialists in audio. It's happening all over the industry where the ethos and practices of reality tv and consequent budget cuts lead to shoddy production values as well as brainless content.

There's also the loudness wars phenomenon where the temptation is to crank up the decibels to make the action scenes pop in a similar way to that dreadful practice of emphasising blue and orange to pop skin tones. Consequently, the quieter audio sections suffer because the overall volume is lowered or is crushed through the use of limiters.

Then there's the effect of lowering bandwidth to deliver streaming or downloading services on the quality of audio.

musicvid10 wrote on 4/24/2014, 1:39 PM

Really?
I think it's about unqualified, untrained talent!

Spectralis wrote on 4/24/2014, 5:35 PM

The BBC often uses unqualified/untrained interns or expects workers to double up on roles because they are constantly cutting the budgets of productions. The competition to fill the ever growing number of digital channels leads to a race to the bottom IMO.

Even though the BBC is publicly funded, it's still in competition with all the other production companies around the world and is being driven to some of their shoddy production levels and content. Subscription services like HBO have a regular income and are able to plan production in advance and most importantly take risks with content.

The BBC still produce great programs occasionally, I really support its public ethos, so there's hope that this will continue but the TV market is growing ever more cut throat as the need for production companies to spread themselves more thinly over more channels increases.

farss wrote on 4/24/2014, 7:35 PM

Not directly related and I know nothing about this BBC issue but yes, the technical standards especially on the audio side seem to be in decline.

I regularly watch a science channel on YouTube and the content is produced by a well funded team. Despite this from one episode to the next the audio levels can vary by around 12dB and that's just their opening music!

Bob.

Spectralis wrote on 4/25/2014, 3:09 AM

This sound level variation when watching content is really annoying - especially when a program is broken up by adverts that are invariably louder than the program. I end up having to ride the audio levels using the remote. It might be better to have a brickwall limiter keeping everything in a comfortable range but then the audio can sound crushed and sterile if the effect is too great.

I've also noticed that the top end of streamed and downloaded content is very poor because of the lower bandwidth of the content. This might improve with better codecs and faster streaming in the future but if people are used to lower quality content then the commercial incentive is to follow that trend across the board and level everything to these lower expectations.

Richard Jones wrote on 4/25/2014, 6:07 AM

I, too, dislike the variation in the sound levels when, for example, adverts are played but in this case the BBC itself has admitted that part of the problem lay with the poor enunciation of the actors. The fact that the problem persisted over the three instalments suggests that this was not just a technical issue or it would have been fixed before the second anj third episodes were broadcast.

In recent years there has been an increasing tendency for actors to mumble their words and this does take a great deal of pleasure away from a production. It is part of an actor's basic training to learn how to project their voices and deliver their words (something we were taught about in the Drama Group at school all those years ago) and a failure to do this is a failure on the actor's part and in his/her technique.

Richard

_Lenny_ wrote on 4/25/2014, 6:19 AM

I've heard that the mumbling is part of a trend towards 'naturalistic dialogue'.

Regardless of that, I would say a mumbling actor is no actor at all. Mumbling is what a 5 year old does in their first school.

There was even mention that some blame lay with the speakers in modern (flat screen) televisions -- they are, apparently, inferior in quality, and point in the wrong direction. Utter pugwash, of course - I listened via high quality headphones, earphones, and hifi speakers. The dialogue remain inaudible and indecipherable.