Background music on TV programmes

[Howardh]

:-x

Tried to watch Tarrant's documentary on the railways (Channel 5) and gave up after around 5 minutes due to the din provided by the background - no, make that foreground, music. Don't watch TV much these days, is this now a recurring theme in TV where the presenter has to be drowned out by music?

Plea to the TV world - if we can have commentary-free sport on the red button, can we have a music-free option for TV programmes too?

 

[Bevan Price]

:-x

Tried to watch Tarrant's documentary on the railways (Channel 5) and gave up after around 5 minutes due to the din provided by the background - no, make that foreground, music. Don't watch TV much these days, is this now a recurring theme in TV where the presenter has to be drowned out by music?

Plea to the TV world - if we can have commentary-free sport on the red button, can we have a music-free option for TV programmes too?

People have been complaining about foreground music for years. Unfortunately, some of the arty-farty types who make TV programmes / films like it, claim it "improves" the programme, and continue to ignore public complaints.

Similar types also think that "realistic" programmes are a good idea - hence
1. those films where it is so dark that people cannot follow the action;

2. use mumbling voices that are inaudible or incomprehensible to viewers;

3. inflict foreign language films ( + subtitles) on us, instead of dubbing films into English.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

3. inflict foreign language films ( + subtitles) on us, instead of dubbing films into English.

They are also increasingly doing this in documentaries where foreign people are involved.

Does it not breach the broadcasting equivalent of the railway's PRM regulations, given that a blind or partly sighted viewer would be relying heavily on the spoken word?

 

[DaleCooper]

3. inflict foreign language films ( + subtitles) on us, instead of dubbing films into English.

No, dubbing is terrible you're constantly aware that the audio doesn't match the actors lip movements. It's much better to have subtitles, after a few minutes you don't even notice you're reading them.

 

[Ash Bridge]

No, dubbing is terrible you're constantly aware that the audio doesn't match the actors lip movements. It's much better to have subtitles, after a few minutes you don't even notice you're reading them.

Yes! Definitely agree with that.

 

[najaB]

3. inflict foreign language films ( + subtitles) on us, instead of dubbing films into English.

I much prefer the film to be left in its original language and be presented with subtitles. Unless you have really good voice acting you lose a lot of the subtle impact, and as others have said the fact the lips don't match the words is more distracting than the subtitles.

As an aside, I don't even find it distracting when it's a film in English with foreign subtitles - I learned a lot of Spanish that way.

They are also increasingly doing this in documentaries where foreign people are involved.

Does it not breach the broadcasting equivalent of the railway's PRM regulations, given that a blind or partly sighted viewer would be relying heavily on the spoken word?

I believe that the audio description channel should normally carry a translation.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I believe that the audio description channel should normally carry a translation.

Problem with that... my wife is partly sighted but she hates the audio description channel because of the constant faint voice over in the background throughout the entire hour ( or however long whatever she is watching is! ) of the broadcast.

We tried it once or twice and I was ordered to switch the TV back to normal and never to put what she described as a CENSORED awful idea on again...

 

[Bevan Price]

No, dubbing is terrible you're constantly aware that the audio doesn't match the actors lip movements. It's much better to have subtitles, after a few minutes you don't even notice you're reading them.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I find that trying to follow subtitles distracts me too much from the film action - and prefer to accept poor lip synchronisation. So, now I generally avoid foreign language programmes.

 

[TheEdge]

We will have to agree to disagree.

I find that trying to follow subtitles distracts me too much from the film action - and prefer to accept poor lip synchronisation. So, now I generally avoid foreign language programmes.

Then you are missing some outstanding foreign language shows.

 

[tellytype]

:-x

Tried to watch Tarrant's documentary on the railways (Channel 5) and gave up after around 5 minutes due to the din provided by the background - no, make that foreground, music. Don't watch TV much these days, is this now a recurring theme in TV where the presenter has to be drowned out by music?

Plea to the TV world - if we can have commentary-free sport on the red button, can we have a music-free option for TV programmes too?

As the username suggests I work in TV I'm a broadcast engineer.

Frankly on programmes like this there is no need for background music at all. It's only added to add drama which, in reality, isn't required. Especially when combined with noisy environments such as railways.

The nature of filming means they'll likely have used a shotgun (directional) mic on a boom & blimp setup (furry thing on a pole) & these will make any sound in the direction the mic is pointed very loud indeed (Sennheiser & Rode are most popular - we use the Rode NTG4), and then the audio will be "compressed" in post - that's compressed as in dynamic audio compression rather than MP3 or any other file compression which will actually bring up the ambient noise if done badly, which it usually is. And certain noises take something like RX Post tools to fix.

Then they add background music. And the audio is compressed again. Then at play out, as part of the broadcast chain, the audio is processed which compresses it once more & maybe applies an EQ curve - processing is much more complex than this for both TV & Radio and is actually a specialist subject of mine.

Anyway, the resulting final mix you hear if all this is badly done, and that badly done-ness starts right at acquisition & every part of the chain after that affects it, is a compressed mush where everything is the same level & results in you hearing what you heard on that programme.

Technical standards in the industry are utterly terrible these days, BBC still care, but even then things slip. There ARE standards, but they're not really followed very well, since now everyone who can press a bloody record button is suddenly a documentary maker.....legends in their own flaming lunchtime. Whilst we production professionals struggle for work, fight to get paid & watch the terrible rubbish being broadcast noticing all the problems.

Sorry, that turned into a rant but now at least you know why it's so bad

 

[planetf1]

Definately +1 for subtitles.... I find dubbing awful.

Agree on too much background audio though... That being said I didn't find this programme awful... It probably helps having decent quality speakers... But it's a trend I don't like and struggle far more when watching in simpler environments, small speakers, laptop etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaleCooper]

As the username suggests I work in TV I'm a broadcast engineer.

Frankly on programmes like this there is no need for background music at all. It's only added to add drama which, in reality, isn't required. Especially when combined with noisy environments such as railways.

The nature of filming means they'll likely have used a shotgun (directional) mic on a boom & blimp setup (furry thing on a pole) & these will make any sound in the direction the mic is pointed very loud indeed (Sennheiser & Rode are most popular - we use the Rode NTG4), and then the audio will be "compressed" in post - that's compressed as in dynamic audio compression rather than MP3 or any other file compression which will actually bring up the ambient noise if done badly, which it usually is. And certain noises take something like RX Post tools to fix.

Then they add background music. And the audio is compressed again. Then at play out, as part of the broadcast chain, the audio is processed which compresses it once more & maybe applies an EQ curve - processing is much more complex than this for both TV & Radio and is actually a specialist subject of mine.

Anyway, the resulting final mix you hear if all this is badly done, and that badly done-ness starts right at acquisition & every part of the chain after that affects it, is a compressed mush where everything is the same level & results in you hearing what you heard on that programme.

Technical standards in the industry are utterly terrible these days, BBC still care, but even then things slip. There ARE standards, but they're not really followed very well, since now everyone who can press a bloody record button is suddenly a documentary maker.....legends in their own flaming lunchtime. Whilst we production professionals struggle for work, fight to get paid & watch the terrible rubbish being broadcast noticing all the problems.

Sorry, that turned into a rant but now at least you know why it's so bad

Thanks for that insight. I'd be interested to know your views on DAB, my opinion is it's a disgrace that after decades of high quality FM radio we're now being fed with low bit rate audio which they claim is of "CD quality" but is really just a way of squeezing as much as possible into the available bandwidth. Added to that is the awful tuning process, when I went to use my DAB tuner after a long period of only listening to FM I found none of the presets worked and I just couldn't be bothered with getting out the instructions and retuning it. It is so much easier on FM.

 

[Howardh]

As the username suggests I work in TV I'm a broadcast engineer.

Frankly on programmes like this there is no need for background music at all. It's only added to add drama which, in reality, isn't required. Especially when combined with noisy environments such as railways.

The nature of filming means they'll likely have used a shotgun (directional) mic on a boom & blimp setup (furry thing on a pole) & these will make any sound in the direction the mic is pointed very loud indeed (Sennheiser & Rode are most popular - we use the Rode NTG4), and then the audio will be "compressed" in post - that's compressed as in dynamic audio compression rather than MP3 or any other file compression which will actually bring up the ambient noise if done badly, which it usually is. And certain noises take something like RX Post tools to fix.

Then they add background music. And the audio is compressed again. Then at play out, as part of the broadcast chain, the audio is processed which compresses it once more & maybe applies an EQ curve - processing is much more complex than this for both TV & Radio and is actually a specialist subject of mine.

Anyway, the resulting final mix you hear if all this is badly done, and that badly done-ness starts right at acquisition & every part of the chain after that affects it, is a compressed mush where everything is the same level & results in you hearing what you heard on that programme.

Technical standards in the industry are utterly terrible these days, BBC still care, but even then things slip. There ARE standards, but they're not really followed very well, since now everyone who can press a bloody record button is suddenly a documentary maker.....legends in their own flaming lunchtime. Whilst we production professionals struggle for work, fight to get paid & watch the terrible rubbish being broadcast noticing all the problems.

Sorry, that turned into a rant but now at least you know why it's so bad

Thanks for that, it probably explains why music (when wanted or requires) sounds awful after so many processes!

Thanks for that insight. I'd be interested to know your views on DAB, my opinion is it's a disgrace that after decades of high quality FM radio we're now being fed with low bit rate audio which they claim is of "CD quality" but is really just a way of squeezing as much as possible into the available bandwidth.

DAB's interesting and worthy of a thread on its own.
For my twopenneth, I have a car radio which is FM, and to get DAB I have a Roberts on the dashboard which connects to the car radio via audio cable into a jack.
FM has the problem of hissing where the DAB doesn't, it's either a signal, short garble then nothing - I've no idea whether the sound coming through the speakers is stereo or not, but music or voice sounds just fine. TBH there is so little in the way of choice musically on FM that I would prefer a lower-bitrate (or whatever it's called) on DAB but have a greater variety of channels. By now, car radios should be able to connect to internet radio never mind DAB!
But I've heard there's a system DAB+ (my Roberts has that)< no idea what it means or does. Would that make the sound better?

Finally - subtitles over dubbing any day. Dubbing just looks and sounds ridiculous IMO.

 

[najaB]

Thanks for that insight. I'd be interested to know your views on DAB, my opinion is it's a disgrace that after decades of high quality FM radio we're now being fed with low bit rate audio which they claim is of "CD quality" but is really just a way of squeezing as much as possible into the available bandwidth.

Like everything digital, it depends on how much bandwidth they are willing to pay for, and more importantly, how good the original analogue to digital converter is. If you put garbage in there's no way to get anything other than garbage out.

 

[JamesT]

But I've heard there's a system DAB+ (my Roberts has that)< no idea what it means or does. Would that make the sound better?

DAB and DAB+ use different codecs for the audio (MP2 and HE-AAC respectively). Much like the difference between Freeview and Freeview HD. A DAB+ receiver will generally be able to receive both, but a DAB one won't understand the newer codec.
HE-AAC is much more efficient, so you should get higher quality for the same bandwidth (or more stations packed in).
It's somewhat chicken and egg, I don't believe there are many stations transmitting in DAB+ because most of the installed base out there is only DAB.

 

[Howardh]

DAB and DAB+ use different codecs for the audio (MP2 and HE-AAC respectively). Much like the difference between Freeview and Freeview HD. A DAB+ receiver will generally be able to receive both, but a DAB one won't understand the newer codec.
HE-AAC is much more efficient, so you should get higher quality for the same bandwidth (or more stations packed in).
It's somewhat chicken and egg, I don't believe there are many stations transmitting in DAB+ because most of the installed base out there is only DAB.

Thanks - this may sound a stupid question; but as I go through all the stations how do I know one is DAB+, the display doesn't seem to show that (unless it's in *info* I suppose?) and it doesn't have a separate DAB+ stations finder/index.

 

[DaleCooper]

So now everyone has been out and bought a DAB radio (perfect sound) they want us to throw them away and buy DAB+ radios (with even more perfect sound), this is far more about selling hardware than choice or sound quality. In contrast a 50+ year old FM tuner will still work with 21st century FM transmissions.

 

[Howardh]

So now everyone has been out and bought a DAB radio (perfect sound) they want us to throw them away and buy DAB+ radios (with even more perfect sound), this is far more about selling hardware than choice or sound quality. In contrast a 50+ year old FM tuner will still work with 21st century FM transmissions.

That's nothing new, Sky wanted us to buy "stunning, amazing HD" when it first came out.....just wonder how they will cope with hyping 4k (and eventually 8k no doubt) - and if they do will they accept HD is ordinary and drop their ridiculous charges for something which should be standard?

As an aside, I have tellys of 32", 40" and 43" and the significant difference on them is between SD and 720HD, and barely no difference between 720 and 1080. Makes me wonder why the TV channels couldn't all be in 720 as standard, how much more room on the spectrum would be needed (and if so, why not drop some of the rubbish channels to make room....?).

Guilty Pleasure; both the 40" (bedroom) and the 43" are 4k, and I just love watching 4k youtube vids and my own from my hols, sat up nice and close, I can almost feel the waves on my feet. **But you have to be very close to notice/appreciate the difference, too close for normal TV and sports programing...**

 

[fairysdad]

Like everything digital, it depends on how much bandwidth they are willing to pay for, and more importantly, how good the original analogue to digital converter is. If you put garbage in there's no way to get anything other than garbage out.

Not just how much they are willing to pay for, but how much the transmitter owner is willing to sell.

To put it simply, say a DAB transmitter has overall space for 1,000 kbps output. They could have one station broadcasting at 1,000 kbps. They could equally have two stations broadcasting at 500 kbps. Or four broadcasting at 250kbps.

Now, say the transmitter owner is charging £10 for 1kbps. If that is the only charge, then to them it doesn't matter how many stations they are broadcasting, as they will get the same amount come in whethe they have one station at 1,000 kbps or two at 500, or four at 250: £10,000.

But, the owner won't be just charging that. They will also be charging each station a base charge of, say, £100. So, one station broadcasting at 1,000 kbps will be paying £10,100. But, if they have two stations at 500 kbps, they will get an extra £100.

As I said, that was a very simple explanation. There are other factors involved, and it is indeed also down to how much the broadcaster is willing to pay; but this is why the vast majority of DAB radio stations are broadcasting on quite low bitrate, usually mono streams, and why you get music channels broadcasting at 64kbps mono. DAB does have the potential to provide CD-quality broadcasts, but, as with most things, it comes down to money.

(With FM broadcasting, all it needs to cost is your Ofcom licence, and an initial outlay or rental cost for the transmitter. With DAB, you have to pay for the Ofcom licence, plus the charges that the transmitter company charge you. Larger stations will, of course, outsource their FM transmission to other companies with similar sorts of running costs, but this is why you are unlikely to see community or RSL radio stations on DAB (though it does happen).)

 

[Bevan Price]

So now everyone has been out and bought a DAB radio (perfect sound) they want us to throw them away and buy DAB+ radios (with even more perfect sound), this is far more about selling hardware than choice or sound quality. In contrast a 50+ year old FM tuner will still work with 21st century FM transmissions.

*


I tend to agree - and DAB reception is often worse than FM, or even AM. I can receive AM & FM anywhere inside the house, but for DAB, the radio has to be fairly close to a window - otherwise I get a weak or nil signal.

 

[Howardh]

*


I tend to agree - and DAB reception is often worse than FM, or even AM. I can receive AM & FM anywhere inside the house, but for DAB, the radio has to be fairly close to a window - otherwise I get a weak or nil signal.

It's the opposite for me! Despite being virtually under Winter Hill transmitter, getting Radio Manchester on 95.1 throughout the house is a task in itself. Fortunately unless there's sport on I ain't missing much. However the DAB set gets me a signal from Stoke to Liverpool to Manchester to Blackburn.

I just suppose it's where you live, how big the nearest tree is and if you can get the cat off the windowsill.

 

[tellytype]

Thoughts on DAB: Nice idea, but as with all nice ideas, its been badly executed in the UK.

We have a handful of companies (2 or 3) that own all the multiplexes (muxes) & they charge truly extortionate rates. They will charge you £65,000 per year for a 64kbps mono slot on a London mux lets say. Thats 64k Mono MP2, because MP2 is the DAB standard. MP2 is a lossy codec, which was OK for its time (90s) but is now showing its age. The costs really are minimal to the MuxCos, or should be.

One of the DAB stations I look after I took on after it launched on DAB is in Milton Keynes, to keep their costs down they deliver the audio to Arqiva via a web stream at 64k MP3, so its already compressed (in size/bitrate) for that - 64k MP3 sounds bad enough to the professional ear, then Arqiva transcode that to 64k MP2, so you've got one lossy codec being transcoded to another - the resulting audio heard by the listener sounds dreadful. The station asked my advice on how to fix it & without spending a ton of money, well, they can't.

OfCom are doing trials at the minute of small scale DAB, hyper local services, which are a great idea & there are plans afoot in my company to build a national network, but in partnership with community radio stations - they get a free slot on the mux for hosting the equipment, and spare capacity is offered at commercial rates much reduced (by 50% at least!) on those offered now. Profit/surpluses are split between the community radio stations that host us every year so they benefit in the long run.

I have a test setup (using a HackRF & some open source software) in my house - it is basically a very small DAB multiplex. In fact everything runs on Raspberry Pis up to the RF stage. We can do DAB & DAB+

We have proved that we can give a radio station a £40 Raspberry Pi to encode their audio, and encode that to MP2 and AAC+ the latter of which is the codec used by DAB+ - better audio in lower bandwidth. The transmission equipment we build ourselves for under £5000 per site. The operation of the network costs about £30,000 per year all in all.

DAB+ may very well be the saviour of the technology, but whilst there are people with good hearing listening DAB will always sound dreadful unless stations are willing to pay nearly £250,000 a year for a 128k Stereo slot on a standard DAB mux - they're few & far between, and the money is stupid. In contrast we could offer a station the same, on a national basis under our proposals, for around £40,000 per year.

DAB signals - again, this is bad planning & poor engineering. DAB does need a higher field strength at a given location over standard 'FM' but this is possible through good RF planning. Even on the new Small Scale DAB plans, Ofcom have done a national plan for each site they plan to offer - having seen the data, its badly planned to avoid interference in other areas which would never happen in real life, resulting in some stupidly tiny or needlessly directional proposed coverages. We'll be proposing changes to those....

Until DAB+ becomes more established & pricing becomes sensible, dont panic, your FM stations will stay right where they are, as they should. A well processed FM signal sounds beautiful...yes, we can make DAB sound exactly the same but until everyone is using, and has radios that support DAB+ (for instance, my main set doesnt....) then its pointless trying.

HTH

 

[najaB]

One of the DAB stations I look after I took on after it launched on DAB is in Milton Keynes, to keep their costs down they deliver the audio to Arqiva via a web stream at 64k MP3, so its already compressed (in size/bitrate) for that - 64k MP3 sounds bad enough to the professional ear, then Arqiva transcode that to 64k MP2, so you've got one lossy codec being transcoded to another - the resulting audio heard by the listener sounds dreadful. The station asked my advice on how to fix it & without spending a ton of money, well, they can't.

Why don't they deliver it by ISDN2 - 128kbps and rock solid? Only costs slightly more than a standard analogue telephone line.