March 2014
www.tvbeurope.com
By releasing the loudness spec, we have now standardised the loudness ranges together with tolerances for pre-recorded and live programmes” —Kevin Burrows, Channel 4, DPP
How is the UK faring compared to other European broadcasters?
Camerer: The BBC has a head start in the UK because the average level has always been around -23 LUFS. There have been outliers, of course, but the principal production methods don’t have to change. BskyB has been doing loudness normalisation for years, so they have no issue whatsoever. I think the UK will generally catch up with the more loudness advanced countries in Europe quickly. Carroll: In my opinion,
quite well. Again, many broadcasters were far ahead of recommended practices, such as EBU R128 and other regulations, as they found that satisfying the viewer is simply good business practise. Nicholas: The UK is certainly
somewhat behind some of the primary European markets. France and Germany are leading the way in terms of implementation of R128 recommendations on loudness measurement and control. The continuing poor economic climate in the rest of Europe is affecting the ability of broadcasters in those most severely hit areas to implement corrective measures. Plunkett: The UK has historically been one of the more active implementers of loudness control at the point of
broadcast, which ironically has perhaps slowed the impetus for R128 adoption to date. However, the work of the DPP will bring the UK to the forefront of adopters by the end of 2014.
Who, in your opinion (without naming specific companies), is the worst offender in the whole loudness debate?
Burrows: The industry with the largest challenge in this area is the pop music recording industry where hyper- compression is commonplace and often extreme. Carroll: Anyone who does not
realise that traditional metering like PPM or VU must take a secondary role to proper ITU-R BS.1770 loudness metering and EBU R128 recommended practices. This list is thankfully becoming smaller every day.
Bob Nicholas, Cobalt Digital
normalisation. It is always difficult to convince someone who starts from the opposite direction. I see examples where this negative opinion is based on a wrong application of loudness normalisation. Consequently, before anyone can experience the advantages, and before a fair discussion about this is possible, it must start with a proper preparation, application and evaluation.
Florian Camerer, ORF — Austrian TV; PLOUD
Nicholas: The worst offenders could possibly be defined as those advertisers who still try any dubious engineering practices to circumvent the recommendations and appear louder than the preceding content. Some broadcasters also could be included as they may consider that, as they do not carry advertising, they are exempt from loudness issues on programme transitions. Apparently, they do not consider interstitials as being
advertising, although they are invariably generated by the same agencies that prepare conventional advertising material and usually to the same internal engineering practices. van Everdingen: Some people are fundamentally opposed to the use of loudness
TVBEurope 15 Loudness Forum
“Only if the
producer of the sound is aware of the loudness requirements will you get
good results” Peter Schut, Axon
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52