This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.

March 2012 l 39

broadcastreport EUROPE Taking loudness beyond the standards Dolby's Jeffrey Riedmiller talks to Kevin Hiltonabout loudness standards – where we are now and the hopes and fears for the future

AMONG the many people that have been addressing the problem of inconsistencies between different types of broadcast programme material over the years is Jeffrey Riedmiller, director of the Sound Platform Group at Dolby Laboratories. Riedmiller has been behind two of Dolby’s main products in this field, the LM100 broadcast loudness meter and the DP600 programme optimiser, and is a vocal advocate for best practices for loudness. He is now looking at the next step in dealing with the problem since the publication of standards including ITU BS 1770-2, EBU R128 and ATSC A/85, which are now established and have led to the introduction of regulations or legislation. “I really feel we’ve come a

long way,” says Riedmiller. “Dolby has invested a lot in this because it’s not only important for correct and proper use of our formats, it’s also important for the creative community, and even all the way downstream to device manufacturers, to understand this stuff and embrace it such that when people are threatened with regulations or fines, they don’t automatically go back to the lowest common denominator.” Riedmiller feels the task now is for organisations like the EBU

and the ATSC to continue working together, looking at the problem and the practicalities involved, with the ultimate aim of “reducing everybody’s fears”. The crux of loudness lies in subjective assessments of differing levels, which varies from person to person and has made the whole area appear arcane. The reality, says Riedmiller, is

much simpler: “When you boil it all down it is about a few key things. We have a great measure that’s been well vetted, we’ve got ways to gate the measure on stuff that matters to listeners, ways to measure peaks and transport metadata and establish reference levels on consumer devices.” Despite this there are still

doubts, particularly regarding the best point in the production/ delivery chain to start dealing with loudness. Dolby’s position is that loudness should be dealt with correctly as near to the start of the whole process as possible. “If you get a really well

produced piece of content, with information representing the loudness and dynamics into the system, then the net result at the other end is exactly what you expect,” he adds. “You get consistency over channels, surfing from one to another and back. Everyone proved that to themselves so the focus is up-stream.”

Like any manufacturer with equipment and technology to sell, Dolby is not restricting itself to one market sector. The company has developed the DP600 to implement loudness controls further down the delivery path, with technology now licensed to other companies Riedmiller says any loudness technology should form the basis of a simple system for validating and checking material, with confidence that the whole thing cannot be attacked or tricked. “That can go from the

post-production studio to the

broadcaster to the satellite or cable operator who can check it or say I trust it and then send it on to the home,” he explains. “Where there isn’t the trust or a mechanism of signalling trust, processes can be kicked in to bring things into compliance. If people are working really hard to create compelling content, which plays well across all devices, and all that work is not making it downstream, they might say ‘Why am I bothering, investing so much time in creating this immersive experience?’.” Another potential danger is that broadcasters, particularly

Jeffrey Riedmiller: “We've come a long way”

at a local level, and service providers like cable head-end operators will revert to what Riedmiller calls the “safe harbour” approach. If that happens, he warns, it could send TV sound right back to the days of NTSC audio of the 1970s.

“Speaking from the US perspective, with local broadcasters taking network content, I think it is possible that could happen,” he says. “We’re at high risk. That also means there’s a risk of stuff being redistributed through cable and satellite too. The premium network feeds are probably at less risk because they’re deeply engaged with the platforms that broadcast the content.” The threat is probably less

severe in Europe, although there can be dramatic discrepancies between different channels on the same broadcast platforms. The hope is that eventually loudness metering and monitoring will be less confusing or scary to non-audio people because it is just one part of an overall process and not a challenging stand-alone procedure. As Jeffrey Riedmiller concludes: “All the chess pieces are there and it’s starting to make a difference.”

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  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84