This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Forum


42 TVBEurope Loudness


Having standards in place constitutes one fundamental piece of the loudness jigsaw. But what do you think needs to be done to ensure that broadcast technical personnel are able to implement them in a way that is sensitive to the creative specifics of a wide range of content?


Krückels: The answer seems rather simple — training. Working with loudness makes work easier. Comprehensive training is the key to creative working with a simple tool. Burrows: Training is a key issue


here, and we have been working with the BBC Academy to produce consistent documentation, which can be used as a source of information. This is one area also where practical experience of working with the specs will be invaluable, and we should see the consistency improve over time. We have always been concerned that we don’t want to impact the editorial or creative aspects by implementing R128, and to date we believe that with the right guidelines this can be achieved. Pascoe: Training, training,


training. There is little to no reason that the original, creative intent of a content producer cannot be delivered to the listener without alteration. Digital systems, and the additional headroom that they allow, enable us to do this. What we need to be sure of is that people are given the correct training and direction to enable this, rather than simply measure and correct using outdated tools in order to ‘align’ the content with the required specifications. Sensible authoring of delivery specifications would help [as well]. Kahsnitz: Training is the key. Some broadcasters have underestimated this. I talked to a lot of people that felt queasy when they learned they needed to


Peter Poers: “If the producer is smart, he will check the audio track using a consumer TV set”


meet a +/- 1 LU target loudness level. Once they learned that this is a completely different behaviour from what they were accustomed to from PPM metering, they were able to see that it was no problem at all, even when it comes to matching live material to target content. Sound engineers need to know that the longer a piece of programme material, the more dynamic it can be used inside that frame. Thunder, shots, percussive parts, fortissimo... all of this is not as problematic as many think. Carroll: Two things: loudness metering and not confusing loudness management with dynamic range management — they are fundamentally different and require different approaches. Until now, the easiest realtime loudness management solution was to


Michael Kahsnitz: “Let’s stop making listeners adapt to poor, data-reduced and highly compressed files”


modify dynamic range, and always permanently. The systems used worldwide for transmission of 5.1 channel audio including Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus took this into account when including metadata as part of the audio coding system. HE AAC has followed the same path. Metadata is the way to protect the creative aspects. Lund: Loudness measurements need far less training to read than old QPPM or sample peak meters. Even a video editor or a journalist can get meaningful information out of the new tools. Also, loudness normalisation of all programmes, using a 100% transparent mechanism, is a gift to content creators and broadcasters alike. The fixed target level concept is so easy to grasp.


Should we be monitoring viewers’ awareness of, and response to, the introduction of standardised loudness control, and is there a case to be made for some type of concerted information campaign (...perhaps along the lines of the Dynamic Range Day instigated by Ian Shepherd for the music industry)?


Burrows: The fact is that if loudness control is introduced properly, the viewer should not be aware of it. At present the awareness of inconsistent loudness is derived from complaints, which we hope should significantly reduce once implemented. So we need to think how best to communicate this without drawing too much attention to it.


Poers: I don’t think there is further need for this. Of course all action needs to be verified by feedback, but why should the viewer be any different from the producer? If the producer is smart, he will check the audio track using a consumer TV set rather than just relying on the perfect acoustics of the control room. Lund: Good question. I’m


afraid if we listen to the typical consumer, all she asks for is a low Loudness Range. Everybody can tell Loudness Range, but only trained listeners know what ‘free transients’ mean to audio quality. Broadcast must have the ability to convey a wide Loudness Range as well as a high Peak to Loudness Ratio (PLR). Dynamic Range Day is related to the latter, but only from a music perspective. We need to cover all genres with standardised measurements. Everdingen: Yes, although it is not so easy to draw conclusions from viewers’ responses. I am currently investigating viewers’ reports myself in the Netherlands. If necessary I even visit people at home for an interview and to perform local measurements. One of the complicating factors is that not all watched TV channels have the process under control, which can lead to the unreasonable perception that all of them have loudness problems.


Other issues concern the


mismatches in the distribution stage including TV sets and set- top boxes. The effect can be a loudness jump when the viewer switches between TV channels, even if the broadcasters are transmitting correctly. The PLOUD group wrote a separate document, EBU Tech 3344, to help manufacturers and distribution companies to get rid of these problems. The EBU also published a technical review document that serves as an easy- to-read introduction. The process takes a long time and requires active lobbying.


C10HD Compact Broadcast Console Big console power in a compact, simple and affordable package. Broadcast Audio. This is SSL. sales@solidstatelogic.com :: Tel +44 (0) 1865 842300 www.solidstatelogic.com


www.tvbeurope.com March 2013


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