March 2014
www.tvbeurope.com
TVBEurope 17 Loudness Forum
Has the implementation of EBU R128 made any difference to working practices in UK studios and post houses?
Burrows: Yes it has, and has resulted in much more education and training to adapt to the new ways of dealing with sound mixing, production and monitoring. Initiatives like the BBC Academy training programmes have really helped the production community understand the new ways of working needed. The DPP has been pro-active in setting up workshops where audio loudness has been properly debated and concerns aired. Camerer: The UK is still a
hybrid loudness/PPM6 world. So initially there might be more different mixes to satisfy different specifications. Working practices change similarly in other countries. Mixers rely more and more on their ears — hopefully, they have done so anyway — but now they have a meter that corresponds with what they hear. If average loudness levels have been different from the new target level of -23 LUFS, the listening level has to be adjusted accordingly — up if you have mixed louder, down if you have mixed softer. Forcing
Peter Schut, Axon
oneself to mix to target through adjusting the listening level is the primary tool to success. Nicholas: There has certainly been a change in approach in UK studios and post houses as they are all now aware of the nature of a loudness meter. They are also coming to terms with the fact that proper implementation of it should not have an adverse effect on the dynamic range of their productions.
The standard provides two parameter requirements — loudness figure and dB True Peak. When a standard for loudness range is introduced, will this make a difference to working practices?
Burrows: By releasing the loudness spec, we have now standardised the loudness ranges together with tolerances for pre-recorded and live programmes. In terms of the two parameters you have listed, these refer to the overall programme loudness, and the Maximum True Peak. The latter of these, the Maximum True Peak values, are proposed as guidance only, together with examples as they can vary.
Examples would be uncompressed music or gunshot sounds. This is a change to working practices compared to using conventional PPMs, as these only looked at average peak values, but it will be provide a much more subjective measurement. Nicholas: This will only affect
working practices in as much as new compliant metering will need to be implemented. Other than that it could be compared to the period when digital audio came into use and engineers had to get used to the idea of a relative 0dB level — which was actually different depending on which country you were located. The only major issue to get used to on a loudness meter is that what you are seeing indicated has already happened as the process is based on integrated measurement. Schut: Sure, as they both have
a very different outcome to the end sound and level. van Everdingen: I would
advise against a restriction for loudness range (LRA), especially regarding drama series and films, or it must be recommendation for something in the area of not more than 22 or so, just as a safety precaution. A limit on a lower LRA means that some drama mixes that can be transmitted on television without any problem, need to be compressed just to comply with a certain number. What I found in my own research is that excellent mixes with good
speech intelligibility and a consistent voice level close to programme loudness can have very high LRA figures up to 22 without causing a problem, not on the low and not on the high level side. Bad mixes on the other hand, tend to ‘improve’ to a certain extent by compression. This leads to the trend that good work is penalised because of the shortcomings of bad work. Other bad mixes that include annoyingly loud modulations can still have a relatively low loudness range. A limitation on LRA is, in that case, not able to prevent that — which can lead to even lower restrictions later on. The current LRA measurement is meant as an indicator for an audio mixer. To use it as a strict restriction in programme delivery documents
Richard van Everdingen, broadcast and audio consultant
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