JAMaica INN

[jean]

Not sure why you think they would be.

[Ferretfancy]

Not sure why you think they would be.

Nor me, but then to HG snide comes cheap.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Although I acknowledge the sound was poor, I wouldn't go as far as to say that subtitles were necessary. U
Steph McGovern on Breakfast TV is a different matter. I've never followed anything she says. I just gasp in bewilderment that the BBC can employ someone with such limited presentational skills. Just a blob delivering her lines, added to grammatical and pronunciation ineptness.

[jean]

...to HG snide comes cheap.

What I find slightly odd is that when it's music that's being discussed, what can be seen as 'populist' is championed - when it's drama, it's ridiculed.

[Hornspieler]

Has it occurred to anyone that this drama, rather than being set on a Cornish beach, should have been filmed in Wales on the Mumbles shoreline?

[Honoured Guest]

Do you mean "located"? It had to be "set" in Cornwall.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Do you mean "located"? It had to be "set" in Cornwall.

Hosts: please shift to Pedants' Corner

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Hosts: please shift to Pedants' Corner

There's no such thread. Though being a pedant, I should add that there is a Pedants' Paradise.

[jean]

A true pedant couldn't have written that last sentence.

(HG just missed HS's joke, I think.)

[LeMartinPecheur]

HG just missed HS's joke, I think.

I thought so too. Hence post...
...even if spoiled somewhat through not checking the thread title, as EA points out

[Ariosto]

From someone in the know with contacts

It wasn't a transmission problem -- that was just a story put out by the producer. There was a major problem with the dialogue intelligibility through much of episode 1, and to a lesser degree with eps 2/3. But to be fair, it's more of an 'acting' issue than it is a sound mix issue.

Apparently, the original on-set sound recordist complained at the time that some of the dialogue was mumbled and totally inaudible/unintelligible, and many parts were apparently replaced with ADR in post-production, but the actor(s) concerned continued to mumble unintelligibly...

A major problem with this is that the screenplay writer, the director, the producer, the continuity person, all the production sycophants and all the actors, know the script intimately, so they 'hear' the words regardless of the sound actually captured. Most professional sound recordists deliberately avoid the script specifically so that they can judge reliably whether the captured audio is intelligible or not. In this case the sound recordist did highlight the problem on set, but was ignored...

The whole programme is very cinematic, which is lovely if everyone watches it in a cinema... but when a programme is intended for domestic viewing, and the majority of the audience listen in stereo and watch on non-HD sets, some important compromises have to be met.

A lot of people have complained about the images being too dark. It actually looked pretty good on an HD set -- very moody and dramatic, as was the intention -- but HD sets have a completely different gamma curve than SD sets and so reveal far more detail in the blacks. The majority of the UK audience still watch on SD sets, and hence the complaints about dark murky pictures.

And then we have the critical sound compromises: dynamic range and surround mixing. The HD broadcast systems now support wide dynamic range and surround audio... but the vast majority of domestic viewers don't have an environment or the equipment suitable for either.

With all dialogue in the centre channel, the spatial unmasking that is inherent in a surround system renders the dialogue far more easily audible than is the case when that channel is down-mixed into stereo, where it fights in the same small space for audibility against the music and effects. The situation is made even worse if the dialogue track is very dynamic, as the original was.

I wonder if the production team got a bit carried away with the Holywood syndrome, watching the programme come together in a dark room, with a huge image on screen, and an impressively powerful cinematic surround sound system -- rather than recognising the compromises required for a TV programme. I've seen that happen countless times with inexperienced production teams. The re-recording mixer for this programme is very experienced and has done many TV series in the past, although it looks like he works more on cinematic material, but perhaps he didn't offer the appropriate wise counsel to help guide the team to produce a workable sound track for typical home viewing environments...

Episode 2 was noticeably better from a dialogue dynamic range point of view (smaller dynamic range and louder overall), and there was also noticeably more presence and HF on the dialogue track, which helped a lot too. I believe there was some hurried remixing following the first night's complaints -- the BBC's policy is apparently to insist the production company rectify problems at their own expense if they receive significant complaints.

But thank heavens for subtitles! We were rolling about here when whole lines of completely unintelligible dialogue were revealed only by the subtitles.

I'm shocked that this show made it through shooting, tracklaying, ADR, post, and tech reviews with no one apparently recognising and resolving this very obvious and serious problem... Especially when I know for a fact that the mumbling issues were highlighted on set at the time. I'm also appalled that the BBC has been so quick to blame 'technical' and 'sound' problems when it is self-evidently bad acting and bad direction which lies at the core of these complaints.

Can't say who wrote this. It wasn't me!

P.S. ADR is post produnction lip sync as we used to know it.

[David-G]

Thank you Ariosto. That is really interesting and informative.

[Ferretfancy]

Thank you Ariosto. That is really interesting and informative.

May I add a few comments on Ariosto's excellent appraisal, based on my own mixing experience ? Admittedly, I retired from the BBC back in the analogue days, but fundamental principles remain the same. I listen to TV sound at home through a high grade system rather than through the inadequate speakers which are found in most modern flat screen sets. This can sometimes be a very uncomfortable experience. A current example will serve. Lucy Worsley is presenting a series on the Georgian kings which has really subfusc sound when heard on good equipment. Her voice over varies in level and quality from section to section, and when speaking to camera she always has a harsh sound, almost in distortion. Oddly, the sound quality on some of the people she interviews isn't too bad.

Why is this, and why does it go unnoticed before transmission? Well, I would put part of the blame on the fact that most mixing now takes place in outside facilities chosen by the independent production companies who make the programme, and the critical sense of some directors and editors can be surprisingly poor where sound is concerned. A good mixer needs to be able to withstand the pressure from those who always have their eye on the clock,But there is always a tendency to cut corners if schedules are tight and false savings are asked for.

The second reason is that the old production departments, such as music and arts, drama etc. now function mainly in a commissioning role. Somebody pitches an idea and develops a script, and after the go ahead there is little or no supervision of the production, particularly from a technical point of few. Under the old BBC system, which was certainly a bit bureaucratic, if a director had a problem there was always a more experienced person nearby to offer advice. Moreover there was a high degree of equipment standardisation. Who knows what mixing facilities are like elsewhere?

I used to think that I was merely feeling nostalgia for the past when I came across shoddy production standards, but there really is something seriously wrong, and it would seem no real determination to put things right

[Ariosto]

May I add a few comments on Ariosto's excellent appraisal, based on my own mixing experience ? Admittedly, I retired from the BBC back in the analogue days, but fundamental principles remain the same. I listen to TV sound at home through a high grade system rather than through the inadequate speakers which are found in most modern flat screen sets. This can sometimes be a very uncomfortable experience. A current example will serve. Lucy Worsley is presenting a series on the Georgian kings which has really subfusc sound when heard on good equipment. Her voice over varies in level and quality from section to section, and when speaking to camera she always has a harsh sound, almost in distortion. Oddly, the sound quality on some of the people she interviews isn't too bad.

Why is this, and why does it go unnoticed before transmission? Well, I would put part of the blame on the fact that most mixing now takes place in outside facilities chosen by the independent production companies who make the programme, and the critical sense of some directors and editors can be surprisingly poor where sound is concerned. A good mixer needs to be able to withstand the pressure from those who always have their eye on the clock,But there is always a tendency to cut corners if schedules are tight and false savings are asked for.

The second reason is that the old production departments, such as music and arts, drama etc. now function mainly in a commissioning role. Somebody pitches an idea and develops a script, and after the go ahead there is little or no supervision of the production, particularly from a technical point of few. Under the old BBC system, which was certainly a bit bureaucratic, if a director had a problem there was always a more experienced person nearby to offer advice. Moreover there was a high degree of equipment standardisation. Who knows what mixing facilities are like elsewhere?

I used to think that I was merely feeling nostalgia for the past when I came across shoddy production standards, but there really is something seriously wrong, and it would seem no real determination to put things right

Yes, this all makes sense. (By the way, the last post by me was a copy of something written by someone else. A person in the know). I've underlined the bit from Ferret's post which is most pertinent.

I would say that this lack of concern for the sound is not new, but of course it is much worse in the last few years.

Back in about 1996 I did some serious (amateur) video work, drama and documentaries. Much of this was as sound man, editor, script writer and director. The usual Joe Bloggs stuff - jack of all trades, but master of none. I did the sound on a mates drama (he was an ex-proffesional actor) - and on some of the exterior scenes I compalined that i was not getting particularly good sound. He brushed it off as directotrs often do, saying that we could ficx it in post production. Of course it never happened and the sound was at times a bit crap.

So it's nothing new, but being a sound person (very unsound I hear you say) - I put a lot of emphasis on the acting and the clarity of sound when I directed my own production. (Unlike one of my editors who, although having a daughter who was a professional actor, wanted the takes with the best colour balance, and not the best acting or soumd. As director I of course had the last say. (Don't say as a last say, then, I should have been a conductor as that would be mostly an unmusical job ...)

I remember working with Ken Russel at Ealing Studios on the Elgar film where we palyed a duet. KR was great, but after many takes he was happy with the last one. Unfortunately we said, oh no, that was rubbish from us. So we did some more and found a good take from his and our satisfaction. But that was back in about 1962.

[ardcarp]

It wasn't a transmission problem -- that was just a story put out by the producer. There was a major problem with the dialogue intelligibility through much of episode 1, and to a lesser degree with eps 2/3. But to be fair, it's more of an 'acting' issue than it is a sound mix issue.

....as I suggested back in post #28.