BBC Reply to complaint about limiting on Prom 1 sound

[johnb]

I thought the BBC's reply to my complaint about the severe limiting to the sound for Prom 1:

Thanks for contacting us regarding our ‘BBC Proms’ coverage from 15 July on BBC Radio 3.

I understand you believed the volume settings during this day’s broadcast was capped at a certain level during the playing of the actual music.

Having listened back to the performances aired on 15 July I can find no such examples of any capping or “limiting” to the volume of the orchestra. Indeed, contrary to your concerns the music was at times, depending on the piece and the part being played, louder than that of the presenters when they were introducing the pieces.

I would, however, like to assure you that I've registered your complaint about your experience of listening to Radio 3 on this day on to our audience log. This is an internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff. This includes all programme makers and sound engineers, along with our senior management. It ensures that your points, along with all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards

Philip Boyce
BBC Complaints

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

Amazing!

[french frank]

I thought the BBC's reply to my complaint about the severe limiting to the sound for Prom 1:
Amazing!

Very few people ever have the determination to pursue BBC brush-offs. It can takes years before they defeat you

I wonder what equipment Mr Boyce used to check the sound quality.

[johnb]

Googling "Philip Boyce" and "BBC" reveals that he has a penchant for 'brush-off' replies. Of course, it is possible that there is no such person as Philip Boyce.

[Bryn]

Not merely a brush-off, but the height of disingenuousness. I wonder how they are responding to similar complaints that must surely have been addressed to them by the Havergal Brian Society re. Prom 4. It might be worth trying to get the issue to the desk of RW, who I am advised is quite a 'fan' of Havergal Brian's work. I can think of a couple of routes worth exploring.

[pmartel]

Ghad, that's as bad as the form letters we get in Canada from our pathetic CBC Radio 2.

By way speaking of Proms 1, I did record the livestream over here, but have yet to hear it, BUT I did notice a lowish audio on my computer speakers which have respectable sound.

On another note, hope this Boyce isn't a relative as just had a Boyce reunion over here and ODDLY, there is a Chris Boyce heading up CBC Radio here

[cavatina]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when was the last time you had a hearing test? (Isn't it possible that getting older has left you more "capped" than you used to be?) Perhaps the Great Mystery of the Missing Frequencies could be solved with a simple trip to your otologist.

It might be worth trying to get the issue to the desk of RW, who I am advised is quite a 'fan' of Havergal Brian's work.

Even if he agreed with you, what in the world would you expect him to do about it now? What could anybody do about it now? Besides, in what sense is it a "brush off" if Boyce took the time to listen to the broadcast, evaluate what you said, and flat-out, straight-up tell you that YOU'RE WRONG? No weaseling about there.

Obviously, nobody at the BBC has your exquisite, super-aesthete Des Esseintes-like sensitivities, so perhaps you need to get used to living in this hopelessly coarse world of ours, accept that radio isn't an ideal medium for audiophile purists, get a grip, and move on. Works for me!

[NHTL]

I think that you will find that johnb took meter readings of the output, which clearly show the limiting. Perhaps cavatina, you might want to suggest that the equipment needs a hearing test too. As far as I can see johnb has made many very sensible and knowledgeable contributions to these boards. If people do not speak up when things are definitely wrong, then the BBC will not bother to make changes and we will have to accept low quality audio from them.

[MrGongGong]

Surely the broadcast process involves some compression and/or limiting of output levels ?
Badly done this will introduce "pumping"
the alternative would be to set the maximum gain low so that the risk of overload / distortion is minimised but that would mean that most of the time things would sound far too quiet

I guess if you want the full dynamic range you need to be in the room !!

I did notice the other week when there was the same concert (I think it was part of the Light Music thing ?) was on R2 and R3 at the same time that the R2 output was at a much higher level and sounded (to my ears in a car so not a real reference situation !) compressed and punchy whereas the R3 signal was a bit weak.

[french frank]

If people do not speak up when things are definitely wrong, then the BBC will not bother to make changes and we will have to accept low quality audio from them.

It's more than that. It is - or should be - helpful in showing what listeners are able to distinguish and expect to hear.

Remember the days of the 160kbps saga when the BBC engineers described it as "almost indistinguishable" from 192kbps? There was a torrent of protest from listeners and the assumption there was that those engineers weren't regular classical music listeners and didn't know what they could be hearing. But at least they would have been using sensitive equipment and in the end the listeners 'won'. It is not clear that Mr Boyce did anything but listened normally and thought it sounded "all right".

[Bryn]

MrGG, the degree of limiting used for Proms 1 and 4 was far in excess of anything used in the other Proms broadcast so far. The compression was such that the peak level was limited to around 12dB below saturation and much of the audio signal reached that peak level whereas in the other Proms the peak levels were as high as but 1.2dB below saturation and a wide variation of peaks was in evidence. Just look at the graphics posted by johnb. It is obvious that heavy dynamic compression was applied.

As to cavatina's point, it is not a matter of frequencies but dynamics. Please read the discussion before posting. Oh, and there is always the possibility that an uncompressed file was saved from the mixing desk (such things do occur and I have heard the results in respect of a couple of broadcast concerts (no names or pack drill regarding how that came to be). If so in respect of The Gothic, that could form the basis of a future broadcast, something that RW might well consider appropriate in the circumstances.

[french frank]

Oh, and there is always the possibility that an uncompressed file was saved from the mixing desk (such things do occur and I have heard the results in respect of a couple of broadcast concerts (no names or pack drill regarding how that came to be). If so in respect of The Gothic, that could form the basis of a future broadcast, something that RW might well consider appropriate in the circumstances.

And that would be worth enquiring of RW, since it doesn't imply a criticism of the Complaints Officer . If such a file doesn't exist, at least it gets through a message about unacceptable sound quality; if it does exist, as you say, we might get a treat next time. Either way, nothing is lost by writing.

[cavatina]

I think that you will find that johnb took meter readings of the output, which clearly show the limiting.

Oh. I didn't realise meter readings off an individual radio could be in any sense considered authoritative. And anyway, "limiting" compared to what? The score? A studio-engineered CD? The TV broadcast? Other concerts broadcast from Royal Albert Hall? What kind of audiophile standard is an appropriate yardstick for radio broadcasts, and how can you be so certain whatever it is you think you're hearing isn't due to a substandard acoustic at Royal Albert Hall?

I guess if you want the full dynamic range you need to be in the room !!

And don't forget measuring "the sweet spot" to the nearest millimeter.

[cavatina]

MrGG, the degree of limiting used for Proms 1 and 4 was far in excess of anything used in the other Proms broadcast so far. The compression was such that the peak level was limited to around 12dB below saturation and much of the audio signal reached that peak level whereas in the other Proms the peak levels were as high as but 1.2dB below saturation and a wide variation of peaks was in evidence. Just look at the graphics posted by johnb. It is obvious that heavy dynamic compression was applied.

Might a better comparison be to other massive choral works recorded in RAH, instead of this year's Proms considered as a whole? And what about last night's Requiem; are you disgruntled about that too?

[Lee McLernon]

As I understand it, the Gothic was recorded for CD release.

[cavatina]

As I understand it, the Gothic was recorded for CD release.

In that case, I'd be willing to bet the engineers made their recording choices deliberately for damn good reasons. Perhaps it would be a wise idea for all the John Eargle wannabes to wait to hear the final product before launching a massive whingeing campaign about it.