DOCSLIB.ORG

Msc Audio Production Third Year MSC Thesis School of Computing, Science and Engineering Level Ducking Practice to Produce Aesthe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Msc Audio Production Third Year MSC Thesis School of Computing, Science and Engineering Level Ducking Practice to Produce Aesthe Alex Freke-Morin MSc Audio Production Third Year MSC Thesis School of Computing, Science and Engineering Level Ducking Practice to Produce Aesthetically Pleasing Audio for Television with Clear Dialogue Author: Alex Freke-Morin Supervisor: Dr Ben Shirley and Matteo Torcoli 2018 1 Alex Freke-Morin Contents 1: Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2: Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 4 3: Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2: Outline ....................................................................................................................................... 4 4: Literature Review ............................................................................................................................. 5 4.1: Loudness, EBU R-128 and ITU BS.1770...................................................................................... 5 4.2: Speech Intelligibility ................................................................................................................... 6 4.2.2: Informational Masking ........................................................................................................ 6 4.2.3: Native and Non-Native Listeners ........................................................................................ 6 4.2.4: Dialogue Level Control ........................................................................................................ 7 4.2.5: TV Mix Preferences ............................................................................................................. 7 4.2.6: Level Difference Effect on Intelligibility .............................................................................. 8 4.3: Audio Broadcast Standards Comparison Chart ......................................................................... 9 5: Existing Mixing Practices ................................................................................................................ 10 5.2: Documentary Classes............................................................................................................... 10 5.2.2: Sampling Method .............................................................................................................. 11 5.3: Loudness Differences Analysis ................................................................................................. 14 5.3.2: Foreground to Background Level Difference .................................................................... 14 5.3.3: Background Before Duck by Ducking Depth ..................................................................... 15 5.3.4: Integrated Ducking Loudness Vs Foreground Loudness ................................................... 18 5.4: Time Constants ........................................................................................................................ 20 5.4.2: Commentary over Music Ducking Envelope ..................................................................... 20 5.4.3: Attack Time Vs Release Time ............................................................................................ 21 5.4.4: Attack and Release Time Modes ....................................................................................... 21 5.4.5: Music Envelope Approaches Rationale ............................................................................ 22 5.4.6: Hold and Ducking Threshold ............................................................................................. 23 5.4.7: Mid Scene Ducking Rationale ........................................................................................... 25 5.5: Median Ducking Behaviour ..................................................................................................... 26 5.6: Existing Common Practices Summary ..................................................................................... 30 6: Proposed Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 33 6.2: Time Constants ........................................................................................................................ 33 7: Experiment Method ....................................................................................................................... 34 2 Alex Freke-Morin 7.2: Experiment Content ................................................................................................................ 34 7.3: Test Method ............................................................................................................................ 34 8: Results ............................................................................................................................................ 37 9: Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 43 9.2: Participant Variety ................................................................................................................... 43 9.3: Mix Tolerance .......................................................................................................................... 43 9.4: Level Difference ....................................................................................................................... 43 9.5: Comparison with Existing Standards and Practice .................................................................. 44 9.6: Influential Variables ................................................................................................................. 44 10: Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 46 11: Future Works ................................................................................................................................ 47 12: References .................................................................................................................................... 48 13: Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 51 13.2: Appendix A: Full State of the Art European Broadcast Specifications .................................. 51 13.3: Appendix B: Momentary loudness VS Integrated Loudness ................................................. 54 13.4: Appendix C: Test Instructions ................................................................................................ 55 13.5: Appendix D: Project Plan ....................................................................................................... 57 1: Abstract In audio production, level ducking is the practice of attenuating the level of the bed (or background) signal when speech is present. This is done in order to ensure full speech intelligibility, while keeping the rest of the content (e.g. background music) enjoyable. Being an art in itself, level ducking is loosely defined by mixing handbooks and broadcaster recommendations. Often the only given suggestion is that speech must be "comprehensible and clear". This work sheds some light on level ducking by investigating detailed technical attributes, such as ducking depth (i.e. the loudness difference between speech and bed) as well as temporal characteristics. The first part of the work analyses TV documentaries broadcast in the UK, France, and Germany. An overview of the found common practices is given. In the second part, the results of a subjective test are presented, where 20 normal-hearing listeners rate the same pieces of content mixed with different ducking depths. Results show high variance across listeners, but low within them, confirming the importance of the personalisation offered by object-based audio (e.g. MPEG-H Audio) also for level ducking. Non-expert and expert listeners preferred different ducking depths with statistical significance. On average, non-expert listeners preferred 13 LU, while expert listeners preferred 10 LU. 3 Alex Freke-Morin 2: Acknowledgements With great thanks to: Ben Shirley, Christian Simon, Harald Fuchs, Matteo Torcoli, Mary Hatalski, and Jouni Paulus for their valuable assistance and input. Special thanks to all participants who took part in the experiment and in testing. 3: Introduction One of the most common complaints television viewers give to broadcasters are ultimately about level difference, most commonly that the background (also known as bed, comprising e.g. music and effects) drowns out the foreground which is normally comprised of speech (Armstrong, 2016). This is a complex issue, but it is perpetuated by the complete lack of consistency among broadcasters and within most broadcasters too. Level ducking is a common procedure where the background level is reduced to give way to the foreground level, increasing the foreground to background level difference. None of the broadcasters analysed in this thesis have any standard or recommendation for level difference or level ducking. This thesis sheds some light on what broadcasters are currently doing and which ducking parameters should be used as a benchmark. With a common standard, mixers would be working
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The End of the Loudness War?
    The End Of The Loudness War? By Hugh Robjohns As the nails are being hammered firmly into the coffin of competitive loudness processing, we consider the implications for those who make, mix and master music. In a surprising announcement made at last Autumn's AES convention in New York, the well-known American mastering engineer Bob Katz declared in a press release that "The loudness wars are over.” That's quite a provocative statement — but while the reality is probably not quite as straightforward as Katz would have us believe (especially outside the USA), there are good grounds to think he may be proved right over the next few years. In essence, the idea is that if all music is played back at the same perceived volume, there's no longer an incentive for mix or mastering engineers to compete in these 'loudness wars'. Katz's declaration of victory is rooted in the recent adoption by the audio and broadcast industries of a new standard measure of loudness and, more recently still, the inclusion of automatic loudness-normalisation facilities in both broadcast and consumer playback systems. In this article, I'll explain what the new standards entail, and explore what the practical implications of all this will be for the way artists, mixing and mastering engineers — from bedroom producers publishing their tracks online to full-time music-industry and broadcast professionals — create and shape music in the years to come. Some new technologies are involved and some new terminology too, so I'll also explore those elements, as well as suggesting ways of moving forward in the brave new world of loudness normalisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunday Edition
    day three edition | map and exhibitor listings begin on page 20 day3 From the editors of Pro Sound News & Pro Audio Review sunday edition the AES SERVING THE 131STDA AES CONVENTION • october 20-23, I 2011 jacob k. LY javits convention center new york, ny Analog AES State Tools Still Of Mind By Clive Young While the AES Convention has always attracted audio professionals from Rule On around the country—and increasingly, the world—when the show lands in New York City, it naturally draws more visi- The Floor tors from the East Coast. That, in turn, By Strother Bullins is a benefit for both exhibitors looking Though “in the box” (ITB), fully to reach specific markets that call the digital audio production is increas- Big Apple home, and regional audio ingly the rule rather than the excep- pros who want to take advantage of the tion, the creative professionals show’s proximity. The end result is a attending the Convention are clearly win-win situation for everyone involved. seeking out analog hardware, built Back by popular demand, yesterday the P&E Wing presented a “AES is a good way for us to meet to (and, in many cases, beyond) the second iteration of “Sonic Imprints: Songs That Changed My Life” different types of dealers and custom- now-classic standards of the 1960s, that explored the sounds that have inspired and shaped careers of ers that we don’t normally meet, as we ‘70s and ‘80s, as these types of prod- influencers in the field. The event featured a diverse, New York- have five different product lines and ucts largely populate our exhibition centric, group of panelists including producers/engineers (from left): five different customer groups, so it’s a floor.
    [Show full text]
  • Audio Signal Visualisation and Measurement
    Proceedings ICMC|SMC|2014 14-20 September 2014, Athens, Greece Audio Signal Visualisation and Measurement Robin Gareus Chris Goddard Universite´ Paris 8, linuxaudio.org Freelance audio engineer [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT • At the mastering stage, meters are used to check compliance with upstream level and loudness stan- The authors offer an introductory walk-through of profes- dards, and to optimise the dynamic range for a given sional audio signal measurement and visualisation using medium. free software. Many users of audio software at some time face prob- Similarly for technical engineers, reliable measurement lems that requires reliable measurement. The presentation tools are indispensable for the quality assurance of audio- focuses on the SiSco.lv2 (Simple Audio Signal Oscillo- effects or any professional audio-equipment. scope) and the Meters.lv2 (Audio Level Meters) LV2 plug- ins, which have been developed open-source since August 2. METER TYPES AND STANDARDS 2013. The plugin bundle is a super-set, built upon exist- ing tools adding novel GUIs (e.g ebur128, jmeters,..), and For historical and commercial reasons various measure- features new meter-types and visualisations unprecedented ment standards exist. They fall into three basic categories: on GNU/Linux (e.g. true-peak, phase-wheel,..). Various • Focus on medium: highlight digital number, or ana- meter-types are demonstrated and the motivation for using logue level constraints. them explained. The accompanying documentation provides an overview • Focus on message: provide a general indication of of instrumentation tools and measurement standards in gen- loudness as perceived by humans. eral, emphasising the requirement to provide a reliable and • standardised way to measure signals.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Loudness Penalty
    How To kick into overdrive back then, and by the end of the decade was soon a regular topic of discussion in online mastering forums. There was so much interest in the topic that in 2010 I decided to set up Dynamic Range Day — an online event to further raise awareness of the issue. People loved it, and it got a lot of support from engineers like Bob Ludwig, Steve Lillywhite and Guy Massey plus manufacturers such as SSL, TC Electronic, Bowers & Wilkins and NAD. But it didn’t work. Like the TurnMeUp initiative before it, the event was mostly preaching to the choir, while other engineers felt either unfairly criticised for honing their skills to achieve “loud but good” results, or trapped by their clients’ constant demands to be louder than the next act. The Loudness Unit At the same time though, the world of loudness was changing in three important ways. Firstly, the tireless efforts of Florian Camerer, Thomas Lund, Eelco Grimm and many others helped achieve the official adoption of the Loudness Unit (LU, or LUFS). Loudness standards for TV and radio broadcast were quick to follow, since sudden changes in loudness are the main Understanding the source of complaints from listeners and users. Secondly, online streaming began to gain significant traction. I wrote back in 2009 about Spotify’s decision to include loudness Loudness Penalty normalisation from the beginning, and sometime in 2014 YouTube followed suit, with TIDAL and Deezer soon afterwards. And How to make your mix sound good on Spotify — crucially, people noticed. This is the third IAN SHEPHERD explains the loudness disarmament process important change I mentioned — people were paying attention.
    [Show full text]
  • Column by Renzo Van Riemsdijk (Masterenzo): Dynamics!
    Column by Renzo van Riemsdijk (Masterenzo): Dynamics! Dynamics are a strange thing. When we look at the sixties and seventies our view on dynamics nowadays has changed dramatically. Our hearing has become used to listening to compressed music. This is a process that gradually evolved over the years. By the end of the nineties the loudness war added an extra dimension to our hearing experience by introducing a phenomenon called hypercompression. Because of this dreadful war music was mastered at continuously higher levels and contained less and less dynamics. Imagine being in a closed room that’s slowly filled with water. The ceiling is getting closer and your sense of space is reduced greatly. By the turn of the century and the following years the dynamic range (difference between the loudest and softest passages) was reduced greatly. Have a listen to the Metallica album ‘Death Magnetic’, released in 2008. Listen to a vinyl record coming from the seventies after the Metallica album. You can also listen to these albums on Spotify but you have to make sure that loudness normalization is turned off (advanced settings: something like ‘equal playback volume for every track’). You’ll probably notice a couple of differences in sound between the two albums. The first thing you’ll notice is a huge difference in volume, followed by differences in energy, impact and placement of vocals and instruments. Pay attention to the space every instrument has and in particular the snare drum. Limiting, a technique used by mastering engineers to make tracks louder, can cause a change in the impact a song has.
    [Show full text]
  • A Demonstration Studio for Sound Recording and Reproduction and for Sound Film Projection
    196 PHILIPS TECHNICAL REVIEW VOL. 10, No. 7 A DEMONSTRATION STUDIO FOR SOUND RECORDING AND REPRODUCTION AND FOR SOUND FILM PROJECTION by the ELECTRO-ACOUSTICS DEPARTMENT. 725.81 At the commencement of 1948 a new demonstration studio was placed at the disposal of the Electro-Acoustics Department of the Philips Factories at Eindhoven. Known as the ELA Studio, it is equipped for demonstrations of various types of programme sources, amplifiers, loudspeakers and film projection equipment, as well as for sound recording by different systems. The acoustic properties of the studio are such that the reverberation time at the higher frequencies (0.9 sec at 2000 els) is only slightly less than at the lower frequencies (1.3 sec at 100 cis), this having a very beneficial effect on the high note response. An elaborate relay system permits of any combination of a sound source (microphone, "Philimil" tape, magnetic tape, or radio receiver), an amplifier, and one or more loud- speakers: From the control desk one or several programmes can he passed to different recording equipment, viz. the Philips-Miller, the magnetic or the photographic equipment, or the gramophone recording unit. Arranged round the studio itself are a microphone room, "speech studio", projection, control and recording rooms.. For the effective demonstration of electro- Architecture acoustic equipment such as microphones, pick-ups, In the design of the studio the scope of the amplifiers, loudspeakers and so on, a hall posses- architect was in many respects limited. He was sing certain acoustic properties - amongst others obliged to take into account the special conditions those relating to reverberation time and sound to be met in the matter of acoustics (see later para- insulation - is indispensable.
    [Show full text]
  • Bachelor Thesis
    BACHELOR THESIS Perceived Sound Quality of Dynamic Range Reduced and Loudness Normalized Popular Music Jakob Lalér Bachelor of Arts Audio Engineering Luleå University of Technology Department of Business, Administration, Technology and Social Sciences Perceived sound quality of dynamic range reduced and loudness normalized popular music Lalér Jakob Lalér Jakob 1 S0038F ABSTRACT The lack of a standardized method for controlling perceived loudness within the music industry has been a contributory cause to the level increases that emerged in popular music at the beginning of the 1990s. As a consequence, discussions about what constitutes sound quality have been raised. This paper investigates to what extent dynamic range reduction affects perceived sound quality of popular music when loudness normalized in accordance with ITU-R BS. 1770-2. The results show that perceived sound quality was not affected by as much as -9 dB of average gain reduction. Lalér Jakob 2 S0038F TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................4 Aim, Objectives and Limitations............................................................................................................4 Background..........................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Versusloudnesswar.Pdf
    oo music just cannot survive even 1 dB of additional dynamic, a difference in volume between two tracks, compression. The first time I really heard the damage will make the softer one sounding less powerful... but was on the ASIA “Anthology” CD. I own all original once you level out the soft and loud tracks, you’ll hear CD’s and just thought it was something wrong with that there is “life” in the “unfucked” track that makes my CD walk man, or my stereo, later on I understood for a lot more pleasurable listening! what had been done. I still cannot hear that one, and have ripped the original CD’s and the difference is Ok, I have a band and one of the first things that huge on such bombastic music where every hertz is I said when we’re recording was: “No compression, packed at all times :) What we play is what we’ll hear” (Of course, no la- bel involved whatsoever). How do you feel when I think that music can have many definitions and bands or labels ask you to do something that you characteristics. Perhaps the best term that is ap- know will end up in a big pile of sh!t? Have you ever plied to our interview is “dynamic”. Taking a point refuse to record/produce/mix a band? of comparison, classical music should be the pur- Compression is a must. Not while recording, but for est and most beautiful form of making and playing making a kick ass mix you need compression.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Music Becoming Louder, More Repetitive, Monotonous and Simpler?
    Proceedings of the Fourteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2020) “Musicalization of the Culture”: Is Music Becoming Louder, More Repetitive, Monotonous and Simpler? Yukun Yang School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill [email protected] Abstract ca” in his language milieu, becoming a “universal dialect” “Musicalization of the culture” is the social science concept that no one can escape from immersing in “constant throb”, proposed by American philosopher George Stainer. He de- “unending beats” and “all-pervasive pulsation” (Steiner, picted the glooming future of music—it would become om- 1971). The form of this auditory culture can be ascribed to nipresent while having increasing volume, repetitiveness, the loss of common aesthetic ground and shared cultural and monotony, which are ascribed to the debase of literal aesthetics. Although research that relates to one or some of criteria, also the adulteration of the linguistic nature of pre- these predictions exists, neither of them encompass all these viously private communication activities (Steiner, 1971). “musicalization” manifestations, nor do they study the trend Broadly speaking, “musicalization of the culture” focuses of these predictions over time. Therefore, this preliminary on these manifestations of music proliferation, namely the research tries to validate whether music has gained acoustic increasing volume, repetitiveness, and monotony of music. loudness, and lyrical repetitiveness, monotony, and sim- plicity in a computational fashion. Conducting time-series On top of that, it also comments on the degrading of words analysis with trend detection, we confirmed the increasing as the culprit, which we understood as the text of music trends of acoustic loudness and repetitiveness but not mo- being simpler and unnuanced.
    [Show full text]
  • Peak Programme Meters
    Peak Programme Meters Audio signals in nature can cover an extremely wide dynamic range extending from, at the quietest level, below the threshold of hearing to, at the loudest level, greatly in excess of the threshold of pain! Broadcasters of course do not attempt to emulate this dynamic range, and for entirely practical reasons a very much reduced dynamic level variation must be transmitted. The Listener, or Viewer, will adjust the volume setting in their own home environment so that the Programme is clearly audible above the domestic background noise which will vary from location to location. Invariably Broadcasters restrict the dynamic level range of the transmitted Programme in order to increase the "impact" of the programme audio over this domestic ambience. The dynamic range is restricted by a combination of close- microphone and electronic compression using "dynamic limiters", and in essence, these techniques make the programme's audio sound louder than it would otherwise be. This compression is usually gross on Pop Music channels where the dynamic range is severely limited and often pretty obvious on Commercials too. Measuring audio levels, in a programme production environment, is more complicated than appears at first glance. Programme Audio is subject to the following:- 1) Wide, though restricted, dynamic range. 2) Wide, though restricted, frequency response. 3) Short duration transients 4) Positive and negative signal excursions are often different by many dB. 5) The degree of audio compression will affect measurements. 6) Stereo Phase considerations. 7) The metering must be clear and unambigous. 8).....and other more subtle effects. The characteristics of the measuring device itself totally weight the achieved measurement.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of All-Pass Filters Application to Eliminate Negative Effects of Loudness War Trend
    8 IAPGOŚ 2/2020 p-ISSN 2083-0157, e-ISSN 2391-6761 http://doi.org/10.35784/iapgos.568 ANALYSIS OF ALL-PASS FILTERS APPLICATION TO ELIMINATE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF LOUDNESS WAR TREND Wojciech Surtel, Marcin Maciejewski, Krzysztof Mateusz Nowak Lublin University of Technology, Department of Electronics and Information Technologies, Lublin, Poland Abstract. In this paper the influence of all-pass filters on musical material with applied hypercompression dynamics (loudness war trend) was analyzed. These filters are characterized by shifting phase in selected frequency band of signal, not by change of their amplitude levels. Because a lot of music information is present in music tracks, the dynamic range was tested together with influence of other sound parameters like selectivity or instruments’ arrangement on scene, by running subjective tests on a group of respondents. Keywords: all-pass filters, digital filters, loudness war, dynamics compression ANALIZA ZASTOSOWANIA FILTRÓW WSZECHPRZEPUSTOWYCH DO ELIMINACJI NEGATYWNYCH SKUTKÓW TENDENCJI LOUDNESS WAR Streszczenie. W artykule przeanalizowana wpływ filtrów wszechprzepustowych na materiał muzyczny z zastosowaną hiperkompresją sygnału (tendencją loudness war). Filtry tego typu, charakteryzują się przesunięciem w fazie składowych częstotliwościowych, sygnału, a nie zmianą poziomu ich amplitudy. Ze względu na dużą ilość informacji w utworach muzycznych, prócz sprawdzenia zakresu dynamiki poprzez testy obiektywne, zbadano również wpływ na inne parametry dźwięku takie jak selektywność czy rozłożenie instrumentów na scenie, poprzez testy subiektywne na grupie respondentów. Słowa kluczowe: filtry wszechprzepustowe, filtry cyfrowe, loudness war, kompresja dynamiki Introduction The concept of progressing loudness war is closely related to the dynamic compression . In the 1960s it was noticed that louder songs played by a radio stations generate better sales results.
    [Show full text]
  • Audio Signal Processing
    Audio signal processing effects equalizer compressor, limiter noise gates flanger chorus phaser leslie pitch-shift - time scaling time reversal signal restoration Acoustics II: clicks tape speed variations hum noise audio signal processing examples back Kurt Heutschi 2013-01-18 Audio signal processing effects equalizer compressor, limiter noise gates flanger chorus phaser leslie pitch-shift - time scaling time reversal signal restoration effects clicks tape speed variations hum noise examples back Audio signal processing effects: introduction effects equalizer compressor, limiter noise gates flanger chorus phaser leslie pitch-shift - time scaling I effects: alteration of the original sound such as: time reversal I adjustment of the frequency response signal restoration clicks I reduction of the audibility of unwanted signal tape speed variations hum components noise examples I .... back I creation of new sounds Audio signal processing effects equalizer compressor, limiter noise gates flanger chorus phaser leslie pitch-shift - time scaling time reversal signal restoration equalizer clicks tape speed variations hum noise examples back Audio signal processing equalizer: function effects equalizer compressor, limiter noise gates flanger I function: chorus phaser I manipulation of the amplitude response of a sound leslie pitch-shift - time scaling or a transmission system time reversal I applications: signal restoration clicks I flatten a non-ideal frequency response of a tape speed variations hum loudspeaker noise examples I loudness filtering back I attenuation
    [Show full text]