We also seem to have fractured our physical audio delivery systems into four distinctly different genres, all served by the same HD digital audio feed embedded in our productions.
Alert readers may recall that for the past year I’ve been devoting most of this column to the CALM Act and the related issue of audio levels and loudness in broadcast television audio.
I don’t know how many TV Technology readers know of Neil Muncy. However, it is highly improbable that any of us haven’t heard his work.
You may recall that we’ve been grappling with the measurement of audio loudness and the implications of the ITU’s B.S. 1770-1 standard for the measurement of loudness, in support of the CALM Act.
“I’m a TV engineer from the old school, so of course I never read articles about audio. The CALM Act changes that, of course.”
The protocol is for modifying the television audio signal to measure its magnitude in a way that more closely agrees with humans' subjective sense of loudness
My measurements sought to examine the question of variance of audio levels between channels and how this variance has changed (or not) over time.
The first thing to keep in mind is that we are talking about a pair of signals here, not a single mono signal.
You may recall I've been ranting about variance in loudness levels on broadcast television for numerous years.
As we've discussed, low frequencies don't do well coming out of small loudspeakers into smallish rooms.
Stable, consistent and predictable bass is one of the hardest things to obtain in a monitoring situation.
There are issues of dynamic range, maximum and minimum levels, subjective loudness qualities, spectrum and much more.
It seems appropriate to me that we go a little further with the discussion, simply to clarify what seems to be meant and desired in practice by A/85 and its authors.
The latest product and technology information
Future US's leading brands bring the most important, up-to-date information right to your inbox