Tuesday 15 March 2011, 00:00
One of the most common complaints to BBC television in recent years has been that some people find it hard to hear the dialogue in our shows.
They cite many reasons for this, the most common among them being background music being too loud.
As a result of these complaints in 2009, Jay Hunt (my predecessor as controller of BBC One) launched an extensive study into why people were experiencing these difficulties.
BBC Vision's Audibility project was a huge undertaking. It involved using our 20,000-strong panel of TV viewers across the age, geographical and social demographic and a good deal of technical experimentation.
This included an engineering analysis of programmes, remixing soundtracks on clips and much more.
We also worked with the Voice Of The Listener And Viewer, Channel 4 and the Royal National Institute For Deaf People to find out once and for all what it is that can make it hard for viewers to hear the dialogue in our programmes properly.
The results were surprising. It turns out that audibility is not just about background music, as many had thought.
In fact issues range from clarity of speech - namely mumbling, muttering and muffled voices - to unfamiliar accents. Background noise such as traffic was also an issue.
However what we discovered was that it was a combination of factors could really create problems - for example a mumbling actor, recorded in a noisy environment with added music.
What struck me is that many of the problems could be resolved long before a single frame is shot if more emphasis was placed on planning for clear sound.
For example, has the director chosen the right location and what are the implications for getting good sound? Has the person looking after sound had training and the right level of experience? Are the presenters briefed to recap if they feel key messages are not clear?
If a contributor may be difficult to understand, can they be in vision as much as possible so viewers can see their lips move?
In testing, when we remixed sound tracks on video clips; with the music taken down a notch the results were fascinating.
Reducing the music by just one point, four decibels, when the programme is finally mixed allowed many more people to understand what was being said without compromising the editorial vision.
This was particularly true for people who had any form of hearing loss.
One invaluable piece of information I've learned along the way is that age-related hearing loss can begin as early as in our 40s. Many of us are completely unaware that our hearing could be deteriorating and think the issue is with TV programmes.
But for me, this is something we need to be aware of - particularly those making programmes for mainstream channels like BBC One.
The result of this research is that we now have a 'best practice' guide for programme makers available on the BBC Academy's College of Production website.
This gives clear guidance on the small things that programme makers can do to make a big difference to the audience's ability to hear and therefore enjoy our programmes to the fullest possible extent.
My thanks to all our partners involved in this project. It has been a fascinating and very useful study.
Danny Cohen is controller of BBC One.
Further guidance has now been published on the BBC's Editorial Guidelines website.
All posts are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules.
Friday 11 March 2011, 12:50
Friday 18 March 2011, 14:30
Get the views of cast, presenters, scriptwriters and crew from inside the shows. Read reviews and opinions and share yours on all things TV - your favourite episodes, live programmes, the schedule and everything else.
Comments on the blog must follow the House Rules.
Stay updated with the latest posts from the blog.
Subscribe using:
"A hope that one day you’ll just slide through time"
Philippa Gregory on translating history into novels and television
BBC One | BBC Two | BBC Three | BBC Four | Actors | Actresses | Arts & Culture | Comedy | Current Affairs | Directors | Documentary | Drama | Food | Health | History | Music | Nature | Science | Sport | Presenters | Producers | Writers | More tags...
Comment number 1.
warmuptheplanetplease15th March 2011 - 1:15
At Long last someone has tackled the issue. This has long been a thorn in my side. The background music has been ratcheted up over the years. I notice every day on Radio 5 the lack of measured speaking....so much crosstalk goes on nowadays that we the listeners are simply left struggling to get a clear picture.
Another major gripe is the way these film editors at the beeb simply think that faster is better. They put faster faster and faster image changing into the productions these days - its like these guys (and I guess they must be young, just out of TV school) are on drugs the way they treat film productions these days. Its become a series of flashing images, a kaleidoscope of images that go faster and faster. I cant follow it these days and just switch off when I see it. I just know that some inexperienced kid is behind the editing. Study some of the great film makers (maybe its the directors and not the editors) and see how they use long slow film takes...its a joy. Theres a lot wrong with editors in my view...they are screwing up the population and viewers at large.
Link to this (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
Piggyback15th March 2011 - 1:24
Background music should be almost on the subliminal level - that is, noticeable only if you make an effort to hear it. It should also only be used in transitions - so if the presenter/voiceover is speaking about a topic, ideally no music should be used, as full attention can then be paid to what they say; and then when it changes to a new piece the music would start.
Link to this (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
Robert Merrick15th March 2011 - 1:38
I agree with both comments. Brian Cox's otherwise fascinating programmes are ruined by crash bang music (music?) and quickfire images that attack the eyes and look like they've been filmed by cameramen with delerium tremens. And oh, that cliché of speeded up clouds racing across our screens - every science and nature programme can't live without them; time for that photographic trick to go for good (along with presenters talking to us while driving their cars). If this is the work of editors just out of TV school and all they can come up with, I suggest they go back and complete the course!
Link to this (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
Alex15th March 2011 - 1:45
I'm in my mid 30s and don't suffer from hearing loss. However I have noticed a trend for background music becoming louder and louder in recent times, and I must admit that at times it can be hard to hear the presenter's speech. Music adds greatly to the general atmosphere of a programme, but if it's so loud that it prevents a message from being clearly put across, then it's by definition too loud. Professor Brian Cox, presenter of "Wonders of the Universe" thinks the BBC is wrong to give to much weight to the minority of people who complain. It's worth remembering that the VAST majority of people who experience difficulty in hearing something that is said because of background music, do not complain. Instead they suffer in silence or they ask someone else what was said.
The frustrating thing is that there need not be compromise made on the part of the programme makers. Nearly all televisions these days receive stereo sound, and it would not be difficult to put music on one channel and speech and general sounds on the other - thereby enabling viewers to control their own background music mix with the balance control. With digital technology in place nearly everywhere these days, it would even be possible to preserve the stereo music and control speech volume independently. DVD players have been able to do this for many years.
While we're at it - I'd like to see digital technology used to remove the need for a sign-language translator to obliterate the screen for those of us without a hearing impairment. Surely the signer could be switched on and off just as easily as subtitles, and the position of the overlay adjusted for those of us with widescreen televisions. Then signed programmes could be broadcast all day while keeping everyone happy.
Link to this (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
Mwbar115th March 2011 - 1:50
Well for me I would just like directors/editors/producers (whoever decides the shots on Six Nations Rugby games) to understand the game rather than cinematography. Too often this year we have been looking at players boots whilst lineouts are taken and looking at a wideangle shot of the whole stadium whilst a scrum is going on. AAArghhhhh!
Link to this (Comment number 5)
Comments 5 of 321