Background music on tv show

[carpediem]

Hi,

Here's a question that I have never seen anywhere...

With age, we have more and more difficulties to separate the voice
from the background music on tv. It's probably in part due to age but
also to the new way to record a tv show as the situation is different
with an old film.

Considering than voice and music have not exactly the same properties,
would it be possible to use something like a frequency equalizer to
lower music intensity or increase voice.

Or any other suggestion would be appreciated.



Carpediem

[just me]

On 2008-10-19, carpediem > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a question that I have never seen anywhere...
>
> With age, we have more and more difficulties to separate the voice
> from the background music on tv. It's probably in part due to age but
> also to the new way to record a tv show as the situation is different
> with an old film.
>
> Considering than voice and music have not exactly the same properties,
> would it be possible to use something like a frequency equalizer to
> lower music intensity or increase voice.
>
> Or any other suggestion would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Carpediem
A lost cause. I think that the "directors/producers" want to show their
power by emphasising the "dramatic" moment by drowning out the voice/narrator
so that the consumer would not be able hear the voice; easily done in a
multimike environment.

Consider that the "directors/producers" also want to get more money for
the advert by overlaying the video with ads & thereby blocking portions of
the show & "degrading the 'artistic' intent" of the original product; usually
this is done by blocking the viewing of a point of interest as stated by
the narrator or actor.

It is quite probable that the "music" will become louder than voice in more
situations as digital tv will allow more manipulations.....

[Chronic Philharmonic]

"just me" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-10-19, carpediem > wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's a question that I have never seen anywhere...
>>
>> With age, we have more and more difficulties to separate the voice
>> from the background music on tv. It's probably in part due to age but
>> also to the new way to record a tv show as the situation is different
>> with an old film.
>>
>> Considering than voice and music have not exactly the same properties,
>> would it be possible to use something like a frequency equalizer to
>> lower music intensity or increase voice.
>>
>> Or any other suggestion would be appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Carpediem
> A lost cause. I think that the "directors/producers" want to show their
> power by emphasising the "dramatic" moment by drowning out the
> voice/narrator
> so that the consumer would not be able hear the voice; easily done in a
> multimike environment.

I don't see why they would want to make the product unusable in this way. If
I were their boss, they wouldn't have jobs long if that was their goal.

> Consider that the "directors/producers" also want to get more money for
> the advert by overlaying the video with ads & thereby blocking portions of
> the show & "degrading the 'artistic' intent" of the original product;
> usually
> this is done by blocking the viewing of a point of interest as stated by
> the narrator or actor.

If they are idiots, yes. Who benefits from this?

> It is quite probable that the "music" will become louder than voice in
> more
> situations as digital tv will allow more manipulations.....

If they are idiots, yes. Who benefits from this?

If someone deliberately degrades the product, essentially making parts of it
unusable, what is the point? It's a good way to drive away customers, and
thus, revenue.

[Richard Crowley]

"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote...
> I don't see why they would want to make the product unusable in this way.
> If I were their boss, they wouldn't have jobs long if that was their goal.

"Unusable" to us here in the real world doesn't translate the same to
Tinsel-Town.

>> Consider that the "directors/producers" also want to get more money for
>> the advert by overlaying the video with ads & thereby blocking portions
>> of
>> the show & "degrading the 'artistic' intent" of the original product;
>> usually
>> this is done by blocking the viewing of a point of interest as stated by
>> the narrator or actor.
>
> If they are idiots, yes.

Yes.

> Who benefits from this?

Their egos. Or haen't you worked with many of them?

>
>> It is quite probable that the "music" will become louder than voice in
>> more
>> situations as digital tv will allow more manipulations.....
>
> If they are idiots, yes. Who benefits from this?

Objection, you honor. Asked and answered.

> If someone deliberately degrades the product, essentially making parts of
> it unusable, what is the point? It's a good way to drive away customers,
> and thus, revenue.

"Degrades" doesn't mean the same thing to them.

[Chronic Philharmonic]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Chronic Philharmonic" wrote...
>> I don't see why they would want to make the product unusable in this way.
>> If I were their boss, they wouldn't have jobs long if that was their
>> goal.
>
> "Unusable" to us here in the real world doesn't translate the same to
> Tinsel-Town.

Okay, I'm still having problems with the basic concept here. If they are
un-artistic tin-ears, producing unwatchable/unlistenable garbage, then who
buys it?

>>> Consider that the "directors/producers" also want to get more money for
>>> the advert by overlaying the video with ads & thereby blocking portions
>>> of
>>> the show & "degrading the 'artistic' intent" of the original product;
>>> usually
>>> this is done by blocking the viewing of a point of interest as stated by
>>> the narrator or actor.
>>
>> If they are idiots, yes.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Who benefits from this?
>
> Their egos. Or haen't you worked with many of them?

I haven't worked with any of them. But it would still seem that plaudits for
a quality product -- artistically pleasing -- would stroke their egos more
than making everyone's life miserable, just so they can get their way.
Especially when "their way" results in unwatchable/unlistenable garbage.
Certainly they'd be aware of the effect -- again, who would hire these
bozos?

>>
>>> It is quite probable that the "music" will become louder than voice in
>>> more
>>> situations as digital tv will allow more manipulations.....
>>
>> If they are idiots, yes. Who benefits from this?
>
> Objection, you honor. Asked and answered.

Still puzzled.

>> If someone deliberately degrades the product, essentially making parts of
>> it unusable, what is the point? It's a good way to drive away customers,
>> and thus, revenue.
>
> "Degrades" doesn't mean the same thing to them.

What do they value, then? "Their ego" doesn't answer the question. They must
have some esthetic value in mind that, when questioned, injures their ego.

[just me]

On 2008-10-19, Chronic Philharmonic > wrote:
>
>
> "Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Chronic Philharmonic" wrote...
>>> I don't see why they would want to make the product unusable in this way.
>>> If I were their boss, they wouldn't have jobs long if that was their
>>> goal.
>>
>> "Unusable" to us here in the real world doesn't translate the same to
>> Tinsel-Town.
>
> Okay, I'm still having problems with the basic concept here. If they are
> un-artistic tin-ears, producing unwatchable/unlistenable garbage, then who
> buys it?

The consumer isn't doing the "buying" as it is more like viewing on
tv; haven't you seen the interesting documentaries on national geographic
tc, discovery channel, science channel & the history channels?

>
>>>> Consider that the "directors/producers" also want to get more money for
>>>> the advert by overlaying the video with ads & thereby blocking portions
>>>> of
>>>> the show & "degrading the 'artistic' intent" of the original product;
>>>> usually
>>>> this is done by blocking the viewing of a point of interest as stated by
>>>> the narrator or actor.
>>>
>>> If they are idiots, yes.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Who benefits from this?
>>
>> Their egos. Or haen't you worked with many of them?
>
> I haven't worked with any of them. But it would still seem that plaudits for
> a quality product -- artistically pleasing -- would stroke their egos more
> than making everyone's life miserable, just so they can get their way.
> Especially when "their way" results in unwatchable/unlistenable garbage.
> Certainly they'd be aware of the effect -- again, who would hire these
> bozos?
>
>>>
>>>> It is quite probable that the "music" will become louder than voice in
>>>> more
>>>> situations as digital tv will allow more manipulations.....
>>>
>>> If they are idiots, yes. Who benefits from this?
>>
>> Objection, you honor. Asked and answered.
>
> Still puzzled.
>
>>> If someone deliberately degrades the product, essentially making parts of
>>> it unusable, what is the point? It's a good way to drive away customers,
>>> and thus, revenue.
>>
>> "Degrades" doesn't mean the same thing to them.
>
> What do they value, then? "Their ego" doesn't answer the question. They must
> have some esthetic value in mind that, when questioned, injures their ego.
>
>

Don't think of it as "ego" but a selling point to the sponsors that the
sponsors (or potential sponsors/clients) will have lots of ads for
their money.


Not sure if the hgtv started it with their animated ad for hgtv shows to
deliberately distract the viewer from the show, but other shows are doing
the same now, including the espn. I've even seen where the on-screen ad
covered up what the voice said about following the ball into the hole on
the golf channel....what ball?????

Not all the ads are transparent & looks to me they are getting bigger. The
only show that I haven't seen with the flagrant ads are the Bloomberg &
Fox business news; perhaps the ad would cover up the ticker tape & stock
quotes....

[Richard Crowley]

"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote ...
> Okay, I'm still having problems with the basic concept here. If they are
> un-artistic tin-ears, producing unwatchable/unlistenable garbage, then who
> buys it?

I'm puzzled by your question. Either you don't believe that badly mixed
film/video is produced all the time and exhibited in theatres and on TV,
or else you believe that the poorly-produced stuff is avoided by the
viewers and that shoudl put the tin-ears out of business.

Dunno what the world looks like from your perspective, but from what
I can hear, there is no shortage of bad mixing. And the consumer sheep
flock to whatever is "hot" regardless of whether they can understand
the dialog. Perhaps in the future we can rely on CGI and eye-candy
and just go back to silent films.

[Ethan Winer]

> Considering than voice and music have not exactly the same properties,
> would it be possible to use something like a frequency equalizer to lower
> music intensity or increase voice.

Not really because both music and voice have many overlapping frequencies.
In fact, a good mix engineer will make voices more audible in the presence
of music by boosting midrange a bit on the voice, and cutting a little
midrange from the music. This is a common technique that works well with
other instruments too. For example, boosting 1 KHz by 2-3 dB on voice while
cutting 1 KHz the same amount on the backing music works well for voice. You
can do the same around 300-400 Hz with a bass track to make it stand out
from the rest of the band.

--Ethan

[Andrew Barss]

Ethan Winer <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
:> Considering than voice and music have not exactly the same properties,
:> would it be possible to use something like a frequency equalizer to lower
:> music intensity or increase voice.

: Not really because both music and voice have many overlapping frequencies.
: In fact, a good mix engineer will make voices more audible in the presence
: of music by boosting midrange a bit on the voice, and cutting a little
: midrange from the music. This is a common technique that works well with
: other instruments too. For example, boosting 1 KHz by 2-3 dB on voice while
: cutting 1 KHz the same amount on the backing music works well for voice. You
: can do the same around 300-400 Hz with a bass track to make it stand out
: from the rest of the band.


I have a similar problem as the original poster, especially when
playing the TV through my stereo system. For DVDs, would adding
a center speaker help? Is voice routed to the center channel?


-- Andy Barss

[Mr.T]

"Andrew Barss" > wrote in message
...
> I have a similar problem as the original poster, especially when
> playing the TV through my stereo system. For DVDs, would adding
> a center speaker help? Is voice routed to the center channel?

Pretty much. My headphone solution works fine for me, I take the 5.1 output
into a small mixer (which is also my headphone amp), and simply balance the
channels as *I* prefer, which usually means less effects, and more centre
channel. The same method can probably be used on HD-DTV that has 5.1 sound,
but any improvement obviously depends on how it's mixed in the first place

MrT.

[Ethan Winer]

Andy,

> I have a similar problem as the original poster, especially when playing
> the TV through my stereo system. For DVDs, would adding a center speaker
> help? Is voice routed to the center channel?

Many DVDs have both stereo and 5.1 surround soundtracks. So you pick
whichever is appropriate from the setup menu each time you play a DVD.
Generally speaking, having a center channel is a big benefit for dialog
clarity, and having a full 5.1 system is better still.

--Ethan