Everyone Wants to Be Normal

I ran into the whole "normalization" thing 10 or 12 years ago. We were working with a major IT company whose expertise we obtained in exchange for our licensing a bunch of rights to them.

We were in the early days of web audio.

As a quality facility, we supplied materials with the expected/required/proper audio and video levels. Nonetheless, we got our first bill - well, it was a deduction from the credit we had for licensing - and it included "Audio Normalizing." 

"We sent you abnormal audio?" I asked, imagining Gene Wilder saying it.

"I don't know," was the response.

"But we were charged for normalizing."

"Well, yes, all audio sent through our group is normalized. That way the levels are constant."

"But what if they're already constant?"

"Doesn't matter. Normalizing ensures it." Then he went into at best a poor explanation of digitization."

That exchange told me they were taking us were back to the wild west again. Like a dorm room carrier current station running unbalanced audio that was all over the place. And, sure enough, that's what their group usually saw. Of course, at that time, a lot of untrained folks bought camcorders and jumped into the business and there lay the problem.

But I hear it now, too - a lot! "Don't worry about the levels; I'll normalize them later."

Makes me reel every time. Also sends me back 40+ years to, "Don't worry about the levels. StaLevel® will catch 'em."

OK. I could say to consider normalization an indictment of sloppy operation. But when I hear someone say they want to normalize, I indict their ears.

Huh?

First, let me say, yes, I know, (oxymoron alert!) "good normalization" involves a more complex algorithm than simple gain adjustment or compression and expansion. But think about two things:

1. Once you get to digital, the mathematics of the process can yield numbers that can't be fully quantified. That is, when the process boosts a section by, say, 2.6dB, a lot of those new numbers don't fall into the exact level of the 16 or 24 bits assigned. Hey, McFly. That's distortion. Might be bad, might be inaudible. But it's there. Some ratios are worse than others. But you can be sure something's there.

2. As smart as normalization might be, it can't (yet) decide how to normalize in certain situations. Dialog, for example - dialog where one line steps on another. Record that with one person about 6 dB below the other. Normalize it and listen. Did a pretty good job, eh? Listen again - to the tails of each line - the parts stepped on. Big change. Did you want that? Normalize a single part or thread and, except for number 1 above, it functions fairly well. Normalize multiple parts already mixed and you get, well, number 2.

Recommendation: just watch the doggoned levels. Get it right in the recording. Your mix will be a lot easier, it'll all be audible, and you won't have to normalize.

The Reripper, or "Rip it Again, Sam."

The Reripper

I was listening to a weekend radio show - a combination tech advice/infomercial half hour on audio video. 

I don't often agree with their suggestions like $40-a-foot speaker cable (the stuff that in true double-blind tests showed no significant difference from good old #12 stranded).  But they got to talking about ripping instead of ripping off.

Their point:  Everyone is going back and ripping their audio and video.  New, faster technology, better compression and greater flexibility are the main reasons.

I had to smile.

I'm betting we're all reripping our media.  I never was a fan of lossy recording but I have to admit that my initial rips of CD's were in mp3.  The reason?  Most radio automation is centered on that format.  Hey!  Don't let the word out.  If people start figuring out that CD's go to mp3 then to iBoc, they may abandon HD forever.

A little balance:  I know a lot of non-tech folks who loaded their iPods with music at 64, or worse, 48 kbps.  I feel a tinge of guilt even calling that music.  But they did get thousands of songs on their players.  Some still listen that way.  Those folks won't recognize the artifacts that come with the signal path that I described above.  Many of us, though, will and do hear the difference.

So, to the ultimate end of best quality audio, I'm reripping everything at full bandwidth, uncompressed.  I practiced this with vinyl to hard drive, giving Adobe Audition its best shot at working when I applied corrections.  Then, I started with CD's some time ago after laying a big fat scratch down the side of Patricia Barber - well, a CD of hers, that is.  When you realize that even the best mp3 has something missing - even though at my age, I may never notice - you feel like you're cheating yourself.

So I'm one of their unwashed...feeding them all in again and doing the full processing.  Those of you who have done so all along (I can only name one person), feel free to send me the Bronx cheer.  Anyone else, get 'em stacked up and let the reripping begin.

I only have a couple of suggestions:

Vinyl:  Don't transfer on a bad stylus.  Don't transfer on a "DJ" stylus.  Don't increase the stylus force to try to track a warped or scratched record.  Think first.  If the record's a mess, move it to last in the pile.  If it's gummy or dirty, clean it.  There are some great vinyl washers still floating around. 

Some folks say, no, transfer it first, that way you'll have something.  True enough, if you can afford to replace a stylus damaged by gunk or from being rattled out of a record's grooves.  If you want to ensure that you at least get something, switch to that conical stylus and have at it.  Then clean the record and get back to the elliptical gem.  But remember, a vertical, conical stylus tracking at 6 grams is a lot like dragging a 10 penny nail around the grooves and future passes will have reduced quality.

After recording, I keep two copies - the dry or unprocessed right-from-the-disc copy and the Audition-processed one.  It's fun listening to the processed version and the clean sound that comes from click, pop, and surface noise removal.  But I have some great stuff that is filled with noise - parties 40 or more years ago where an out-of-uniform gorilla was flipping records on his Garrard grinder - and I guess I'm just used to that sound.  In fact, We're only in it for the Money sounds shallow without the wushes and ticks.  Keeping that in mind, sometimes you can add a little processing without destroying the sound.  Duh.

CD's:  Check out the CD for scratches.  If you're reading this, you know how to clean one.  Here again, you may want to try an initial transfer without cleaning to see what you get.  However, if you're monitoring errors and see a lot, a second pass, after cleaning, is a good idea.

Cassettes: Cassettes can be fun to transfer.  First, demagnetize the heads.  A straight pass works first time around, provided the tape hasn't been stretched.  If it has, try this - unspool about 50 feet onto the ground.  Carefully pull it across an ice cube at abouts one foot per second.  This should shrink the tape.  Then carefully wind it back... OK, listen.  DON'T do that!  Toss the tape. 

But if it's generally OK, do a pass and see how it sounds.  Do a full fast-forward/rewind to exercise the cassette.  From there, you can EQ it, apply noise reduction or whatever you please.  There are some who will tell you to EQ it going in to the computer.  You sure can but what you get is what you get and you can't go back without hauling out the cassette player again.  Yeah, I have a couple of tricks for jammed cassettes or those with high friction or bad tape paths...lemme know if you want them.

I'm almost done with the CD's.   Full resolution, full backup, even for the stuff I don't even like.  Hey! Tastes change.  Then, you bet, I'm cloning the drive and storing it somewhere else.  Remember the story about the guy who bought a suit with two pair of pants - and burned a hole in the coat?

Photos:  I don't think anyone has imported stills at a lower resolution than the original digital file.  If so, you may want to go back and redo those...if you still have them on the camera disc.  Where the big change has come is in scanning flat art.  Really high quality scanners and big drives have made way for 1200, 4800, even 9600 dpi and more.  (Check if you're going to buy.  Is that true resolution or interpolated?) 

If you scanned in photos at 300 dpi that may be OK, depending on use.  But if you have some good 8x10 publicity shots or news photos, you may want the highest resolution...in case Angie Harmon wants to blow up the digital version to check a license plate number.

Video:  It's software/hardware combination. I've found a couple that really work.  And I ingest videos at the highest rate possible (I mean, my machine ingests them).  I have a high quality VHS player and commercial interface and hardware.  But even with somewhat lower quality acquisition software, you can get HiDef files. 

Judge Greene May Have Been Right

I'm talking about the telco breakup...

First – if you don’t care about the topic, skip to the end for some fun telemarketer pranks.

Ya’ know, for years I was angry at Judge Harold H. Greene – for breaking up AT&T.  I think it was mostly the broadcaster in me and all the wailing and crying and gnashing of teeth that came from dealing with multiple carriers in the aftermath as they all elbowed under the basket for control of territories and services.

Maybe it was because the change was so radical and rapid.  Tens of new carriers, new services, regions.  Made the day-to-day guy’s life pretty interesting and gave a whole new meaning to, “It looks good leaving Denver.”

We can discuss whether the breakup was done right, whether AT&T came out ahead another day.  Regardless, we all wound up with a bunch of different companies vying for your service.  The operative word: vying.  Some of the overzealous ones slammed us and we had to go ranting and raving to get back the service we really wanted.  But, for a time, prices dropped.  Long distance fell like a rock. 

Concurrently, we were discovering the use of POTS for audio remotes.  Ordering dialup lines for remote broadcasts became a regular occurrence.  Of course, the mixing of new carriers with AT&T’s copper made for some great finger pointing.  And sometimes, that was more important to the telcos than the service, itself.  Nonetheless, with the competition came service – and people who actually listened when you had a question, special need, or an idea.  What a refreshing change from the conglomerate days when, at one point, I bought a T-shirt in Westwood, California that said, in polite robin’s egg blue letters, “No, we don’t care!  We’re PacBell.”

The proverb goes, “This, too, shall pass.”  And it did.  Like cannibals, they all slept with one eye open as they grew their respective regional and long distance businesses.  Don’t forget the manufacturing.  Western Electric got hit with the judicial mace, too.  Slowly, the also-rans, often those with poor customer service, fell by the wayside.  Their customers got gobbled up by others until at the end of the fest, one company was standing.  Yes, others survived.  But the namesake – AT&T became king again.  And with that, somehow, came the attitude.

Cards face up, I will tell you that I do business with AT&T.  If you live in and have a business in Chicago, you don’t have much of a choice.  I also have business and clients in Tennessee – Bell South land (AT&T, too.).  So let me relate two stories.

AT&T in Chicago nodded and agreed when I talked to them about changing an account.  Keep the number, keep the location.  Change the name on the billing from one of the companies I work with to another.   “No problem.”  “No penalties.”  “No interruption.”  The first four months following saw their fine billing folks, well, in the vernacular, screw it up royally.  Company name wrong.  Fix that and screw up the address.  Add penalties which had been waived, and on it went.  Each month I went through the wonderful AT&T “I really don’t care” phone tree to get to a live person. 

Note that before you get to talk to them, you’re advised that, “This call may be monitored or recorded for quality control purposes.”  As they finally introduce themselves, they ask, in the same breath, if, in accordance with federal privacy laws, they may use this call to make me aware of additional products or services. Sure.  My calling customer service, spending forever getting to the sorta-right person about a problem brought about by their ineptitude – makes me the perfect candidate to pitch some upsell product to.

Let me take a little detour.  This is fun.  When you get to a live person, announce to them that, “This call may be monitored or recorded for quality control purposes.  The reaction varies by company.  T-Mobile will throw a hissy-fit and say you can’t do that.  Then when you ask them why you can’t while they are, they stammer and stutter.  You can imagine where it can take you.  From “Go ahead.” which generates quite the polite and obliging CSR to an immediate hangup.  Hey, it’s worth it for the laugh.

Now back to story number one.  It actually took five months to straighten out their mess.  It coasted for about 5 months until I got a renewal notice.  And when I called to check the various programs available, the sales guy offered me a bundled Internet price: business local and long distance plus AT&T’s super fast fiber Internet.  The rate he quoted would save me about $30 a month – even though I had DSL with them coming into the same place on another number.  Nope.  I had to switch to this number – like the DSL signal cared whether it was coming in on yellow/black instead of red/green.

I made the switch.  What’s that you say?  “Len, you idiot?”  Yeah.  Go ahead.  Say it again.  First when the installer showed up, I told him where I wanted the new line routed.  He said, “What new line?”  I told him that the sales guy said he had to install fiber into the house.  The installer laughed out loud.  “There is no fiber anywhere around here.  You’re gettin’ copper DSL.  Then he proceeded to install a new modem on the line and remove the old one from the other red/green line. 

And it didn’t work.  Well, it did – it was just that about half the time, the modem would decide not to let programs access the web.  That’s not a good thing when part of what you do includes automatic uploading, FTPing and the like.  It’s not so good to wake up and see that half the files your automator was to handle are still on the left side of the page.  And the following two days were filled with, “Yes [name] I’m sorry.  I know they didn’t go up overnight.  But I did get them up first thing.”

Two days later, a service person came to the door.  He apparently fixed what the initial installer had done wrong.  At least that’s what he told me.  {Note to service guys:  when you sell out your partners, I think less of both of you.]  So I chugged along for almost a week.  Then I saw it.  The dreaded AT&T truck in the alley. I went inside and tried to get online.  Nothing.  The neighborhood was down.  When it came back, I so did my problem.

Ah, that’s not the clincher.  That’s when the bill came.  Instead of saving me $30 a month, it was going to cost me about $20 additional.  AND they billed me for the service call.

I called the sales guy.  [Another note:  tell whoever it is you have to call him/her back.  Get a number].  I was told he was on the phone and that he’d call me back.  He didn’t.  Two days later, I called again.  Didn’t get him. Talked to a supervisor.  Laid out the case.  Son of a gun, the sales guy called me back.

I told him how I felt – the problems, the fiber deception, and the price.  He was adamant about not having said any of those things till I said, “Let’s go to the tape.” 

“What?” he said.

I reminded him that when we did the deal on the phone, he asked me if he could record it and I said yes.  And I also made sure he remembered how I stated specifics as we agreed – stating the price, the fiber, and adding that if there were any billing errors or if what we talked about wasn’t delivered, AT&T would return everything to the way it was prior.

The guy backpedaled like Lance Armstrong down a French mountain.  The sad thing here is that it took that to get satisfaction.  He doesn’t care.  I doubt the marketing or ops folks care.  I’m just a number, and only ten digits at that. The best part, in closing – after he recorded us agreeing to get rid of the new services – he told me that if I had friends who needed service, he’d appreciate my recommending AT&T and him.  I told him I’d definitely give his number to my competitors.

And the second story?  Not important.  Take the above, plug in Bell South where you see AT&T and add a lady who asks you to hold while she pulls up your account then acts surprised when, after 12 minutes of holding, you dial on your cell phone and tell her you’re still holding, and another who asks how long it would take for me to connect the modem and I tell her one minute and she says she’ll call me back in exactly one minute.  And she never calls back.

Through the recent economic morass we’ve heard “Too Big to Fail” a lot.   Well, guess what?  Some companies are too big to succeed.  They trample themselves as marketing doesn’t tell sales what it’s doing and operations hasn’t a clue about what’s being sold while sales can’t tell you how anything works.  But they all promise the world and, if they’re big enough, they fold their arms and expect you to accept their definition of what that promise really means.  Their only success is in taking advantage of customers because of their size.  And what do we get?  Lost time, lost money, and in many cases, lost hair. 

So Judge Greene, we probably didn’t need you back then.  You just traded one form of insanity for another.  Sure need you now.  Especially if you’re any good at customer service.  

Fun telemarketer pranks.  In dealing with telemarketers, of course there are the trieds and trues…like, “Oooh.  Just one second!” then setting the phone down, returning a few minutes later just to hang up.  Or the barking dog/singing bird.  And I’m guessing more people than not have heard of the murder witness prank which can be seen here.

Here are mine:  Direct the caller.  When he/she starts reading the script, take charge.  “No. No. No.  Not like that.  Give it more meaning!”  Or, “You see, that’s not the important part of what you’re saying.  You want to tell me how…”  or just, “C’mon.  You can’t sound like you’re reading.  Now.  Look at the sentence.  Get it in your mind.  OK?  Now tell me.  Don’t read to me, just tell me.”

A second option is to begin selling them something.  An easy one is, “Hey, are you using a headset?  How comfortable is it?  Because, I have one that’s soft, light, and I can really hear you great.  I can let you have it for XXX$$$$.  And keep on selling.

Personally, the one I like is reserved for repeat callers.  The second time someone calls, just answer with, “Tourette hotline. What in the *$)^*&$  #*%&() #^*%_ do you #&*%* want?”

So you Want to Be an MVPD

I don’t get it.  Definition of a television picture gets higher and higher.  Yet the FCC’s jurisdiction gets more and more fuzzy.

The latest is the latest inquiry into what constitutes a MVPD (multichannel video programming distributor).  Listen up!  This is important.

You’ve probably visited a currently-defined MVPD in the last few hours.  At least if you watched a program on cable or satellite or telco-delivered system.  Right.  These guys distribute video programming across multi[ple] channels.  Hence the acronym.

However, the commission now wants to take a broader view of MVPDs – from a regulatory standpoint.  Translation:  we want to regulate those emerging services which slowly are becoming MVPDs.  So, who’s that?  Well, start with Hulu and similar services.  Then toss in Youtube.  And, eventually, as is usually the case with regulation, every other form of video service that offers more than one (operative word being multiple in the acronym) channel.

So, what’s the big deal?  None, I suppose.  Oh. Wait.  Must-carry rules and retransmission consent agreements are an everyday part of MVPDs.  Let’s throw those on the backs of online distributors.  After all, copyright laws aren’t enough.  And so-called spectrum fees or other regulatory fees?  Why sure, if they’re going to be regulated, they need to pay for that regulation.

But it gets more insidious than that.  Here are some random insidiousities to consider.  (Yes, I know that’s not exactly a word.)

·     It opens a door for yet another tax on these smaller operations

·     It can subject them to content regulation

·    It can force them to begin captioning much of their fare (think I’m kidding Check out Broadcast Engineering, Volume 54, Number 5, May 2012, page 42.)  No.   It’s not required of Hulu yet…but if they become an MVPD, who knows?

·     EAS anyone?  Should all MVPDs be bound by FEMA and FCC rules for EAS?  In a  way, it’s a good thing – if you’re watching some idiot trying to jump 50 oil drums with a garbage truck on Youtube and there’s a chlorine leak somewhere in the county, don’t you want to know?

If we look back, we can trace the steps from cable being limited in the number of channels it carried.  Then it was forced to expand. Then local origination was forbidden.  Oh, then, it was mandatory…and along with it, public access channels.

We went through must-carry…and the leapfrogging fight.  At each turn, it seems, there was a flip-flop, or if not, a decision that said that what had been ordered in the past was radically wrong – even though the industry had operated fairly well during that time.

Now – flash forward.  Not too far.  It’s a time when there are no more “networks” or “channels.”  Long time, you think?  Remember that networks exist[ed] to distribute programming.  Broadcast networks were forbidden from becoming MVPDs.  They only had one feed.  They couldn’t provide multiple sets of programming at the same time.  If you doubt that, give NBC a call and ask them what happened to their Blue Network.

As networks evolved, they became brands.  Some, like DuMont, went the way of Peak Toothpaste.  Others survived and morphed – supported by O&O stations which provided channels.  These were specific, assigned groups of frequencies that standardized television transmission and reception in the US.  And as the O&O’s grew so did affiliates who took the networks’ feeds at least part of the day in exchange for compensation paid them for carrying their network’s commercials.  As they grew, the O&O’s and the affiliates became brands in and of themselves. 

We gradually became accustomed to seeking out specific content on a given network by going to the channel distributing it locally.  Cool.  If you want to continue living in the 20^th century.  But not na’more.  We do find content by way of networks.  But we also find it through hundreds of other sources on the web, in the cloud or, today, via VOD on cable, quasi-VOD on satellite, heck, even RedBox can be considered a distribution channel. 

And as these hundreds of channels grow in popularity, the call for a network – in the classic sense – is diminished.  And channels – as in TV or cable channels – well, who cares.  You’ve heard me say it before – nobody cares what kind of car delivers their pizza.  It’s the pizza.  And, similarly, few care about how the content gets to them.  It’s the content itself.  Yeah, you want me to trot out the “Content is King” bromide.  Well, I won’t.  Uh oh. I just…well, moving on.

People are proving that they can find good content.  Kids are best at it.  The car-keys set is almost as good.  Frankly, we’re all getting better at it.  Good thing.  The days of getting 125 GRP’s to promote a program on air are gone.  “Back then” you could burn those off with a few shared :30’s and some voice-over-crawl announcements.  Not anymore.  Networks are finding it harder and harder to promote their programs.  Channels find it increasingly difficult to promote and protect their brand…because it IS about the content now, and not about the channel.

Now, please take all of the last few paragraphs and use it to frame the concept of MVPDs.  Just as audio streaming and computer audio recording and editing is whittling away at the need for a label, so is the ability to do the same with video eliminating the need for channels and networks.  So if everyone can do it, how do you regulate everyone and require them to submit to new laws on distribution – or the old ones which are being applied in an archaic manner?  You can’t.

Where does it go from here?  You only have to think about it for a second before you realize that if you have the ability to tell someone about some new content, you have a good chance of sampling.  After all, isn’t that what a network or channel does with its promos?  If I can tell you about a new show, I have a fighting chance you’ll give it a shot.  And where’s the best place to do that?  “A witch.”  (Sorry, that’s the answer to an entirely different Monty Python question.)  The best place is the EPG – electronic program guide.

If I have control of that, I get to decide what you see when you go to it.  It won’t matter where it comes from.  You may make your choice to watch it based on who produced it or wrote it, or who’s starring in it, or whatever.  But, regardless, I have first shot at you with the EPG.

And there’s been an ongoing fight there – well over 10 years - but I’ll leave that for another installment.  If you want to read ahead, remember this suit? 

Meanwhile, grab some chips and salsa, sit back and watch the government try to thread this MVPD needle.  And if you have Slingbox® or a similar device, and you can have two people watching different programming on their laptops with it, ask yourself, “Am I an MVPD?”  Then, when the government comes a knockin’ at the door, tell ‘em, “We already got one.”

Maybe the Whole Broadcasting Business is for the Birds

At the moment, I’m a “towering” inferno.  But this isn’t about the movie, Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway aside. 

Instead, this is about the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) v. FCC, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  Seems that the FCC now feels that maybe ABC was right that the commission isn’t allowing for public comment on new tower structures or proposed modifications to existing ones.  So now we have the study, Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Antenna Structure Registration Program.  Bureaucracy at its best.

If I can bottom-line you, the commission has acceded to the ABC that too many birds are being killed by communications towers.  The FCC has said wow, we didn’t realize the numbers were like this and we haven’t listened closely enough.  We’ll do more.

The key to all of this is the name of the organization…American Bird Conservancy.  Their concern is the anthropogenic [their word] demise of birds.  And, if they say towers are killing birds, it must be true.

I have been dealing with broadcast towers in one way or another since picking blackberries at the WSAI “Larry, Curly & Moe” tower site in 1957.  As a focus group of one, I can recall two bird incidents, neither of them there.  One was a pretty-well decomposed large bird about 50 yards (if memory serves me at all) from the base of a tower in Arlington Heights, IL.  That was about 20 years ago and I have no explanation.  Could have flown into the tower, who knows.  The tower’s gone.  Maybe a bunch of Canada Geese took it down in anger.

The other was at the base of a 12 foot satellite dish, about 3 years ago.  However, the collection of feathers near the base was directly attributable to Cricket, the station cat.   She did everything but burp to prove her ownership of the situation – and the remains.

So, really, one case.  Total number of towers I’ve had direct, multiple encounters with:  estimated at 40, from 100 feet AGL to 50 feet above Sears (Willis) Tower. I recall a number of birds’ remains on the roof of the 89th floor there but those were attributable to them flying into the windows of the 90th floor. 

Around the more common 450-500 foot structures, I’ve seen only the one mentioned above.  Now, stack this up against the other methods by which birds are harmed or killed.  Yes, I understand, every life has value.  But we do put limits on it – or there’d be no automobiles.  We’d outlaw them because of the significant life hazard they present.

Now, if you take all of this into account and compare it to the other causes, you have to scratch your head.  Why are we not clearly marking windows so that birds don’t fly into them?  Or fining people for letting their cats run free.

In fact the URS Group, Inc. study demonstrates that towers pose less than a 0.3 percent danger to birds as opposed to – standby – 41.9 percent from cats like Cricket.  Another 41.9 percent (amazing that the number’s the same for both) are attributable to buildings.

http://tinyurl.com/AvianMortality-RW  (Radio World synopsis)

http://tinyurl.com/MigratoryBirds-FinalPEA  (FCC press release)

http://tinyurl.com/The-Final-PEA  (The full-blown FCC release

Here’s my proposal:

• Outlaw Windex® and other glass cleaners
• All windows must use translucent rather than transparent glass
• Buildings over 7 stories high must have the word B-U-I-L-D-I-N-G spelled out vertically (one letter per window going down from the top) on each side of the building.  However, this may be altered to read “north side” when birds are flying south and “south side” when birds are flying north. I’m thinking they can read!  Then...

• All cats must have bells and, in addition, tail extensions consisting of small helium balloons tied to the tail through two feet of bright wide orange ribbon.  This will ensure that the ribbon is in the air, waving, as the cat stalks birds.
• All cats will be required to announce themselves with a “meow” of at least 110db at 1 meter.  Cats that cannot meet this loudness standard must be kept indoors
• All cats must be kept indoors during prime migratory seasons - and finally,

• All extremely high voltage power lines (responsible for 5.5 percent of bird casualties) must be coated with a repellent substance (hey, maybe it should smell like cats!) to prevent birds from lighting.

• Automobiles must be equipped with sensors which detect bird flight and employ an automatic avoidance system to protect the birds.  (Of course, when the system swerves to miss a pigeon and carries the car into a pedestrian, that’ll be another matter.)

Do all that, and I’ll gladly address the “estimated” 0.3 percent of bird tragedies supposedly brought about by towers.  By the way, if you followed the links, you saw that according to estimates, 0.3 percent is equal to 6.6 million avian miscreants.  That’s a lot of birds.  But if that’s only 0.3 percent, it means about 2.2 billion birds meet their maker by accident each year.  And of those, 921.8 million – OK, a billion – at the hands of the hands – or paws & jaws – of cats.

In case you think I’m being flip, cynical and a bit sarcastic, I have a hole card.  The American Bird Conversancy has received over a billion dollars in federal funding.  Hey, they brag about it.  Check it out.  That’s my money telling the commission that they didn’t get it right and I need to decrease that 0.3 percent.

If you’re planning a new tower after August of 2012, be ready to meet the rules. 

But there’s a better answer for broadcasters:  breed cats.  If we all had hundreds of cats, that’d drive the number of cat-related avian casualties sky high and, consequently, would result in a drop in the percentage of tower-related bird deaths.  Alternatively, build your next studio totally out of plate glass and keep it really clean.

I thought writing this would be cathartic.  But I’m still doing a burn.  Clients will be shelling out bucks for compliance studies to go along with the FAA, EPA, wetlands, and OSHA hoops that we jump through.

And for what?  Seems like a lot of money frittered away, especially if eight times as many birds are killed intentionally by hunters.  But I suppose it keeps the DC folk occupied, even though it appears wasteful. 

Now if you want to get your arms around all of the government waste associated with this, read the release (The-Final-PEA link above).  Then, at the end of the release, read all of the references cited, realizing that most of those were paid for with tax dollars, too.  There’s only one way to get through it all.  A little Wild Turkey.

Pass the Worcestershire - and my Low Def TV. You, Me, TV, and the FCC

Let me see…you promise me a huge thick steak.  But I have to buy a new grill to cook it.  I buy the grill.  Then you tell me that you only want me to have half a steak and also want me to let my neighbor put his half steak on my grill next to mine.

Kind of what happened last week when the FCC issued an unofficial announcement of its Report & Order regarding television broadcasters sharing channels.

Simply explained, broadcasters are being offered the opportunity to share their assigned channels for rewards to be named – someday.  In their words,

 

“…making a significant portion of spectrum currently used by the broadcast television service available for new uses. The Report and Order, in anticipation of a future incentive auction to address the nation’s growing demand for wireless broadband, allows multiple broadcast stations to elect to stream individual programming while sharing a single channel.

The new rules promote innovation and investment in mobile communications, and help ensure the United States keeps pace with the global wireless revolution. The rules also help preserve broadcast television as a healthy, viable medium. Specifically, the Report and Order establishes a framework for how two or more television licensees may voluntarily share a single six MHz channel in conjunction with the auction process…”

Just so we all understand – as much as possible given the available information – The commission is asking stations to give up part of their spectrum by sharing their 6 megahertz channel with others.  This is undefined except for a later statement, “…stations will need to retain at least one standard definition programming stream to meet the FCC’s requirement of providing an over-the-air video broadcast at no direct charge to viewers, they will have the flexibility of tailoring their channel sharing agreements to meet their individual programming and economic needs…”.  In other words, it’s not important how they share or how many share, as long as each can maintain one free over-the-air SD programming channel.

What’s wrong with this picture?Anyone remember the Communications Act of 1996?  Right.  It solidified the digital broadcast industry in the US.  It did so by forcing stations to move from analog to digital broadcasting over a period of time.  Yes, if you thought, “Yeah, and it was a looooong period of time,” you are correct.  No less than 4 delays were implemented before the final date of June 12, 2009.  But shut off the analog, we did.  And most of the VHF stations elected or were forced to move to UHF frequencies¹.

Through the period from 1996 to the analog shutoff, broadcasters retooled totally.  Nearly every piece of equipment had to be replaced.  Worse, so did the interconnections.  Routing gigabit signals around a station was quite different from sending 4.5 megahertz down a piece of 75 ohm coax with a BNC on each end.  New cameras, new processors, switchers, STL’s, transmitters, upconverters for transmitting standard definition and NTSC signals.  In fact, imagine a newscaster sitting at the news desk and someone sitting at home.  Now think about every piece of gear in between.  OK.  Replace it!

Did you leave out the receiver?  Replace that with either a new HD receiver or a converter box to receive the digital signal over the air and output an NTSC signal for an existing “TV set.”

At this point, let’s take a step back.  The original concept for digital was not implemented to give us better television.  If that were the case, we probably wouldn’t have adopted 8-VSB.  It was done so that VHF frequencies would be vacated and available for auction, the money going to the US treasury.  Follow the money.  It was about the buck.

While we’re still in the Wayback machine, please recall that Congress, in its low bandwidth intelligence, suddenly realized that the new rules would make obsolete every existing set in the country.  Soooo, they embarked on a coupon program – every household was eligible for 2 coupons which would give them a shiny new converter for between zero and ten dollars.  Actual cost?  About $45 to $50.  The difference was to come out of the original spectrum auction.  And recall, too, that paying for those converters all but wiped out the revenue from the auction.  Go figure.

Back to today – well, last week.

Sharing, eh?

Here are some implications to think about: 

·    Broadcasters spent a lot of money on equipment to provide high definition signals

o    1080i requires the entire 6 mHz channel a broadcaster is assigned 

o    Sharing channels will mean no more 1080i...possibly no 720p

o    The lower bandwidth required means broadcasters wasted a lot of money meeting standards implemented by a government that now proposes – less than 3 years later – to change them

·    Consumers have purchased tens of millions of high definition receivers which shortly may have little high definition to receive

·    The middle men – cable, telco and satellite have ponied up plenty to accurately decode and re-encode broadcasters’ signals.   No HD to decode?  OK, more room for other channels.  More competition for broadcasters

So the over-the-air gang is being asked to voluntarily combine some of their signals onto a single channel.  Give up major opportunities to compete via the additional channels they can provide within the digital envelope.  And the commission’s reasoning?  Greater penetration of personal communications service.  Yes.  More frequencies for WIMAX, 3G, 4G, 4-1/2G, G minor 7 and what’s to come.  As far as our FCC is concerned, everyone should have access to broadband anywhere and everywhere, 24/7.

I took you through what that looks like back here:

http://scopefocus.blogspot.com/2011/07/working-out-of-your-element.html .  In many places, there isn’t that much bandwidth from DC to even gamma rays!  Yes, I exaggerate; given the toxic effects of gamma rays, I doubt we’ll be using that “band” soon.

The bottom line is the average consumer is going to lose a lot of what he/she bought that flatscreen for.  The average broadcaster (who voluntarily pairs with another) gives up either some high definition formats or some additional channels – and revenue – and gets to drive his new Porche of a system at VW speeds…and we all get to wait.  For the other shoe to drop.  The one that will fall if broadcasters don’t volunteer or if there aren’t enough volunteers.  Then the Ed Markeys of the world will set their sights on all broadcasters.  But, first, of course, they’ll make sure that Congress still gets the lowest advertising rates available on the stations they haven’t already put out of business.

¹As it turned out, little real-world study of propagation was done prior to implementation of the 8-VSB standard that US broadcasters use.  Fact is, overall reception and building penetration is better on the UHF frequencies than on high-VHF frequencies and even more so than low-VHF frequencies.  So the folks who bit the bullet and transitioned to UHF gained instead of lost.  And, instead of losing their original channel identities, they were able to maintain virtual channel numbers.  e.g., channel moving channel 2 to channel 48 was a physical change but to the audience, it still appeared as and was tuned as channel 2.  At least no need to change the logo.

NAB 2012

NAB is probably the largest collection of professional gearheads in the world.  The absolute latest, some still prototyped and demonstrated only after the sales engineer bows his/her head in prayer, broadcast goodies emerge there. 

As you would expect, given the continuing convergence of broadcast and “new” media, all those Oreos and sodas are there, too.

Things have changed.  Duh! But this year was especially significant.  It wasn’t a great anniversary like ’06 for quad tape.  No single revolutionary product like Red in 2007.  Instead, it was a year of, well, for me, realization and for the industry, one of maturation.

Here’s my take:

First, I saw hundreds of boxes to do thousands of things.  Convert anything to anything with a BNC in/BNC out black box.  Seriously.  I think I saw one that had ATSC in and black coffee out.  Then, if you look a little further, you find out that a lot of the same things that you buy black boxes for can be done in the digital domain with software.  One case, one processor (or multiple processors) with ins and outs and you don’t need any of the little black boxes at all.  It’s interesting to see which manufacturers are looking at software solutions compared to those looking to sell hardware problem solvers.  

Imaging devices:  Unless I get an assignment that calls for day-in, day-out shooting, I’m gonna rent. It’s changing so fast that you make a commitment, sign the papers, and before delivery, the XV3 is out, replacing the XV2.5 you just bought. 

I will say this – images are just plain gorgeous.  The range of the sensors is so wide (claiming up to 13 f/stops) that they’re presenting new challenges to the receivers/monitors…and working at 20-30 fc of light.  Lenses have caught up with HD and the definition and resolution are terrific.  And it's funny seeing a jib floating around with apparently nothing on it - only to see a DSLR  anchored to the baseplate.

Of course, a couple of things you can’t do anything about – depth of field is depth of field.  HD shortens it and that’s that.  But add a little extra light, get a couple more stops down, and you get your DOF back.  And, speaking of lighting, the LED luminaire is mature.  You can shoot with cool, low power lighting just about anywhere.  [After the fact note:  when you increase the sharpness of the "sharpest" area as with improved lens and sharper sensor, depth of field apparently goes DOWN.  But it depends on what you're viewing it on.  A hi-def image has lots more apparent depth of field when viewed on an NTSC receiver.  That's because the maximum sharpness is much less - so the sharpest image appears less so,, more like the slightly out of focus portions of the image just to either side, in distance from the lens, of the actual focused distance.]

One thing remains the same – the use of lights to control the resultant image.  LED’s don’t eliminate the need for multiple instruments (you can’t dump a bunch of LED’s onto a ceiling and shoot away expecting different results compared to doing the same thing with incandenscents,  fluorescents, or HMI’s).  But whatever you do, it’s a lot cooler and easier.  Hang a two pound panel and you’re shooting f11 at 15 feet – and for 3 hours on a battery.  Awrighty then.

3D.  Don’t sell that flatscreen just yet.  Sony, among others, demonstrated their glasses-less 3D.  This is for large screen.  I’d rather they called it 2.5D.  Nothing really came off the screen at me like when the Creature from the Black Lagoon scared the pants off me in a theater.  And while the gathered crowds oohed and ahhed at first, there was a bunch of sotto voce grumbling as the demo ended.  Same with Dolby’s version.  They suffered some additional problems, a bunch of high-end artifacts that spoiled the motion.  If you have HD with glasses, well, good for you.  Not a lot of programming but you’re an early adopter.  As for glasses-less…wait for the .1 version if you know what I mean.

Workflow:  Nobody wants to sell you just a camera.  Or a switcher or storage by itself, either.  They want you to use their entire system for “workflow”.  It’s the only way to ensure quality.  Well, that’s what they said!  It ain’t true.  If there’s any interface problem, either software or one of those boxes I talked about will solve it.  Speaking of switchers.  Ha!  They’re not.  They’re video program managers capable of controlling multiple feeds with multiple layers (and in multiple languages).  And they’re smart enough to automate a lot of what a TD once did.

Audio:  Both AES and IP audio abound.  In fact, once audio goes into the digital domain – which can be a USB microphone or hard disc audio – it doesn’t have to leave until it reaches the final audio amp or transmitter input.  I saw a guy named Hum out in front of the convention center begging.  He’s pretty well out of business.

An interesting thread was talk regarding the CALM Act and most of the techies laughing at the fact that, once again, trying to pass legislation to control laws of physics doesn’t work.  And speaking of the CALM Act, Rules:  The big concern was text-to-speech in the EAS rules.  Breaths were bated in anticipation of the commission’s announcement that would reinstate the TTS rule that they eliminated in the Fifth Report and Order.  It didn’t happen.  OK.  It did, but they waited until after the event.  None too soon since April 23 is the deadline.

Worth the trip?  Absolutely.  If you have to stay current, you have to make it out there.  I had some assignment and was looking for some particular gear.  Even if I hadn’t, well, it’s still so doggoned much fun just lookin’ at the goodies.

Live Performance Sound

I want to talk a little about live performances and audio.  This time, not from a production standpoint, but looking at it – make that listening to it – from the consumer standpoint.

Mitsuko Uchida became the foremost performer of Mozart piano works some 15 years ago.  She decided that wasn’t enough; she then became renowned for her performances of Beethoven.  Sure couldn’t pass up her performance with the CSO. 

But it was an interesting disappointment and it relates to staging a live performance.  In this case, her work was its usual top drawer level.  But she’s chosen to be both pianist and conductor.  So they wheel the piano into place…you look askance because as the stagehands leave the stage, you see the keys facing outward, toward the audience.  And, so that Ms. Mitsuko can be seen by all of the orchestra, they’ve removed the piano lid.

That creates the disappointment.

First, we’re seeing Ms. Mitsuko’s back and nothing of the keys.  OK.  I can live with that.  I can close my eyes and just imagine.

Second, and this is a real problem for me, removing the lid of a piano totally changes the tonality of the instrument.  Just for review, the note of just about any instrument consists of a number of parts.  First, is the attack.  That’s actually a high frequency component, even of low notes.  Heck, even with a kick drum, that chest-thumping part of the sound is due to the high frequencies – the punch in the pedal – that are followed by the thud of the drum.

When the piano is at ninety degrees to the audience and the lid is open (note: it has to be ON to be open) those highs actually bounce off the hard, polished lid and out into the audience.  We hear the attack of each note.  Take away the lid and you take away the attack.  Take away the attack and the notes turn to mush.  That’s not a passing comment.  It’s based on listening, critically, and – tinnitus aside – hearing the lack of attack, the lack of differentiation of notes.

Third, that lack of lid causes yet another problem.  Those close to the source – performer, included – hear those attacks.  As a consequence, their sound seems louder to them than to the audience who doesn’t hear those peaks as each note is articulated.  So? 

So, remember sending guys out to do ball games over POTS lines?  And you’d constantly yell at them about balance between their voices and crowd noise?  They heard their voices and the crowd noise at full range.  But the telco line rolled off everything starting at 3 kHz.  Welllll.  The highs in the crowd noise were already rolled off when they arrived at the announcer’s mic.  So when the play-by-play guy mixed his voice, he mixed it a little low compared to the crowd noise.  His high end was the key to being heard.  But at the other end, rolled off at 3 kHz, the announcers sounded lower in level compared to the crowd.  There were no highs to help them out.

Same thing with the piano.  The performer hears all of the attack of each note.  She/he balances her/his volume on that basis.  But, sadly for row G, the attack isn’t heard.  It’s busy rolling around the balconies.  So the balance is way off, with the piano’s apparent level far below what you as a listener would desire.

So, what’s the lesson to be learned?

Tell the performer she/he can’t conduct and perform?  Nope.  You don’t tell talent that.  But you do make her/him aware of what the issues are.  Make a test recording during a rehearsal and play it back for them.  With luck, you wind up with a separate conductor, or at least with the piano lid back on and the instrument reoriented to reflect the highs.

Same is true with rock bands, jazz, or any other form of live music.  Make sure that what the performer hears is what the audience hears…and make just as sure that the audience hears what you intended.  Is that the job of the house mix guy?  You have to decide that.  Regardless, you want to get the right sound out there.

And you know what all that takes?  Time.  You have to spend the time walking the aisles, sitting in seats and listening critically.  If you’re broadcasting the performance, you have to listen through a filter that duplicates the other end of the line.  That’s the only way that you’ll have even a remote (pun intended) idea of what the listener will hear. 

Doesn’t matter whether it’s a church service, a rock concert or a punk band at a bowling alley.  You gotta do it.  Just think about it from the listener’s (consumer’s) POV.  They’re on site – or listening over the air – because they want the excitement of live performance.  You want them to hear the best you’ve got.

Now, if you’ll let me, I’m going to go rack up a CD of Mozart’s Piano Concerto #20 and listen to those attacks.