- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:16:49 +1000
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > > I think this is a matter of opinion and eventually gets resolved through > feedback from real users. I doubt *users* want to continuously adjust the > relative volume of the tracks, so we're talking about automatic client > capabilities, perhaps based on user preference settings, which do the > ducking. But still these have only one degree of freedom (relative volume of > the two tracks), whereas the content creator has many (relative volume of > the many source tracks). > > So I think it's equally unlikely that client-side ducking is always better > than professional mixing. Well, we are not talking about how a video's main audio track is composed - of course a professional sound editor will create a better mix of the many input channels that are necessary to be synchronized. We are only talking about how a human or computer-created voice that is spoken over the top of an existing mix stands out in front of that mix. This is a simple matter of turning the main audio track quieter/louder (i.e. ducking). If I as a user cannot discern the description voice over the top of the main mix, then I turn the main mix down. Surely that is always better than a fixed mix of the audio description with the main audio where I am dependent on how well the person that does the sound mix can hear the voice in front of the main audio mix. Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 00:17:44 UTC