- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:00:50 +1000
- To: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Cc: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Hi Geoff, Thanks a lot - that's great input. Did the BBC propose a better term that they would prefer? Cheers, Silvia. On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote: > > Hi, everyone: > > I’ve been following this discussion from the sidelines, and at the risk of > confusing things I offer the following bit of informal research. I’ve > spoken with broadcast colleagues here at WGBH and also at the BBC to see > what “clean audio” is understood to mean in the US and in Europe: > > -- In the US, “clean audio” means, from a technical perspective, > high-quality audio that is free of artifacts or other sonic garbage. > -- In Europe, “clean audio” refers to soundtracks with enhanced speech > intelligibility. It seems that confusion arises over whether it refers to > soundtracks with *all* music and sound effects removed, soundtracks on which > non-speech elements have been merely reduced or just the center channel of a > 5.1 mix. I also received the following comment: “We [the BBC] don't like > clean audio as a term, because it presumes the solution to > improved-intelligibility audio is to lower/remove music and [effects], > whereas we've found it to be much more complex than that.” > > Geoff > WGBH/NCAM > > > On 5/24/11 11:26 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > As I say, I don't mind if it says "foreground speech" or something, and the > documentation says it's the foreground sound that can be isolated for those > who need it, and it's typically speech > > On May 24, 2011, at 15:31 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > >> >> On 25/05/2011, at 5:35 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On May 23, 2011, at 21:39 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Not quite when you look at those that talk about "clean audio" in the >>>> way that we do. There, only "foreground dialogue and speech" is >>>> explicitly mentioned, e.g. http://www.guidogybels.eu/cap3.html. Note >>>> that the overall effect of the presentation may be to receive "clean >>>> audio" in the way that you describe, but the track's content is not >>>> clean audio, but only "foreground dialogue and speech". >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ETSI actually call a channel that contains speech-only for "clean >>>>>> audio" purposes a "hearing impaired" channel. At least this describes >>>>>> what the channel is being used for. "speech" would describe what it >>>>>> contains. "clean audio" give a false indication of better sound >>>>>> quality. I would be ok with "foreground sound", too, but I would be >>>>>> very unhappy about the term "clean audio". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How do you feel about 'contrast enhanced' or 'high contrast' or 'low >>>>> distraction'? >>>>> >>>>> But...as you say...I'd like to use industry terms even if, to our ear, >>>>> they are not ... very clean. :-) >>>> >>>> I think you believe that other sounds than speech and dialogue are >>>> also enhanced/extracted for "clean audio". That is explicitly not the >>>> case IIUC. >>> >>> >>> I think we can use an industry term, such as 'clean audio' or 'clean >>> speech', and make it clear in the documentation that this is the 'primary >>> program material, without extraneous or aesthetic background sounds'. >>> >>> I imagine that in a program about whale-song, with schlocky new-age >>> poetry being read in the background for 'effect', the 'clean' audio would be >>> the whale-song without the poetry, for example. >> >> I doubt that actually. What users want is to manipulate the loudness of >> the speech separately from the rest because it's in human mature to care >> about speech most. The thing is: it also allows you to fade out the speech >> giving cleaner access to the rest of the sound scene. So, the effect is >> "clean audio". >> >> >>> But given decent documentation, the author could work that out, even if >>> the label says 'speech'. >> >> If you prefer, we can call it "foreground sound" - that's more semantic >> and less confusing than "clean". I was going for "speech" since that is 99% >> of the content and people intuitively understand the idea of turning up the >> "speech" track (in contrast to turning up the "clean" track). >> >> Silvia. >>> > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. > > > >
Received on Friday, 27 May 2011 04:01:38 UTC