|
| Preprint No. 2998
Presented at the 89th AES Convention
1990 September 21-25
Los Angeles
Continued
from page 1 of 2
6 NEWSCAST, FILM
Dubbing, retakes, voice synch and voice over
are not without impact on the continuity of the audio track. Both
off and on camera vocal tracks are highly sensitive to room acoustic
colorations. The variations range from outdoor shots to vocal tracks
taken in a closet. One of the audio engineer's jobs is to maintain
consistency between the audio and video tracks.
A good example of consistency control is
found in the production of a television news story. Here the local
personality, holding a mic comments on some disaster which is to
be seen across their shoulder. The camera pans to another view and
the narration continues. The off camera vocal track is not an on-site
recording. It was composed and produced back at the TV studio. The
voice over simply does not sound the same as that recorded in the
field. The life like sound of the omni mic in the free field highly
contrasts with the hyper mic used in the small, semi-dead voice
over booth.
The first major TV station to use QSF acoustics
is KTVU, Channel 2 in Oakland, California. It has an award winning
news show. Part of their formula for success is the QSF vocal booth
technique. For three years (since 1987) they have been using the
rapid diffusion/decay rates of a QSF booth where they open up an
omni mic in a tiny room 4' x 6' in size and get a voice over mixed
with the background sounds that almost perfectly matches full recordings
in the field. |
|
| 7 FLYING GOBOS
A example of another notable application
of the QSF technique involves the very well known show biz voice
of Ed McMahon. Remote shoots of his commercials caused a variance
in the timbre of his voice. This was unacceptable to the producers
as his close mic'd voice was too well known. One of two choices
remained, either voice sync everything or stabilize the acoustics
of his shots.
It's expensive and time consuming to voice
sync. Instead, the crew rigged an acoustic cloud using the QSF gobo
format, flying just out of camera shot. The boom mic was just below
the QSF cloud and the track sounded great. The flying gobo essentially
blocked the intrusion of the overhead reverberant sound and provided
quite a few early reflections to help smooth over the table and
floor bounce effects.
This technique is also valuable in the high
bay studios. A flying cloud over the free-standing QSF gobo has
not only lateral isolation and enhancement but adds in the vertical
component for even better isolation and diffusion. |
Fig. 9 - Flying Gobo |
|
| 8 REMOTE RECORDING
Recordings in a large reverberant space can
be beautiful but can also be terrible. The engineer tends to move
back from the instrument trying for a more natural instrument sound
but too quickly runs into the strength of the reverberant field.
The QSF gobo method eases the fit by enhancing the direct signal
strength while softening the level of the reverberation.
The mic is often high overhead. The traps
are still set in a semicircle pattern. The variables are the height
of the instrument, the height of the traps and the height of the
mic. The higher the traps are off the ground, the more energy leaks
directly to the reverberant field. The higher the mic is, above
and outside the traps, the more it hears the reverb.
The reflections of the talent back into the
mic produce the diffusive group of early reflections. An additional
feature is that the reverberant field is more quickly diffusive
due to the spoked nature of the sound source after it passes through
the gobo. |
Fig. 10 - Reverberant |
|
| 9 PIANO GOBO
The piano mic is often inside the open lid
of the piano top. Unfortunately this lid/sound board is not only
good for projecting sound out, but also good at collecting sound
from the outside which the mic also picks up. Often, the piano is
draped in moving blankets. A gobo can also be used to increase the
signal at the mic and reduce the intrusion of noise and echos.
The QSF gobo for a piano sets traps along
the open side of the piano with the reflectors inwards. Interior
sounds are multiple reflected while sound from the outside is attenuated.
Mic placement can be eased away from the strings without degrading
the recording.
An aside: Piano sound boards are essentially
parallel to the floor. This allows the setting up of standing waves.
Very irregular loudness effects in the middle C octave and above
are directly attributable to this effect. About 1/5 of professional
piano practice setups include some sound damping material under
the piano. Best results are developed with acoustic materials that
scatter mids and highs but damp 200 to 400 Hz. A couple of traps
used for gobo purposes can be placed on the floor below the piano,
with reflectors up for best results. |
Fig. 11 - Piano Gobo |
|
| 10 SPEECH TRAINING GOBO
This experiment was performed with the speech
therapy department at the University of California, San Diego. A
speech training table is typically set out in a larger room. It
is the size of a card table. Four Traps were added with the reflectors
facing inward. Speech training ensued with the hearing impaired.
The single bounce off the table creates a
comb filter effect. By adding 4 additional reflectors the comb coloration
effects reduced. The listener tries to imitate sounds. To mimic
comb filtered speech is inappropriate and would be judged incorrect
by the teacher. The multiple reflected signal is a more honest and
accurate signal to imitate.
When speaking, the student hears the sound
of their own voice better due to backscattering off the reflectors.
Acoustic feedback increases the rate of learning. The teacher and
student both speak through the same "chamber". The teacher
can also better hear detail in the speech of the student due to
the enhanced acoustic coupling by this set up.
Hearing impaired seem to hear better with
one ear oriented directly toward the speaker. In general, they are
also very susceptible to distraction by sounds coming in from the
side. In this configuration, sound from the side is blocked and
replaced with a reflection of the speaker's voice. Traps to the
left and right of the speaker also block room noise and help the
speaker's voice stand out more distinctly. Additionally, the traps
near the speaker help to block directionally competing sound. Not
only does the gobo signal enhance speech but it reduces distraction.
An interesting aside is that these Traps
form somewhat of a "blinder" for the student. Hearing
impaired are easily visually distracted, as are the learning disabled.
This table top gobo provides a substantial degree of visual barrier
effect allowing the student and teacher to be in better contact. |
Fig. 12 - Listening Function
Fig. 13 - Monitor Function
Fig. 14 - Isolation Function |
|
| 11 INTELLIGIBLE LISTENING
The dynamic level of listening for the hearing
impaired is limited and compressed. For example at 50 dB,A, sound
might really be at the threshold of audibility for some frequency
range yet at 80 dB,A the weak frequency range would sound as loud
as with any unimpaired ear. In addition to spectral threshold and
dynamic range problems the hearing impaired very often lose the
ability to discriminate one sound above others in a crowded, noisy
sound field. Echolocation is the ability to corrolate the sounds
from some particular direction using signals into both ears. Current
practice in hearing aids is limited only to bandwidth level controls.
Phase and time alignments are not yet available.
The saturated sound fusion acoustic space
provides remarkable listening benefit for the hearing impaired.
This is most especially evident in contrast to the hearing aid and
the mic/headset options presently in common use.
All three factors found in the QSF acoustic
space are an aid to listening.
1. The RT-60 is fast, Both external and internal
room noise is rapidly attenuated so as to not be competitive with
the signal.
2. The sound fusion window is saturated with
diffuse ambience so the direct sound is enhanced not in level but
over time.
3. The acoustic space is wide and smooth
so the received signal remains consistent despite variations in
listening and speaking position.
Because the hearing impaired are quite vulnerable
to room noise masking of the intended signal, a quiet and non-reverberant
room is always recommended for better listening results. Intelligibility
tests show an inverse correlation between intelligibility scores
and RT-60. This leads to the conclusion that an anechoic space is
the best space for listening.
Although the tendency for better listening
performance lies in the anechoic direction, it is agreed by researchers
that some ambience is better for listening than none. This leads
to the curious conclusion that a less than "perfect" intelligibility
rating might actually be the more intelligible for listening. Not
only has this come up in the field of speech intelligibility- but
in the present work.
The reflections that could enhance intelligibility
should not be echo effects, outside the time windows of 50 ms. They
would have to be very early reflections that are corrolated with
the direct signal. Again, reflections used in correlation processes
must be coherent, not random phase type reflections. In intelligibility
testing, for example with Techron, % Alcons work, the direct/reverb
ratio must be established. The D/R ratio varies depending on how
many milliseconds after the direct signal that the cursor for calculation
is located. It is generally agreed that +50 to 70 ms is a good location
for D/R ratio calculations. |
|
| 12 HIGH INTELLIGIBILITY LISTENING
ROOM
Beyond the technical aspect of intelligibility
measurements is the autonomic response characteristics of the human
listener. In the dry anechoic room, without reflections, sound levels
vary almost violently. This is evidenced by the continual contraction
of inner ear muscles. Loud sounds cause an autonomic flinch reaction
by the muscles of the inner pap that protect the ear from damage
due to further loud sounds. The Fletcher Munsion curves are ample
evidence of this limiter action. However, the reaction time for
this process is 1/10 second. The staccato of speech in a very dry
room produces a rapid sequence of 70 dB level changes and the listener
is plagued with a distracting and tiring flinch reaction.
The saturated sound fusion window of 50 to
40 ms provides just enough ambience to reduce the autonomic flinch
responses to a minimal level. But even here the lack of echoic ambience
results in some dynamic level flinch, a loudness suppression reaction.
For non-recording purposes the diffusive ambience probably should
be stretched to 100 ms~ lightly into the echo region.
The statistical sound field of a diffusive
space allows the listener and/or speaker to move positions and the
received sound to remain the same. An inexperienced speaker using
a microphone that is hardwired or IR coupled into headsets injects
a new problem into communication - mic position relative to the
speaker. For the teacher of a group of hearing impaired to wear
headphones inhibits the ability to listen to the students' response.
The students cannot be mic'd and so the teacher does not wear the
headset.
Headphones are promoted for learning speech
because they reduce the intrusion of unwanted and distracting signal.
But they exclude the airborne sound of the student's voice to oneself.
Ultimately, this will be the primary feedback mechanism one has
aside from bone conduction.
In the coherent diffusive sound field of
the QSF space, each student can wear hearing aids and hear the teacher
relatively equally, irrespective of student or teacher position.
Conversely, the teacher hears a student's speech as best as possible,
so does each student. This is a direct consequence of the wide,
open statistically diffuse, ambient sound field of the QSF technique.
The student has to practice speech in a space
that allows them to hear themselves on their own hearing aids. It
is the only feedback system they will carry with them into the "real
world". Hearing aids pick up a lot of room ambience in a regular
room. There is no ambience in a dry room. The Quick Sound Field
technique is an acoustic space that minimizes room noise and maximizes
acoustic feedback. Not only in promise but in practice the QSF type
sound field is a significant contribution towards improving the
quality of life for the hearing impaired.
|

Fig. 15 - Listening Room |
|
| 13 HISTORY
The very first QSF space was assembled spontaneously
by one recording engineer in 1984 who happened to have a lot of
modular acoustic units at hand in the studio. Since then many spontaneous
QSF gobo applications have been reported by users in the field.
The only common ingredient is that a variety of modular acoustic
units were available and the engineer's ear leads the way.
The formal development of the QSF method
took place in 1987 when a sampling booth design was needed. The
traditional dry room gave unacceptable signal for this level of
processing. The acoustic signature of the first booth was successful
and a lighter weight version of the booth continues in its place.
The original booth has found a home in a west coast recording school.
Within months after the initial QSF sampling
booth was produced, a number of studio projects included this booth
technique. Each time, the vocal talent in the studio discovered
this new acoustic space, they insisted on recording in it. Often,
a second smaller vocal booth had to be built to put the sampling
room back on line with its intended use. The most notable QSF sampling
room was picked up by musician Pete Townsend of the WHO. He was
so impressed with this new acoustic space that he endorsed it, without
remuneration to help encourage other engineers to try it. His room
remains at Eel Pie Studios just outside of London.
Because of the early pioneering efforts of
forward thinking, recording engineers, the Quick Sound Field has
developed into a dependable recording technique. |
|
| 14 CONCLUSION
The acoustic signature of colorless "ambience"
has been presented. Acoustic systems to produce this effect have
been developed, with five years of experience and testing in a wide
variety of applications. The consensus is that this Quick Sound
Field method is a major improvement in mic technique.
The Quick Sound Field method uses the Haas
Effect - this time involving statistical diffuse reflections instead
of discrete reflections. The QSF establishes a fundamental distinction
between coherent and incoherent reflections. While random phase,
incoherent reflections may be acceptable in the realm of echo control,
they produce masking within the Haas sound fusion time period.
Historically, an inordinant amount of technical
expertise and effort has been focused on the control room acoustic.
Now, attention turns to the mic. The Quick Sound Field is the next
logical step in comprehensive development of the studio acoustic. |
|