Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Radio.

with industry Pro, Nick Batzdorf

Moderators: admin, mdc, TAXIstaff

Post Reply
adorian
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:17 pm
Contact:

Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Radio.

Post by adorian » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am

How do you define Broadcast Quality for Film, TV and Radio?

nickbatzdorf
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:25 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Rad

Post by nickbatzdorf » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:29 am

Broadcast quality = sounds good enough to broadcast.There's the old idea that a good song is good even in a cheesy piano vocal demo on a cassette, but these days I don't buy that. For one, a lot of today's music is based on the groove, arrangement, and sounds. But mainly, you're putting your music up against other peoples' that is well-produced. The one that sounds better is going to win every time, even if the one that doesn't is a better song.

User avatar
davewalton
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 4172
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:57 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Rad

Post by davewalton » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:32 pm

Well, I'd say that if you don't have any line noise, you have good tonal balance between your bass, midrange, and highs, and the instrumentation and vocal sounds are at least medium quality (and nothing out of tune), then you've got "broadcast quality". Even though it's the exception rather than the rule, the Vonage "Woo Hoo" song is "broadcast quality". It doesn't have a lot of polish and isn't flashy in any way, shape, or form, but it does have the qualities I mentioned in my definition. Generally you want better than "Woo Hoo", but I think any of us are capable of meeting and exceeding that quality standard in our home studios.

nickbatzdorf
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:25 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Rad

Post by nickbatzdorf » Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:17 pm

Heck, that's my definition of "mediocre" - the bare minimum baseline, beneath which you're in the "sounds like ass" category. But this is a "how long is a piece of string" question, adorian. What's the context? Why do you ask?

dannyburns2454
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:25 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Rad

Post by dannyburns2454 » Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:55 am

I don't know about anyone else, but when the "Woo-Hoo" Vonage commercial comes on, I hit the mute as quickly as I can. I agree with Nick. I'm sick of hearing garbage recordings on TV. Film is only slightly better. Though, to me , the questions are: Are you proud of what your music sounds like? Does it favorably compare (sonically) to other things you hear, that are already in TV, film, and radio, that you would like to compete with? And if not, do you know why not?Try posting a link to your music here on this forum and get other opinions. There seems to be some fairly constructive reviewers here. Use the feedback to help you answer your own question. If you don't get replies, that may be another kind of answer, though. In that case, the "Studio Buddy" might be a good place to start.Good luck.DKB

nomiyah
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:29 pm
Gender: Female
Location: Home Is Where The Studio Is
Contact:

Re: Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Rad

Post by nomiyah » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:39 am

Good one, Nick.

roughly
Getting Busy
Getting Busy
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:40 am
Gender: Female
Location: Chicago-ish
Contact:

Re: Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Rad

Post by roughly » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:54 am

We always do the old car trip method. We take our songs and similar popular songs in a car with a good (in our case working) stereo. Drive around, listen and compare our songs to their songs. Stick the eq settings to flat and don't change any knobs when you switcht the disc. This is particularly effective for comparing mastering levels. Of course you can do this in the comfort of your own home studio too, but we like to hear our mixes on other stereos as well. Make sure you're comparing to a CD quality song, mp3's and radio might give you false readings. Good luck and always strive for the best you can do regardless.Theresa

adorian
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Rad

Post by adorian » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:44 pm

Many thanks for everyone's helpful suggestions? I would also like to ask: How many kHz is preferrable for BQ? i.e. 44,000, 48,000, 88,000, etc.

User avatar
Casey H
King of the World
King of the World
Posts: 12291
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Rad

Post by Casey H » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:01 am

My understanding is that the standard is 44,100. If I am wrong, someone out there please correct me ... (Like I had to say that last part around here LOL!!!) Casey

dannyburns2454
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:25 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Define Broadcast Quality For Film, TV, and Rad

Post by dannyburns2454 » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:40 am

Adorian:16 bit, 44.1 KHz, redbook CD is the industry standard. I doubt seriously that any screener will listen with anything but an average CD player. The higher sample rates are mostly used for the recording process (for better resolution and high frequencies) and for archiving mixes. At this time there are no widely used and commercially accepted digital mass distribution methods that are of higher resolution than CDs.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GBall, Google [Bot] and 1 guest