Sound levels on FFC TV

[Robbie]

Does anyone else find the sound levels on FFC TV are always too low?
(Unlike any other website/steam I use.)
How do we get this fixed?
Thanks

[BestOfBrede]

Agreed  - it's not very professional recordings and also there's times when there's background noise in the way eg wind affecting the recording.
Not sure what can be done other than paying for professionals?

[Matt10]

They do pretty good. They're getting there compared to previous years. Match commentary is actually radio commentary, so it's not a TV broadcast in that sense. The interviews are where a volume boost is needed just a tad.

[Andy S]

Buy some half decent equipment if they want to charge for it

[Southcoastffc]

Email the club. I did last year, saying pretty much what you did, and things improved for a while. I've not watched or listened to interviews recently but it sounds as if things have slipped back.

[Chrisjo]

I had the same problem with sound but I upgraded my PC to an Apple iMac and it has a built in volume control on the keyboard which is brilliant.

[Fulham1959]

Does anyone else find the sound levels on FFC TV are always too low?
(Unlike any other website/steam I use.)
How do we get this fixed?
Thanks

I agree - I just started to watch the Scott Parker interview but gave up because of the poor/low sound.

[kiwian]

Yes very frustrating.

[toshes mate]

Agreed  - it's not very professional recordings and also there's times when there's background noise in the way eg wind affecting the recording.
Not sure what can be done other than paying for professionals?

If we have a paid communications officer with more than one camera and some wind protected microphones (which is suggested from content over the past couple of years) then it is a professional product.  The editing software includes ability to caption (which helps when sound is too soft or garbled) as has happened before.  The output is often lazily produced and this has been raised on these threads before.  It was not an issue when Sarah Brookes was here.   Needs to be sorted because it diminishes the whole point of the product.

[Andy S]

I interview people for hospital radio and they are far better than the Steven Sessegnon one. You can alter the levels on a free programme called audacity. They cannot be bothered

[Matt10]

Cavaleiro interview seemed pretty good.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Quality of sound is very poor, two bob. Sounds as though they are recording it in minces Garden Shed.

[toshes mate]

Cavaleiro interview seemed pretty good.

It is still pretty ropey for sound levels but at least there is only a slight breeze as atmosphere.  The types and placements of the microphones and the settings of satisfactory recording volume levels are all the signature marks of someone taking pride in getting the best quality out of the material on offer.  The results in this video are of pretty low quality in comparison to what can be achieved with just a little more care and thoughtfulness about the range of people who may watch the material.  Clarity is everything in voice recording. 

[Matt10]

Cavaleiro interview seemed pretty good.

It is still pretty ropey for sound levels but at least there is only a slight breeze as atmosphere.  The types and placements of the microphones and the settings of satisfactory recording volume levels are all the signature marks of someone taking pride in getting the best quality out of the material on offer.  The results in this video are of pretty low quality in comparison to what can be achieved with just a little more care and thoughtfulness about the range of people who may watch the material.  Clarity is everything in voice recording.

Looked to only be a lapel mic. Are you just wanting them to edit better in post? Or bring in more equipment?

Honestly didn't think it was that big of a deal, but I can understand if there are professionals on the forum who can relate to these type of sound concerns.

I will agree that the quality of sound has been poor in the past, but they have done better. There is always room for improvement of course, nature of the beast.

[S.F.Sorrow]

They must have forgotten the windscreen for the Steven Sessegnon interview.  :005:  It's total amateur night. A kid with a laptop and a cheap usb microphone can record better audio than FFCTV. They do everything wrong. They often use rooms with horrible acoustics. Sometimes the audio level is far too low. Sometimes the audio is boosted into distortion. They often seem to use ONE uni-directional mic with the interviewer positioned behind the mic, making it difficult to hear him. There's no way the people involved can have any audio production skills beyond pressing REC on the camera.

[Fulham1959]

Cavaleiro interview seemed pretty good.

Barely audible for me (I gave up after about 10 seconds) and I have a modern desk-top with B&O sound and a separate portable blue-tooth speaker.

[Matt10]

Cavaleiro interview seemed pretty good.

Barely audible for me (I gave up after about 10 seconds) and I have a modern desk-top with B&O sound and a separate portable blue-tooth speaker.

Gave it a listen again, and sure enough I was on my mobile and had volume at 100%. Drop it down to 50%, unable to be heard.

This could definitely be edited in post to modify the EQ. I've emailed ffctv, they are pretty receptive and overall a good team from my experiences with them.

[toshes mate]

Cavaleiro interview seemed pretty good.

It is still pretty ropey for sound levels but at least there is only a slight breeze as atmosphere.  The types and placements of the microphones and the settings of satisfactory recording volume levels are all the signature marks of someone taking pride in getting the best quality out of the material on offer.  The results in this video are of pretty low quality in comparison to what can be achieved with just a little more care and thoughtfulness about the range of people who may watch the material.  Clarity is everything in voice recording.

Looked to only be a lapel mic. Are you just wanting them to edit better in post? Or bring in more equipment?

Honestly didn't think it was that big of a deal, but I can understand if there are professionals on the forum who can relate to these type of sound concerns.

I will agree that the quality of sound has been poor in the past, but they have done better. There is always room for improvement of course, nature of the beast.

Lapel mikes need to be carefully placed and equalised for sound recording level with the interviewer's mike.  That needs to be done prior to beginning the recording.  First rule of sound recording is that you cannot improve a poor sound at editing time - it'll either distort or be too quiet to be audible at anything less than 100% volume - you have to have the set up right before making the recording.  Second rule of sound recording is that there is no such thing as an automatic recording leveller unless you are recording a constant tone at a constant level.   Most of this stuff used to be taught in one session at evening classes but is now more likely to be found on You Tube etc.   It is very basic for anyone wanting to make and produce their own videos or audio recordings.