The playout provider that will not upgrade its systems to support 5.1 surround sound, eve in 2015
They are a playout provider that provides facilities requested by client broadcasters. It's the client that requests and defines the facilities required.
Your post is a bit like saying Amey or McAlpine refuse to build a motorway from Cambridge to Norwich !
ITV is a commercial broadcaster, it didn't go into widescreen until a significant number of its viewers had widescreen receivers. Very few people have 5.1 equipment at home so there is little point in them paying to make programmes in 5.1 (unless it is a co production or likely to sell well on disc) or transmitting it. 5.1 doesn't increase the number of viewers and advertisers won't pay extra for it. Although I have 5.1 myself, I only know two other people that have it. Almost everyone else I know just uses their TV speakers even if they are horrid, they aren't even interested in buying a sound bar or base, they certainly don't want six speakers in their room.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but ITV live very much in the commercial world. If it hadn't been for the fact that many of their facilities were overdue for refurbishment they may not have bothered with HD as early as they did for the same reasons.
ITV is a commercial broadcaster, it didn't go into widescreen until a significant number of its viewers had widescreen receivers. Very few people have 5.1 equipment at home so there is little point in them paying to make programmes in 5.1 (unless it is a co production or likely to sell well on disc) or transmitting it. 5.1 doesn't increase the number of viewers and advertisers won't pay extra for it. Although I have 5.1 myself, I only know two other people that have it. Almost everyone else I know just uses their TV speakers even if they are horrid, they aren't even interested in buying a sound bar or base, they certainly don't want six speakers in their room.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but ITV live very much in the commercial world. If it hadn't been for the fact that many of their facilities were overdue for refurbishment they may not have bothered with HD as early as they did for the same reasons.
Funny then that Channel 4, a much smaller broadcaster with smaller budgets and fewer viewers (ergo, lower advertising rates), manages it.
And if we are quoting anecdotally, then there are plenty of people on DS who have 5.1 systems and soundbars. I have seen a number of posters complaining about the lack of 5.1 sound on BBC dramas as well.
Funny then that Channel 4, a much smaller broadcaster with smaller budgets and fewer viewers (ergo, lower advertising rates), manages it.
And if we are quoting anecdotally, then there are plenty of people on DS who have 5.1 systems and soundbars. I have seen a number of posters complaining about the lack of 5.1 sound on BBC dramas as well.
DS posters, as I'm sure you know, are not representative of the general public. The latest BARB figures show the audience for ITVs top show (Coronation Street) was 7 million, the audience for ITVHD was one million. Even if the ITV figures include ITVHD, six times as many people watched in SD as HD. The number who would have been watching in 5.1, had it been available, would have been insignificant. Most DS posters, including you and I, have and watch HD, some are buying UHD TVs. We are not representative of the general public but we enjoy what we watch.
I have never worked for Channel 4 so I don't know what their business model is based on, or if, being government owned, they feel they should follow the example set by the BBC.
They are a playout provider that provides facilities requested by client broadcasters. It's the client that requests and defines the facilities required.
Your post is a bit like saying Amey or McAlpine refuse to build a motorway from Cambridge to Norwich !
Th A11 Trunk road improvement scheme...... bless it.
DS posters, as I'm sure you know, are not representative of the general public. The latest BARB figures show the audience for ITVs top show (Coronation Street) was 7 million, the audience for ITVHD was one million. Even if the ITV figures include ITVHD, six times as many people watched in SD as HD. The number who would have been watching in 5.1, had it been available, would have been insignificant. Most DS posters, including you and I, have and watch HD, some are buying UHD TVs. We are not representative of the general public but we enjoy what we watch.
I have never worked for Channel 4 so I don't know what their business model is based on, or if, being government owned, they feel they should follow the example set by the BBC.
Its possible that C4's content is more skewed toward 5.1 than ITV's. C4's contenrt will include a considerable amount of bought-in material already with 5.1 ITV's content will
include a lot of their own drama that would have to accept a huge uplift in production costs capture the 5.1.
It is however a pity that ITV don't have a facility to transmit 5.1, at least for films and sporting events. They obviously tested a business case for having a 5.1 facility on some of their channels on the Sky platform, but felt that the justification didn't stack-up.
Its possible that C4's content is more skewed toward 5.1 than ITV's. C4's contenrt will include a considerable amount of bought-in material already with 5.1 ITV's content will
include a lot of their own drama that would have to accept a huge uplift in production costs capture the 5.1.
It is however a pity that ITV don't have a facility to transmit 5.1, at least for films and sporting events. They obviously tested a business case for having a 5.1 facility on some of their channels on the Sky platform, but felt that the justification didn't stack-up.
You're right. ITV's research (when I worked there) showed there was no significant audience demand for 5.1.
Funny then that Channel 4, a much smaller broadcaster with smaller budgets and fewer viewers (ergo, lower advertising rates), manages it.
And if we are quoting anecdotally, then there are plenty of people on DS who have 5.1 systems and soundbars. I have seen a number of posters complaining about the lack of 5.1 sound on BBC dramas as well.
Channel 4 is a not for profit organization who struggle to break even, say no more
Where in that report does it state, or even imply that?
It doesn't have to.
TNS as they were before Ericsson Acquired them, made clear to ITV that they would not be upgrading the playout equipment when ITV wanted to make the transition to HD and 5.1 unless ITV footed the entire bill.
While TNS invested in HD playout systems, that did not include DD 5.1 capable hardware because ITV were not prepared to pay for that out of their own pocket to then be used by others not paying for that upgrade (And rightly so)
So thats why it doesn't have to say it.
As for the comment about there isn't enough people with 5.1 systems in their home...
LOLOLOLOLOL
As mentioned, Channel 4 makes use of the 5.1 sound track and on some commissions, requires it now!
Channel 5 also 5.1
BBC, when they can be arsed
Sky requires it as part of its delivery standard.
Then we get to the biggest commercial broadcaster in the UK, ITV........
One of their biggest shows, Downton, is produced and PP'd in 6ch audio yet viewers cannot enjoy that because ITV doesn't have the capability to transmit it.
All of their US shows have it, yet wasted and recoded to 2ch stereo, all because Ericsson won't facilitate that upgrade!
Its 2015, why is the UK broadcasting industry so far behind Europe and the US?
... why is the UK broadcasting industry so far behind Europe and the US? ...
Can I point you to my post above, ITV's research showed there in no significant public demand for it.
There may be a demand from posters on DS for 5.1 but generally people posting here have an active interest in such TV matters like this, but the general public don't seem to.
Can I point you to my post above, ITV's research showed there in no significant public demand for it.
There may be a demand from posters on DS for 5.1 but generally people posting here have an active interest in such TV matters like this, but the general public don't seem to.
Anyone can carry out market research and spin it into a 1000 different meanings, but the fact remains that if said research was as accurate, then why is 5.1 being required for delivery at more and more broadcasters?
Can't be that low can it!? Or why pay for it!!
Anyone can carry out market research and spin it into a 1000 different meanings, but the fact remains that if said research was as accurate, then why is 5.1 being required for delivery at more and more broadcasters?
Can't be that low can it!? Or why pay for it!!
The same research said there was only a limited demand for 3D. Your thoughts on that research?
DS posters, as I'm sure you know, are not representative of the general public.
Quite, but you quoted anecdotal evidence:
Although I have 5.1 myself, I only know two other people that have it.
I did the same, and clearly said so.
The latest BARB figures show the audience for ITVs top show (Coronation Street) was 7 million, the audience for ITVHD was one million. Even if the ITV figures include ITVHD, six times as many people watched in SD as HD. The number who would have been watching in 5.1, had it been available, would have been insignificant.
So all the more insignificant for Channel 4, but they manage to do it, with much smaller budgets and smaller viewing figures all round. Which was the point that I made.
I have never worked for Channel 4 so I don't know what their business model is based on, or if, being government owned, they feel they should follow the example set by the BBC.
Have you worked for ITV?
And let's face it, Channel 4 will likely have the same basic business model - it now relies on ad revenue, it is responsible for selling its own advertising space, it is funded purely from commercial activities.
And let's face it, Channel 4 will likely have the same basic business model - it now relies on ad revenue, it is responsible for selling its own advertising space, it is funded purely from commercial activities.
They are but with (I think) one difference, they are a non profit organisation. I'm sure I caught a recent promo on C4, explaining that any 'profit' is injected back into programme making. Therefore the provision of 5.1 audio could well be a result of that re investment ?
They are but with (I think) one difference, they are a non profit organisation. I'm sure I caught a recent promo on C4, explaining that any 'profit' is injected back into programme making. Therefore the provision of 5.1 audio could well be a result of that re investment ?
Good point.
Although on the basis that 5.1 is supposedly not a major selling point, it could be asked as to why wouldn't C4 be ploughing those profits back into something that was more worthy or would be of wider benefit to its viewers. Whatever the reasoning, they are to be applauded for taking that stance.
No 5.1 playout especially on a HD channel is lazy broadcasting imo, especially when you consider the content is mostly available on DVD/Bluray with multichannel audio.
Without checking, isn't ITV the only HD channel where 5.1 is totally absent?
Although on the basis that 5.1 is supposedly not a major selling point, it could be asked as to why wouldn't C4 be ploughing those profits back into something that was more worthy or would be of wider benefit to its viewers. Whatever the reasoning, they are to be applauded for taking that stance.
Probably not related, as it was all 20 years ago, but they do have 'form' for
introducing technical innovations. First UK broadcaster to launch a PDC service,
and first and (almost only*) UK broadcaster to launch a PAL+ service.
* I think Granada carried a couple of PAL+ transmissions from Winter Hill in the 90s ?
Comments
Could they upgrade in 2016 or a case of Ericsson not investing for cost reasons meaning no 5.1 forever (until 2024 at least)?
They are a playout provider that provides facilities requested by client broadcasters. It's the client that requests and defines the facilities required.
Your post is a bit like saying Amey or McAlpine refuse to build a motorway from Cambridge to Norwich !
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but ITV live very much in the commercial world. If it hadn't been for the fact that many of their facilities were overdue for refurbishment they may not have bothered with HD as early as they did for the same reasons.
I heard Carillion were doing that.;-)
And if we are quoting anecdotally, then there are plenty of people on DS who have 5.1 systems and soundbars. I have seen a number of posters complaining about the lack of 5.1 sound on BBC dramas as well.
Where in that report does it state, or even imply that?
DS posters, as I'm sure you know, are not representative of the general public. The latest BARB figures show the audience for ITVs top show (Coronation Street) was 7 million, the audience for ITVHD was one million. Even if the ITV figures include ITVHD, six times as many people watched in SD as HD. The number who would have been watching in 5.1, had it been available, would have been insignificant. Most DS posters, including you and I, have and watch HD, some are buying UHD TVs. We are not representative of the general public but we enjoy what we watch.
I have never worked for Channel 4 so I don't know what their business model is based on, or if, being government owned, they feel they should follow the example set by the BBC.
Th A11 Trunk road improvement scheme...... bless it.
Its possible that C4's content is more skewed toward 5.1 than ITV's. C4's contenrt will include a considerable amount of bought-in material already with 5.1 ITV's content will
include a lot of their own drama that would have to accept a huge uplift in production costs capture the 5.1.
It is however a pity that ITV don't have a facility to transmit 5.1, at least for films and sporting events. They obviously tested a business case for having a 5.1 facility on some of their channels on the Sky platform, but felt that the justification didn't stack-up.
You're right. ITV's research (when I worked there) showed there was no significant audience demand for 5.1.
Channel 4 is a not for profit organization who struggle to break even, say no more
It doesn't have to.
TNS as they were before Ericsson Acquired them, made clear to ITV that they would not be upgrading the playout equipment when ITV wanted to make the transition to HD and 5.1 unless ITV footed the entire bill.
While TNS invested in HD playout systems, that did not include DD 5.1 capable hardware because ITV were not prepared to pay for that out of their own pocket to then be used by others not paying for that upgrade (And rightly so)
So thats why it doesn't have to say it.
As for the comment about there isn't enough people with 5.1 systems in their home...
LOLOLOLOLOL
As mentioned, Channel 4 makes use of the 5.1 sound track and on some commissions, requires it now!
Channel 5 also 5.1
BBC, when they can be arsed
Sky requires it as part of its delivery standard.
Then we get to the biggest commercial broadcaster in the UK, ITV........
One of their biggest shows, Downton, is produced and PP'd in 6ch audio yet viewers cannot enjoy that because ITV doesn't have the capability to transmit it.
All of their US shows have it, yet wasted and recoded to 2ch stereo, all because Ericsson won't facilitate that upgrade!
Its 2015, why is the UK broadcasting industry so far behind Europe and the US?
Rant over!
You still don't understand do you, ?
Can I point you to my post above, ITV's research showed there in no significant public demand for it.
There may be a demand from posters on DS for 5.1 but generally people posting here have an active interest in such TV matters like this, but the general public don't seem to.
I understand perfectly well, thanks!
Anyone can carry out market research and spin it into a 1000 different meanings, but the fact remains that if said research was as accurate, then why is 5.1 being required for delivery at more and more broadcasters?
Can't be that low can it!? Or why pay for it!!
The same research said there was only a limited demand for 3D. Your thoughts on that research?
That was proven worldwide
Although I have 5.1 myself, I only know two other people that have it.
I did the same, and clearly said so.
So all the more insignificant for Channel 4, but they manage to do it, with much smaller budgets and smaller viewing figures all round. Which was the point that I made.
Have you worked for ITV?
And let's face it, Channel 4 will likely have the same basic business model - it now relies on ad revenue, it is responsible for selling its own advertising space, it is funded purely from commercial activities.
http://www.channel4.com/info/corporate/legal/frequently-asked-questions-4
They are but with (I think) one difference, they are a non profit organisation. I'm sure I caught a recent promo on C4, explaining that any 'profit' is injected back into programme making. Therefore the provision of 5.1 audio could well be a result of that re investment ?
Good point.
Although on the basis that 5.1 is supposedly not a major selling point, it could be asked as to why wouldn't C4 be ploughing those profits back into something that was more worthy or would be of wider benefit to its viewers. Whatever the reasoning, they are to be applauded for taking that stance.
Without checking, isn't ITV the only HD channel where 5.1 is totally absent?
Probably not related, as it was all 20 years ago, but they do have 'form' for
introducing technical innovations. First UK broadcaster to launch a PDC service,
and first and (almost only*) UK broadcaster to launch a PAL+ service.
* I think Granada carried a couple of PAL+ transmissions from Winter Hill in the 90s ?