21 3

THE BBC RADIO DIGITAL PROJECT - A QUEST FOR PROGRAMME PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY

N. Sharwood-Smith and S.T. Mitchell

British Broadcasting Corporation, UK

The Radio Digital Project was BBC Radio's initiative for matching digital technology to the creative process of programme-making. This paper will deal with the challenges faced by the Project and in particular with the incompatibility problems that were met at almost every level of the production process when introducing the present generation of digital systems.

These problems will be examined in relation to the equipment chosen, the technical installations and the methods of data storage and transfer that were adopted. The fundamental difficulties of communication between programme makers and those from outside the broadcasting industry will be assessed, as new technology brings radical change to the sourcing of broadcast equipment. We will also look at the problems of user interface which arise when operational techniques, training and support services are considered.

The Digital Project was sponsored jointly by: Caroline Millington (Controller, Production) and Keith Harlow (Head of Radio Production Resources), representing between them the producers, operators and engineers responsible for the output of the majority of BBC Radio's five national networks.

The objectives of the project were: firstly, to test at least three desktop digital editing systems in order to have real data to find out which was the most suitable for a given programme type; secondly to test whether production efficiency would result from the use of digital editing equipment; and finally to gather some empirical evidence in order to better inform spending decisions across the BBC.

The Project has been more than a technical investigation. It comprised a nine month assessment of the relationship between technology and the hands-on programme maker and the changes in working practice wluch are llkely to accompany the NI introduction of digital technology. It was designed not only to identify the major advantages but also the disadvantages of using digital equipment. The disadvantages, as noted above, are most easily associated with incompatibility problems. It is with the first of these problems that we shall now deal, since it became evident with the initial choice of platforms for the Project.

TEE EQUIPMENT

The Digital Project brief - to use at least 3 different digital editors in the project programmes - was met by taking the following factors into account:

Each system was required to record audio onto disk in an uncompressednon data-reduced format. It was required to be based on a widely available computer platform and to perform to broadcast audio specification. Additionally the manufacturer/supplier needed to have a good history of support and reliability and the system was to be usable in studio or office installation. Finally the systems needed to represent good value for money and have costs commensurate with Radio Production budgets.

An initial selection process reduced a market place of about twenty digital editors down to six. Each of these six editors was demonstrated to the Digital Project leaders and three successful candidates emerged.

Of the three, two used an Apple Mac as the operating platform and one used a PC. The PC-based editor was the cheapest of the three being approximately half the cost of the other two editors in the configuration adopted by the project; which consisted of the processor, with keyboard and mouse, a 17" monitor and two SCSI hard disk drives of 2 Gb (each offering around three hours of stereo audio).

It is Micult to think of a less efficient start to the project, than having to gear up for two such different technologies as the PC and the Mac. Hardware is incompatible, software is largely incompatible, purchasing and support needed to be dual-sourced. However, the Project Leaders did comfort themselves with the knowledge that it could have been worse - if all three systems had been totally incompatible with each other at this most basic level then the overheads would have been pushed up still further. There was also a glimmer of hope that the PowerPC might prove a successful platform from which to operate all three systems and the Project would research this option during its course.

The fact that the exclusivity of the PC and Mac technology is finally being addressed in the IT

International Broadcasting Convention, 14-18 September 1995 Conference Publication No. 413,O IEE 1995.

214

marketplace gives some indication of the increasing importance placed on system compatibility by the people who matter - the purchasers.

BBC Resources is a major purchaser in the broadcast audio field and the BBC as a whole is an international player in the field of multi-media. The standard office machine is a 486DX 33 PC and the Corporation-wide Network supports this technology. The implication of the introduction of non-PC technology to the offices of BBC Radio staff will be dealt with later, but before that it is worth considering the training structure that the project required to get staff up to speed with technology which was, for many of them, entirely foreign and a radical departure from their normal working methods.

TRAINING

The project was free to look for its training from any suitable source, but it was decided to use staff from the BBC’s own Radio Training Department. There were advantages of geographical proximity and flexibility of timetable behind the decision, but most importantly the staff at Radio Training could be relied upon to understand the process of Radio programme production. They all had programme-working experience and they were as conversant with the vocabulary of broadcasting as the course participants.

This problem of language should not be dismissed lightly in the context of the project. It is rare to find a manufacturer or supplier of digital editing equipment who has staff with direct experience of the broadcast programme-making environment. The speed at which programmes have to be made is largely alien to the Information Technology culture and the jargon used by broadcasters and IT professionals is often mutually incomprehensible.

It was far more satisfactory, therefore, to obtain broadcasting trainers and ask them to learn about digital editing than it would have been to expect IT professionals to do a crash course in programme- making.

Some important facts about the logistics of any learning process were rediscovered during the course of the project: the difficulties of scheduling staff to attend training when they have a full timetable stretching ahead by many weeks; the problems of coordinating the availability of equipment and of trainers, and the importance of good support for the course members.

Specifically, there were problems in providing sufficient editing systems back in the workplace to allow producers and operators to gain experience

through practice, whilst their new skills were still fresh. The single largest obstacle to successful training was requiring staff to work in a less efficient way in the short term, with the expectation that the ultimate level of their skill would bring greater speed and accuracy.

During the training process many of the h c i p a n t s felt that the learning curves associated with the digital editors were far too steep for staff to be able to grasp even the basics in the time available to them. With a few honorable exceptions digital editing systems are not intuitive pieces of soffware, particularly for those users who do not regularly have to work with computers. Insufficient thought has been given to the intermittent user, who may require to be editing in a concentrated fashion for a week - and then do no more for two or three months. In such circumstances coming back to a screen full of hieroglyphics, with no prompts or visual assistance is enough to send most radio programme makers running for the m o r blade and sticky tape.

Despite these problems the training programme advanced steadily, with trainers working whenever possible with staff from the same production team - producers and operators together - in order to foster a sense of cohesion between Resources and Production departments. Although some of the skilled operators found this approach held them back to start with, the gains from better cooperation between operational and production staR were recognised as being significant.

Initially there was one very basic limiting factor on the production of trained staff however - a lack of the correct hardware and a resulting lag in the installation programme.

INSTALLATIONS

One of the central advantages perceived for digital technology is that it is seen as being able to convert what was once a specialist studio-based (and therefore expensive) activity into an office-based one. Having, with some difficulty, achieved the initial task of obtaining sdc ien t equipment to get the training process under way the project needed to get equipment into offices and studios in order to meet the requirements of the newly-trained staff. Here, however, another culture clash became evident, partly caused by different interpretations of the time imperative and partly by the technical needs of broadcasting.

Programme-makers tend, as a by-product of their profession, to be highly conscious of deadlines. Programmes do not get held up due to problems with courier companies, and they are never delayed

215

“in transit”. Ifthere are problems with the content they are addressed and sorted out in time to met an on-air date. The same is not true of products emanating from the IT world. If a producer has a deadline it cuts no ice that a particular product will be available and working tomorrow. If it is not available and fully functional when required then it will be consigned to the conceptual wastebin.

On the technical side it is worth emphasising that broadcast equipment does not as a general rule concern itself with clawing its way to the peak of technical advancement. Certainly, advances in technology are welcomed, but the importance of robustness and reliability cannot be understated. Equipment which will work to a basic specification day-in day-out, with no maintenance, which will accept both physical - and verbal - abuse, which will travel by all forms of transport known to man and still function at the end of the journey: this is the type of technical functionality which programme-makers expect.

The delivery of products from the IT environment, where advances in specification occur almost on a monthly basis and software bugs are considered as a fact of life, could hardly offer a greater contrast to the above, and this was regarded as a major impediment to their acceptance.

In an office, of course, a computer has for some time been a necessity for administrative eEciency. In BBC Radio a PC-based network links all departments with reasonable if not perfect reliability. This network carries large amounts of text material associated with programmes and programme-makers and each producer has a PC linked to it. As a result of this it was decided to attempt to integrate the one PC-based editing system into a standard producer’s workstation.

Conversely the Mac-based systems were installed on PowerPC Macs and used as standalone systems unconnected to any network. This once again emphasised the problems caused by PC/Mac incompatibility. Ollice-bound users needing a Mac system were required to have space for two computers, each with screen, keyboard and mouse, and this made many office installations unacceptably cramped. Screen switchers can help with this problem, particularly since the largest single item is the 17“ screen necessary to achieve good editing control, but buying two computers, keyboards and mice is still not economical.

Installation in studios produced its own constraints in terms of space problems, but raised other difficulties as well. The inherent noise of the fancooled processors and disk drives created sufficient disturbance for them to need installation in sound-dampening bays.

Whilst not perfect these bays lessened the noise problem and helped to tidy up the installation

All studio installations were standalone, with no attempt being made to network the editors. This was partly due to the realisation that the data rates associated with digital audio would almost certainly seriously disrupt the existing network. It was also a consequence of the lack of perceived value in networking any of the editing systems in their current state of development.

DATA TRANSFER

Having catered for installation in both offices and studios there arose another fundamental problem. How would programme material be moved between editing systems in different areas?

One method - already widely used as being fool-proof, but also time consuming and inefficient - was to dump the audio onto DAT (Digital Audio Tape) and transfer it in this form. As well as being a tedious exercise required at the start and finish of every session, this did not transfer the EDL (Edit Decision List) along with the audio data. There was also a requirement to keep the totality of the material available, rather than just the edited sections, in order to make best use of the non- destructive nature of digital editing. This made any transfer such as the above doubly inefficient.

Networking of the editors was discarded partly on the practical grounds that a completely new network cable would need to be installed in Broadcasting House in order to support the data rates involved. Although Local networks might have been considered, the PC system transferred data very slowly over a network and the two Mac systems would have been expensive to convert to network-capability. Had part of the Project brief been a requirement for access to large amounts of shared audio by multiple users, then a network might have justified its cost, but this was not the case.

Of the options in removable storage media, both magneto-optical disks and recordable CD were considered, since both had features which made them attractive in special circumstances. The existing MO disks were regarded as ideal for short items, but contained i d i c i e n t storage for the majority of programmes. CDR was a “write-once” technology and therefore unsuitable for all but a finished piece of material.

The solution finally adopted was to use removable SCSI hard disks of 2 Gb capacity which could be plugged into a drive bay attached to each editor. Naturally it

216

was not possible to cany programmes from one editing system to another, but it was feasible to move between offce and studio with a disk containing an entire programme which could be plugged into a drive bay for immediate access.

What this approach did not solve, was the problem of gathering the material (usually DAT or %” t ap ) and dumping it onto hard disk. Nor did it avoid the time taken to output the edited piecc to a format suitable for transmission (again usually DAT or %“ tape). These are both areas where an enormous amount of time could be saved if there were common file formats and interfaces. Regrettably this is not yet the case..

Regrettably also, the removable hard disk concept, although excellent in theory, proved to have practical shortcomings. The anticipated physical fragility of the drives was not a major problem, but the host computer regularly failed to recognise the inserted disk. The frustration that this produced, allied to the relatively high cost of the disks meant that the philosophy of “plug in and go”, was seriously undermined.

In the long term networking has to be the answer to digital audio transfer, but using these editing systems it has yet to prove its value against the cost of the infrastructure that it requires. It also carries its own dangers that the Project considered, but fortunately did not need to address. Networks need administering. Would data on the network need backup and how would archiving and housekeeping be achieved? Networks are also prone to failure - not often, but consider the possibility of losing output from five National Radio stations simultaneously due to the crash of an audio network. Just once would be too often. Also contributions from a wide variety of sources would be required, coming in on dial-up as well as permanent circuits, with the implicit problems of security that this would raise.

In short, networks are still not sufficiently robust or flexible and removable storage media are still not sufficiently reliable or cheap. We await with eager anticipation the 1 Gb magneto-optical disk and disk drive costing less than €1,000; together with a common Qgital audio file format supported by the majority of manufacturers.

Having given staff their basic training and installed the new tools of their trade, it was vital to give them sufficient support actually in their place of work. This needed to be done in a technical sense, to fix faults quickly and to respond to equipment requirements; and in an operational sense, with advice on all aspects of the editing process which still represented such an unfamiliar environment to the majority of users.

SUPPORT

Although support for the Project was available from many sources, it was decided to use the senices of the BBC’s own staff to provide the direct interface with the programme makers. Specific advice could then be sought through this channel from manufacturers or suppliers as necessary.

Initially the Radio Training staff were keen to offer this first line support service. This was understandable since they had already had the opportunity to establish a close relationship with the producers and operators whom they had trained. Pressure on them to keep the training schedule running soon made it evident that they would not always be able to respond as swiftly as was desirable however; either they could offer their availability for support services, or they could train, and it was decided that the latter service was the one to concentrate on.

The support function was therefore delegated to a specific Digtal Helpline, which was Wed by two experienced engineers who had been trained in the operational use of the various systems.

The Helpline was easily accessible to the programme makers. Its staff had time to phone around to find the best source of advice and their engineering expertise helped where problems went beyond basic operational difficulties. The Helpline also offered Hardware fault diagnosis and replacement with ‘hot spares’ provided by the Project allowing replacement parts to be swapped when faulty equipment was sent for repair or replacement under warranty.

The Helpline has proved sufliciently valuable to be retained beyond the finish date of the Project. All fault calls are logged on a database to enable common faults to be spotted and common user problems to be fed back into training sessions. Any common hardware problems, common problems with interfaces or common needs for facilities can also be fed back to manufacturers and suppliers.

This provision of a central point for the routing of assistance was vital to the success of the Project and it provided a focus for dialogue between the BBC and the suppliers and manufacturers of the various pieces of equipment used on the Project. Dealing with a large organisation such as the BBC can be a lengthy business for those who do not know its internal structure and the provision of a strong point of contact should be every broadcaster’s aim.

217

COMMUNICATION

The dialogue between equipment suppliers and broadcasters is crucial to the advancement of digital audio technology. As has been mentioned already, language, attitudes and expectation can be very different and there are genuine barriers of understanding to be overcome.

It merely leads to frustration on both sides when manufactwen are too proud - and too defensive - of their systems to admit to areas where improvements are needed. Conversely, to a manufacturer offering radical new technology, broadcasters can seem to be annoyingly rooted in outdated ways of operating.

Digital Editing is an area where change is swift and unremitting. Within the short lifetime of the Project all three editing systems under consideration have changed. The specification of digital machines will continually alter as processing power is added, hardware is improved and new sofbare features are included.

A major end user such as the BBC ought to be kept aware of these impending enhancements and should be locked into the consultation process which produces these improvements. This is gratifyingly true with some manufacturers, but is certainly not true for the majority of them.

So much for communication outside the Corporation. Inside BBC Radio, it was felt that the Project could do much to raise the general awareness of digital editing technology.

This was achieved by a series of initiatives comprising not only regular meetings of training staff, computer staE and operators to d~scuss the Project and drive it forward, but also a monthly newsletter and two seminars, one in October ‘94 and one in March ‘95. These were two-day events open to all programme- making staB in BBC Radio offering participants the opportunity to see digital editing systems in action, to discuss the processes involved in making programmes digitally and to take part in group sessions on working methods and other key issues.

TEE USERS - OPERATING TEE EQUIPMENT

The final interface problem with wiuch we shall deal is probably the hardest to overcome - the creative interface between operator and machine. It can be seen as the logical end-point of all other interface problems and they should all be subordinate to it.

Seventy per cent of the programmes produced by BBC Radio are live and yet none of the editing systems presently available offer a wide enough combination of facilities to be considered as suitable for live programme use. The major reason for this remains reliability, but three other aspects need to be considered.

The first of these is that although it is possible to produce immaculate (and timeconsuming) work in both analogue and digital domains, it remains as yet impossible to recreate in digital form the very swift rough editing which mwt producers require to reduce a massofrawmaterial -0ftenmeasuredinhours- down to a manageable core of minutes or seconds. Rough editing a piece at double speed or faster in the analogue domain is a regular activity that a producer will carry out, allowing precious time to be spent on the areas that genuinely need accurate editing, possibly in a more suitable environment (such as a studio or workshop), or by a more skilled operator.

Secondly, %” analogue tape machines have evolved over the years to provide a wonderfully tactile method of locating recorded sounds, to the extent that it is almost possible to edit with your eyes shut. Digital interfaces that mimic these tactile possibilities are only just appearing.

Finally, it is not yet possible to cany out the equivalent of a three machine edit (in analogue) on any single digital editing system. That is, recording sections of music or speech with live links inserted between them in real time. This would be the most useful activity that could be obtained from any purely technical advance. A method of integrating two digital machines to cany out this process, or of enhancing a single system to achieve it, would open up the possibility of a genuinely powerful and widely applicable radio production tool.

The final words in this section must come from those inplved most deeply in the Project. Quotations in this following section are all taken from producers, operators and engineers and reflect their experiences of working with digital audio technology during the course of the Project.

Many of them found that their training had given them the skills to operate as editors, but that their first brush with the computers showed up all sorts of shortcomings in their IT awareness:

“The training was excellent except for a lack of training in disk management - moving programme materialfrom machine to machine and logging disks etc. This causedproblems. ... ’’

21 8

A number saw the possibilities offered by digital editing as being extremely positive: “Its just glorious because something doesn’t quite work you just undo that with non-destructive editing. With tape you make a cut and that cut is forever”

“My experience of digital editing is limited to music editing. Digital edits in music are superior in every way lo analogue - and much more flexible, non- destructive, easy to alter, no deterioration in sound quality”

On the other hand there were some distinct worries: ‘TfI lose a tape, it is somewhere in my oflce. But i f it goes offthat hard disk, it doesn ‘t even exist ”

Digital recording is less tangible, you do not really know what is going on there, it is not something you can see. If it gets lost in the system or a disk gets corruptedyou can ’t really get it back”

There was an acknowledgment that some editors were more suited to certain tasks than others and that the Project should “Provide the right system or systemsfor the job ... Spur Digital Editing manufacturers to create a system that combines the strengths ofall the systems”

There was also a feeling that some programmes were completely unsuitable for the digital editors that are currently available, notably those involving a fast turnaround of material: ‘‘Very unsuitable for live programmes ’’

“The potential for making an indecisive producer even more indecisive is almost limitless”

The problems associated with speed of operation of the editors were evident to many: “It allows producers greater control over their

programmes, but the technology is not up to it yet. The ‘interfaces‘ are too cumbersome, the software too unreliable and the systems not tailored enough to the way we want to manipulate audio for making radio programmes ’’

Closer cooperation between resources and production departments was anticipated by many: “I would like to be able to edit and place stuff in the oflce, but with an operator mixing it ajterwards”

“...it could allow producers and operators to somehow merge responsibilities ... ”

But there was a feeling that digital had to be the way forward, even if this might take time: “Lots more needs to be done but I wish it every success. It has to work eventually”

And that the users needed to give themselves time to come to terms with the possibilities of these new tools: “...in the end simply having to edit the programmes forced me to get on with it and get used to it. As I edited myprst episode I practically shook with terror - by episode I2 it was easy.’p

Interface problems get the last word however: “We will get into almighty trouble with software incompatibility unless someone with knowledge makes sensible decisions (no sign of this yet!) ’’

CONCLUSION

As digital technology is introduced into broadcasting there will be a major alteration in working practices with a bluning of the responsibilities between operators and producers. Office technology will merge with studio technology and the same equipment installed in both areas will provide a genuinely mixed economy of resources to suit the varying needs of programme makers. This equipment needs to be of the right calibre however, and to date the problems of reliability and incompatibility have held up progress along this path.

We have looked at incompatibility between hardware and software; of differences in language, working methods and time awareness which divide the worlds of computing and retailing from that of broadcasting. We have emphasised the problems caused by a lack of compatibility in digital audio file formats and the major problems faced in storage and movement of general programme material in digital form, either using portable data storage media or by operating a secure and reliable wide area network system as needed by a national broadcaster.

If digital technology is to expand beyond the confines of discrete units each tied-to an exclusive provider and each with its own individualistic operation, then these problems must be addressed with some vigour and urgency.

The Project has proved that there are efficiencies to be made in programme production and that they are in minimising interface problems. This is as true in a human resources sense as it is in an engineering sense. Manufacturers, retailers, prodwrs and operators all have their part to play in ensuring that the wheels run smoothly on the information superhighway. As technologies converge the winners will be those who best understand the requirements of everyone involved in this multidisciplinary process. The losers will be those who remain in isolation.