CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
2 STEEL TAPE
3 OPTICAL FILM
4 DIRECTLY-CUT DISKS
5 MAGNETIC TAPE
6 PORTABLE RECORDING
7 CARTS AND DARTS
8 DIGITAL RECORDING
AND PLAYOUT
Up
until the 1970s all recording systems were 'analogue': the
variations
in voltage coming from the microphone were amplified and applied
to the
variable movement of a groove, the width of an optical track, or
the
intensity of magnetization of tape. Digital recording developed
slowly
at
first, used in recording studios for making the master recording
which
would then become a gramophone record. The electrical signal
representing the sound was sampled at very frequent intervals -
thousands of times a second - and its level at each instant
described
as a number in the binary code used in computers.
The early
methods often involved tape mechanisms adapted from video
recorder
techniques; at the beginning of the 1980s the popular Compact
Disc
system became available to the public, providing high quality,
no wear
in use, and easy use (though 'Perfect Sound Forever', as
advertised,
was open to debate).
When computer technology evolved to the
state where this digital audio could be recorded onto a hard
disk the
system came into its own: now it was 'non-linear'. Tape is a
linear
medium - you have to spool through it to find a particular
place.
Gramophone records, though of course they have one continuous
groove,
are non-linear to the extent that you can go straight to
any point on a side - but obviously not editable. Hard disk
systems
could find any point immediately, and could move a section of
the
recording from one place to another; the order in which the
information
was recorded on the hard disk didn't matter since the machine
could be
instructed to play the audio in any required order - thus
providing
truly non-linear editing. You could cut a bit out of a
recording, and
if you didn't like the result, just put it back: and copying
through
several generations didn't degrade the quality in the way that
analogue
systems inevitably did.
The
first digital editors used dedicated hardware: the first one I
saw was
the DAR SoundStation (right) which we had on demo briefly in
1989. The
display
showed a tape-like travelling waveform: where with tape we'd
moved the
tape backwards and forwards by hand to find the place (we called
it
'inching' but for some reason it's now called 'scrubbing') the
Soundstation had a wheel with an indent for your finger (oddly
called a
'thumbwheel' though you would be unlikely to use your thumb);
rotating
this felt very much like moving tape. You marked the start and
end of
the edit with a button, hit delete, and your edit was done (and
undoable). It was a glimpse of a completely different method of
working, and a very attractive one.
We never actually used the
SoundStation: we did have one AMS AudioFile, which was similar
but much
more complex (and not very user-friendly) - it was used for
assembling
radio plays piecemeal in much the same way that film sound
editing was
done, but of course the results had to be copied to tape in real
time
so that they could be played out on-air.
Only when personal
computers and networks with central servers became powerful
enough to
handle large amounts of audio (and pump it round a large
building) did
digital audio really come into its own for broadcasting. There
were
many competing systems, and I'm not going to attempt to discuss
them
here - the World Service experience gives a good idea of how the
process developed.
The
first method to go into use was digital recording and editing
using a
computer screen, with programs such as Cool Edit (left) (which
later
became Adobe Audition). By using the mouse to select parts of
the
waveform, edits could be made: though 'scrubbing' wasn't
practicable -
one became adept at finding the place by eye. Of course edits
could
easily be checked and remade if necessary. Other systems were in
use,
particularly the very complex
SADiE,
which had its own hardware (and a very steep learning curve).
This
was still a localized system: the results still had to be copied
to
tape to go to the studio. The development which made all the
difference
was the use of a central server, and PCs ('workstations') in
each
studio and office, so that recordings once made in one studio
were
available to edit or play out anywhere else (though there was
usually a
permissions method to restrict access to those who should have
it).
A number of systems were tried
over several years, including Dave 2000, Netia and DaCapo before
Jutel's
RadioMan
was decided on (on factors which included not only usability but
support and availability): it came into use from 2004 (though
News
decided to stick with Dave 2000, which they had been using for
some
time). As before,
recordings would be made in a studio on a local PC , then saved
to
the server. The producer could tinker with his programme to his
heart's content in his office: then for transmission the
producer would
assemble a playlist (above) which could be accessed in the
studio.
It's important to understand that the
items in the playlist are not the actual recordings, just
pointers to
them. If you delete an item from the playlist you don't delete
the
original recording; items can be added, deleted, or moved around
in the
running order very easily, so there is complete flexibility in
organizing the transmission. It's possible to 'chain' items if
desired,
and a countdown to the end is shown. Items turn up on
alternating
faders (so you do need to be clear which fader is next) which
means
that one item can be faded under the next; you can even check
the end
of an item which is currently playing.
Like any new system,
there were teething problems. (Tape had been around for so long
- forty
years - that there was no-one who remembered the teething
troubles it
gave, or the previous methods.) It was possible to make
operational
errors that could paint you into a corner: and unlike tape,
where the
worst a machine can do is eat the tape which is on it at the
moment, if
any digital system of this sort fails it takes the entire
transmission
with it (and if the server or network fails the results get
quite
exciting). There were backup procedures, but inevitably there
were
difficulties at first.
Control
of the items is done from keys on the desk, a mouse and standard
keyboard, or from
a dedicated control pad which gives access to all the important
facilities (right).
Once fully installed and running, this
system makes a huge change in the way broadcasting can be done.
Recordings don't have to be physically carried round the
building: a
producer in his office can amend the running order of a
transmission
currently on-air; and complete assembly of programmes from the
component items can be done in an office on headphones (not
always with
desirable results).
One issue is that non-technical staff,
watching an experienced operator doing tape editing at a very
fast
speed, are impressed by the appearance of this and think it's
the
difficult bit: give an untrained producer a computer editing
system and
he can do just as well. Of course, the important thing is
knowing
where
to cut, not how fast you can do it - it's vital to maintain the
natural
pace of edited speech, avoiding over-short pauses, double
breaths, and
so on: I've heard any amount of bad editing as a result of these
developments (which is a failing in training rather than the
equipment
itself).
However
on the whole it proved a valuable method to replace tape. The
photo
above shows a
small studio equipped with RadioMan; at the time it was taken
the older
technology still hadn't been removed (CD players would always be
necessary, but Darts and Minidiscs were by then no longer in
use). With
the closure of Bush House in 2012 and the move to the new
Broadcasting
House I understand that a different playout system is now in use
but
the general principles will be the same.
So
we've seen the development from no recording at all, through
steel
tape, discs and modern magnetic tape to a centralized system
where
recordings can be immediately available anywhere required. I
offer no
predictions on what will come next.