Not lost in translation

10 June 2009

Bosch's interpretation system in use at an international event

Interpretation services have been a vital part of the international political and business arenas for time immemorial. The earliest prints of diplomats meeting picture the stooped forms of interpreters whispering translations into their masters’ ears. Chris Fitzsimmons reports on some slightly more modern solutions.

When the Directorate General of Interpretation (aka the SCIC) was formed to assist the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, it covered four languages - French, German, Italian and Dutch. This institution was arguably one of the forerunners of the EU, which, as of 2007, recognises 23 official languages. All of these 23 languages must be catered for by the EU’s official bodies – its courts, commissions and parliamentary houses. Of course at the United Nations, this number is even larger. Demand for translation services, therefore has never been higher

Simultaneous interpretation solutions fall largely into two camps. Firstly, many high-end congress systems include a varying number of channels of interpretation for delegates.

These channels are selectable at the delegate unit and are transmitted over the same infrastructure (wired or wireless) as the congress’s regular floor channel.

Examples of such solutions include Bosch’s DCN Next Generation and DCN Wireless systems, which offer 32 and 10 channels respectively (including the floor channel). Others are Televic’s TCCS 5500 (58) and Confidea (16) solutions, Taiden’s HCS-4100 (up to 64 channels) and Brahler’s CDSVAN and DIGIMIC packages (both offering 32 channels).

Sennheiser also offers the SDC 8200 congress solution, which delivers up to 28 channels of simultaneous interpretation.

This type of solution is absolutely perfect for fixed installations in environments such as international political institutions or congress centres, but falls down a little in a number of situations. Firstly, it is often the case that there are a number of passive attendees for whom it is either unnecessary of indeed undesirable to provide delegate microphones. The venue then needs an alternative way of providing language distribution.

Another situation is that of a rental company. As already observed, the discussion systems including multiple channels of simultaneous interpretation are at the high end of the market. This makes them expensive and hard to rent to those who don’t need them. The company could better off buying a stock of reliable standard delegate units with a more appropriate feature set, and then a separate language distribution system which can be hired out if necessary.

This kind of stand-alone language distribution solution is almost always based on some form of wireless technology. The majority of these are currently infrared, although some companies do offer RF-based wireless distribution (for example RCF’s Forum 2000).

The RF / IR decision is dependant on a number of factors, however it is the biggest functional difference between the two that normally makes the decision. IR is a line of sight only technology. That means that signal will not go round corners, or through walls and floors of conference rooms. This is either a deal breaker or a deal maker. Those requiring infallible security will almost choose this, as unless you have uninterrupted line of sight to an IR radiator, there is no way to intercept the signal.

The security issues with RF can be largely obviated with the use of signal encryption, but for the most paranoid of clients this won’t be enough.

Conversely if you need to be able to share the translated languages between multiple rooms, RF is almost imperative, because without networking the rooms together with more radiators you can’t share IR.

The other issue with RF-based wireless is that the majority of such systems work in the 2.4GHz band. That’s the one shared by WLANs, Bluetooth and cellular devices. This means that it can get very crowded. 2.4 GHz essential has three available sub-bands in which you can run networks. Once these are filled up, they start to destructively interfere with each other.

A good example of this might be a hotel with an attached conference centre. Assume the hotel is already running a WLAN to provide internet access to its guests. Assume also that this is a pretty powerful one as it has to be distributed across the whole building. This leaves two other bands free for other wireless use. That means a maximum of two conferences or other uses before the networks clash. Also the interference runs both ways. Not only will the translation transmission suffer, but it could also be interfering with whatever WLANs are in use.

However it’s not all bad news for RF. IR is notoriously sensitive to other sources of IR radiation – direct sunlight, fluorescent lighting, plasma TVs (although the use of digital technology and frequency switching can avoid much of these). Whilst IR is ideally suited for one way systems such as language distribution to an audience, RF is much better for two-way communication.

Bosch Communication’s Murat Keskinkilinc, Product Marketing Manager for Bosch Communication Systems, explained: “IR receivers such as those we use in our Integrus system, use a very small amount of power compared to an RF receiver, so they are ideal for one way communications – they give excellent battery life, which is a key feature.

“However, when we are talking about two way communications with audio being sent back, RF is the best option because transmitting IR conversely uses a lot more power to achieve the necessary range in a large setting. You’d also need a much larger unit to accommodate the IR radiator.”

Another plus for RF is that there is a lot more R&D effort put into it due to its complete dominance of the IT world as a wireless medium.

The relatively crowded environment of the 2.4GHz band, with only three carrier spaces available, has led some manufacturers to look further up the spectrum. Televic’s Kristoff Henry: “Our Confidea wireless solution has the option to switch to the 5 GHz band if necessary, this gives you even more space to operate wireless devices without interference. We are the first to do this.”

However, this too comes at a cost. To achieve the same transmission ranges at 5GHz as you can at 2.4GHz you need to push more power through the transmitter, which has clear implications for battery life of wireless devices. Another possible drawback (although not in the EMEA region) is that some countries have not made the 5 GHz area of the spectrum available for use, notably China and the USA.

According to Bosch’s Keskinkilinc these two reasons, amongst others, are why Bosch currently has no plans in the 5 GHz arena.

How just because RF is a more popular technology in the wider field, that is not to say that no innovation occurs in IR. The latest development is in digital audio (and data) distribution over IR. Bosch was first the party with Integra, a digital infrared audio distribution system, which can deliver a total of 32 channels: (31 translations and 1 floor channel). Working with the IEC, the company was heavily involved with the creation of IEC 61603-7, which is the standard which now governs such products. Competitors Shenzen Taiden (HCS-5100 series), Televic (Aladdin) and DIS (LDS IR) now all offer IEC 61603-7 compliant IR products, which theoretically means that their receivers should be compatible with compliant radiators from other vendors, and vice-versa.

Televic’s Kristoff Henry stated: “The standard has created an interesting opportunity for events venues and rental companies. If someone now needs to borrow more stock for a larger than average event or a special one beyond their normal capabilities, they are not bound to the vendor they currently use. Any of the compliant products should be interoperable.”

Several companies also continue to offer analogue IR language distribution. Notably, Brahler’s language distribution, Infracom, delivers 32 channels of simultaneous interpretation in bands II and or IV of the spectrum. The ability to switch between these two bands allows the system to be resistant to IR interference despite being based on analogue transmission.
Another is Sennheiser, its system features 31 interpretation channels plus the floor, via analogue audio.
Also in the analogue audio domain, Audio-Technica’s ACS-60 IR solution now has its translation component enabled. Whilst this only offers three language channels plus the floor channel, it uses infrared’s inherent security as a major selling point for its target market – business. The company’s Logan Helps argues that whilst the demand for translation exists in this market, it’s on a totally different scale to that found in congress centres or international institutions. Four channels should be perfectly adequate for most business meetings.

Whatever your needs, there is something out there to suit you. The flexibility that these systems offer is fantastic, meaning that as a rental outfit or an integrator you can scale a language distribution system to precisely match the needs of your particular customer.