Old TVs

On 18/09/2017 23:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It is a frequent problem on Radio 4. Simply a guest that talks rather quietly compared to the host and a lack of adjustment to compensate. As I say, only a problem with the additional noise in a car.
SteveW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Odd. I listen to R4 a great deal both at home and in the car, and haven't ever noticed this. It's the sound person's job to balance such things.
--
*Dance like nobody's watching.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In my Defender I turn up the radio to drown out the rattles
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
family.me.uk> scribeth thus

Thats what the err, Optimod is designed for;)...
--
Tony Sayer


  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Walker wrote:

I listened to a political interview programme on R4 the other week
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b092fyw4
the format was quite annoying (for in-car listening at least) with the interviewer's mic balance hard to the left, and interviewee's mic hard to the right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's because most cars have the stereo speakers in stupid places - like in the doors.
Don't see why R4 should change perfectly good stereo for those who don't position speakers correctly.
--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/09/2017 14:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Reckon so. To my ears at least, highly compresssed digital audio really mangles treble the most noticeably.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:19:50 +0100, Andrew wrote:

I don't know whether the model number, "320" is purely coincidental or has some connection but I immediately recognised it as part of the model number for a pair of amplified PC speakers I've been using with all of my desktop PC builds since the turn of the century.
The speakers in question are branded "Target" with the model number "TRG- S320". The quality is a definite cut above the more typical "PC Speaker" setup in that it uses a 4 inch bass/mid driver with a separate tweeter housed in each, relatively substantial (for plastic) reflex cabinet of around 8 litres in volume (32 by 19 by 14 cms - h,d,w).
It does a passingly good enough job as a "HiFi" self amplified stereo speaker setup as to save me feeling any need to utilise a more traditional amplifier/speaker setup, hence its continued use for over a decade and a half.
Aside from the obvious difference of seperate amp and speakers versus active speakers, I wonder of those Philips 320 PC speakers of yours have anything in common with my TRG-S320 speakers?
--
Johnny B Good

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oddly, Philips once made some rather fine (for the time) car speakers. A long throw dual cone 4". Fitted as standard by Rolls Royce.
--
*Many people quit looking for work when they find a job *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/09/2017 10:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The sound on our living room TV is certainly not perfect, but it is acceptable for most things. I did take the trouble to listen to numerous TVs that met our other requirements before choosing it on that basis.
SteveW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wasn't that interested when I bought my current Panasonic a couple of years ago, because I've used the main sound system for TV sound since 1970. But a quick audition of those on sale said there wasn't much difference. None had forward facing speakers, so on a hiding to nothing before even starting.
--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have never listened to the sound our 2012 Panny Vierra might be able to produce. Why bother, I just feed it into the Quad.
--
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:40:06 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

When looking for a 'cost effective' "Bedroom" TV set a few years ago, my main consideration was that any "HD Ready" 1080p 22 to 24 inch TVs would have to have sufficient cabinet depth to give its built in speakers a fighting chance at producing intelligible speech, unlike the dinky LG set we'd wasted our money on a few years earlier for use in the kitchen/diner (I'd been forced to hitch up a couple of cheap PC speakers via the headphone jack in order to be able to comprehend Jeremy Vine's questions and banter on Eggheads).
My quest led me to choose an obsolescent Akai TV with built in DVD player and, unlike the crappy LG, USB sockets that would allow playback of video file formats as well as mp3 and jpg. I didn't need the DVD optical disk function other than for its desired side effect of forcing the manufacturer into almost unwittingly providing sufficient cabinet volume to raise the audio quality standard to just short of what was once considered sufficient for CRT TV sets.
The stinky crappy LG in the kitchen/dining area was eventually relegated to the attic as a "poor man's spare PC monitor" by a slightly larger Philips TV we'd inherited from my late father's estate. The charm of this model was a similar 'cabinet volume' endowment to that of the Akai but without the encumbrance of an unnecessary DVD optical disk player drive.
Thus I was able to return the PC speakers to stock (now destined never to be sold to a customer as a "Shop Soiled" half priced bargain - no matter, the 5 quid 'bargain price' is now merely 'chump change' these days anyway) and I now merely need to crank the volume to 95% in order to hear Jeremy Vine's voice clearly enough when watching Eggheads.
The high volume setting requirement is largely to compensate for the HD audio standard that seems to be employed by the production crew, i.e. dead quiet so the loud bits don't clip. WTF??? Loud bits on a studio produced quiz show? Really? Must they???
Is it just me or does anyone else feel that such 'high fidelity' treatment of the sound is, for once, totally counter-productive, particularly in the absence of annoying audience participation that is often cursed with very obvious compression induced pumping effects on shows such as 'Mock the Week' and 'Pointless' et al? I can't believe I'm the only viewer who feels that the sound engineers on 'Eggheads' are, and continue, working to a totally inappropriate 'brief'.
--
Johnny B Good

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only to the extent that it highlights the rubbish sound on some productions.
--
When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

Jean-Claude Juncker, Reuters 31st May 2013.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suppose you could blame it on the EU.
EBU (european broadcast union) set the specification for digital recording levels such that the intended maximum would still have 10dB headroom - for accidents. And this level is still nominally applied by the big TV companies. But almost certainly not by other sound sources you may have which will peak to 0dBFS. And 10dB is a very noticeable increase in level.
Then add in some of the 'minority' channels like UK Drama etc who show mainly old repeats that seem to have been digitized by some work experience type who wouldn't know a decibel from a phon and simply sets the knob where it always is. So you get low levels - until the robotised announcer at the end of the prog blast you out of your seat.
--
*Eschew obfuscation *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:06:29 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Allowing an extra 10dB headroom on drama productions is legitimate enough, if a little wasteful of the dynamic range available in most domestic listening contexts and the inconsiderate shoutyness of the continuity announcer imposing audible vandalism on the end credits can usually be anticipated and adjusted for if you have the remote control in your hand but it makes very little sense to apply such rules to studio productions of pre-recorded game and quiz shows where the needs of intelligibility trump those of sonic fidelity.
As a matter of interest, this quest for sonic fidelity in drama productions has been pursued to the point where the general public (the general public for Gawd's sake!) have been complaining about the lack of intelligibility of the dialogue (normally an essential component of most audiovisual productions) to poor beleaguered Jeremy Vine on Points of View in recent years.
Very few viewers are prepared to wear headphones to reduce the ambisonics down from the sum of the studio or location and the home listening environment to just that of the studio or location alone in order to recreate the sonic landscape as experienced by the producer whom, one is left to presume, thought the sound quality of the production was sufficient or worthy enough to be presented to its intended audience.
Sonic fidelity is all very fine provided it isn't achieved at the expense of intelligibility of the dialogue which is normally the central component to any video play that aims to entertain beyond the level of 'Slapstick' or Mime. It seems a lot of these producers in recent times are unable to distinguish between Slapstick and Shakespeare.
--
Johnny B Good

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is FA dynamic range on any TV stuff. Very unlikely to exceed 20dB or so - and well within the range of the system, even with that 10dB headroom. Since every programme (in theory) has levels checked at all points in its progress from original sound gathering through post production to transmission it works just fine - provided you have people who understand how to measure sound levels. Pretty well all progs will be made to the same peak levels. It's what happens to them during some automated transmission system which appears to be the problem. If anything, worse than once was the case - although commercials seem to have been tamed somewhat. With that bloody continuity announcer being the main culprit these days.

Yes. But it is artistic. ;-) And cheaper to use personal mics buried under layers of clothing than to use decent mics in a sensible position. Even before the talent does the mumbling bit.

The big snag is most of the production team never watch TV. And are so familiar with their own prog they know the words off by heart.

Decent quality at the source would be a good start. Radio manage to make panel games with perfectly good quality dialogue. So why can't TV?
--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18/09/2017 18:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I've often wondered if it would make sense to transmit the speech and background/music as separate streams, allowing the viewers to decide how loud they need the speech to be able to hear it, while not waking the neighbours up with the sound effects! I often find myself watching films and turning the sound up and down repeatedly as scenes change from say two people talking in a room to someone bursting in and opening fire.
SteveW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[65 lines snipped]

YMYA.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 42nd day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Films are made for watching in the cinema. To do a totally different mix for your purpose would be fairly costly - and could only be done where the dubbing etc material still exists. It would also add to transmission costs - and be yet something else for poor quality control to f**k up.
A decent compressor could do what you want automatically. They basically reduce the dynamic range. But their artifacts can be unpleasant to listen to.
--
*The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.