Discussion:
The New Year episode
Add Reply
Vicky Ayech
2020-05-17 21:21:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Having seen reassurance that this was not the episode where Nigel
fell, I listened to it. I found the episode difficult to listen to.
There was background noise and more than one person talking together.
Is that just me as I wear hearing aids? Or was the sound quality
inferior? Another episode not good for radio, more suited to tv? But
this was not during Wotsit's reign, was it?
Penny
2020-05-17 22:41:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 17 May 2020 22:21:44 +0100, Vicky Ayech <***@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Vicky Ayech
Having seen reassurance that this was not the episode where Nigel
fell, I listened to it. I found the episode difficult to listen to.
There was background noise and more than one person talking together.
Is that just me as I wear hearing aids?
Hearing aids won't have helped but neither will the fact it was first
broadcast 19 years ago. Voices change in subtle ways over time (even when
the close friend hasn't). Throw in some voices you didn't hear much of even
then and you'll spend too much time trying to figure out who they are.
Post by Vicky Ayech
Or was the sound quality inferior?
I've realised recently that the sound quality on my TV has got noticeably
worse. I mentioned here a while back that the continuity woman on BBC1
Wales sounds like she's talking through cotton wool. Well it's not just
her. Several other female voices are similarly muffled. Of course I have no
way to get a second opinion at the moment so I'm leaning towards blaming my
ears but the real world doesn't sound woolly.
Post by Vicky Ayech
Another episode not good for radio, more suited to tv? But
this was not during Wotsit's reign, was it?
No, long before him.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
krw
2020-05-17 23:02:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
I've realised recently that the sound quality on my TV has got noticeably
worse.
I recorded "Get Carter" the other evening and compared with current
production the sound levels are so low the TV sound volume was cranked
up to a much higher level. Do any experts on here know why or were
things historically not so loud?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Mike
2020-05-18 08:15:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Penny
I've realised recently that the sound quality on my TV has got noticeably
worse.
I recorded "Get Carter" the other evening and compared with current
production the sound levels are so low the TV sound volume was cranked
up to a much higher level. Do any experts on here know why or were
things historically not so loud?
It may be due to the use of dynamic control; compression of the dynamic
range means that the ‘average level’ may be higher. By compressing the
dynamic range, the peaks are reduced in level relative to the mean and
consequently, the overall level can be raised. If for example, the
compression process ‘knocks’ the peak back by 6dB., then the overall level
may be raised by 6 dB. The artifacts of this process include bringing up
the background noise (again by 6dB.) There will also be a certain
‘breathiness’ to the sound and if done badly, compression and or just
‘limiting’ (where the peaks are just knocked back and the rest of the
dynamics left unaltered) can cause a listening fatigue and feeling of
un-naturalness to the sound. Compression can be applied at varying ratios
and thresholds whereby more of, the dynamic range is affected; there are
many parameters that can alter the overall effect including time constants
and ‘knee’ points. Used well and in moderation, dynamics control can be
very useful - used to extremes, theveffect is awful!

In the 1980’s, I remember reading a paper in the Audio Engineering Society
Journal about a proposal to adopt a process dubbed ‘Dialnorm’; this related
to the raging war for higher sound levels in cinemas. The proposal included
recommendations to allow the dialogue to be clearly heard above music &
effects and thus the replay did not need the ear-splitting levels some
cinemas were wont to use.

SumRats may be interested to know that I was once building a stereo
compressor which I hoped to use on music where a narrower dynamic range was
required; having built the unit, I was making adjustments to optimize the
circuitry to lower distortion artifacts and was in a room in the presence
of our Siamese cats. As I tweaked the settings I observed that the cat’s
ears would start to twitch; by experimentation I worked out that ear
twitching started at a lower level of distortion than I noticed it. If I
made an adjustment to a level at which the twitching stopped, then I knew
the distortion was lower. Unfortunately, lowering the distortion to a level
that didn’t bother pussy cats meant the compressor did not have as much
effect on the dynamic range!
--
Toodle Pip
Vicky Ayech
2020-05-18 08:33:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by krw
Post by Penny
I've realised recently that the sound quality on my TV has got noticeably
worse.
I recorded "Get Carter" the other evening and compared with current
production the sound levels are so low the TV sound volume was cranked
up to a much higher level. Do any experts on here know why or were
things historically not so loud?
It may be due to the use of dynamic control; compression of the dynamic
range means that the ‘average level’ may be higher. By compressing the
dynamic range, the peaks are reduced in level relative to the mean and
consequently, the overall level can be raised. If for example, the
compression process ‘knocks’ the peak back by 6dB., then the overall level
may be raised by 6 dB. The artifacts of this process include bringing up
the background noise (again by 6dB.) There will also be a certain
‘breathiness’ to the sound and if done badly, compression and or just
‘limiting’ (where the peaks are just knocked back and the rest of the
dynamics left unaltered) can cause a listening fatigue and feeling of
un-naturalness to the sound. Compression can be applied at varying ratios
and thresholds whereby more of, the dynamic range is affected; there are
many parameters that can alter the overall effect including time constants
and ‘knee’ points. Used well and in moderation, dynamics control can be
very useful - used to extremes, theveffect is awful!
In the 1980’s, I remember reading a paper in the Audio Engineering Society
Journal about a proposal to adopt a process dubbed ‘Dialnorm’; this related
to the raging war for higher sound levels in cinemas. The proposal included
recommendations to allow the dialogue to be clearly heard above music &
effects and thus the replay did not need the ear-splitting levels some
cinemas were wont to use.
SumRats may be interested to know that I was once building a stereo
compressor which I hoped to use on music where a narrower dynamic range was
required; having built the unit, I was making adjustments to optimize the
circuitry to lower distortion artifacts and was in a room in the presence
of our Siamese cats. As I tweaked the settings I observed that the cat’s
ears would start to twitch; by experimentation I worked out that ear
twitching started at a lower level of distortion than I noticed it. If I
made an adjustment to a level at which the twitching stopped, then I knew
the distortion was lower. Unfortunately, lowering the distortion to a level
that didn’t bother pussy cats meant the compressor did not have as much
effect on the dynamic range!
Steady on, Mike. This is a family group.
Chris J Dixon
2020-05-18 08:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
It may be due to the use of dynamic control; compression of the dynamic
range means that the ‘average level’ may be higher. By compressing the
dynamic range, the peaks are reduced in level relative to the mean and
consequently, the overall level can be raised.
I don't know how many of you are watching the National Theatre
productions, but much as I enjoy them, I find myself having to
constantly adjust the volume. If I set it for the speech to be
audible, the musical interludes are room-shakingly loud. Even
with my sound bar set for "Night" which supposedly introduces a
modicum of compression, the dynamic range is simply vast.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
krw
2020-05-19 15:42:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
I don't know how many of you are watching the National Theatre
productions, but much as I enjoy them, I find myself having to
constantly adjust the volume. If I set it for the speech to be
audible, the musical interludes are room-shakingly loud. Even
with my sound bar set for "Night" which supposedly introduces a
modicum of compression, the dynamic range is simply vast.
We only watched One man two Guvnors but having seen it in the local
cinema previously the tv sound was not as good - but that would largely
be down to the speakers.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Tony Smith Gloucestershire
2020-05-18 08:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, 18 May 2020 09:15:06 UTC+1, Mike wrote:

<snipped>
Post by Mike
As I tweaked the settings I observed that the cat’s
ears would start to twitch; by experimentation I worked out that ear
twitching started at a lower level of distortion than I noticed it. If I
made an adjustment to a level at which the twitching stopped, then I knew
the distortion was lower.
Cue for a bellringers' joke about Stedman Doubles.
Mike
2020-05-18 09:51:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Smith Gloucestershire
<snipped>
Post by Mike
As I tweaked the settings I observed that the cat’s
ears would start to twitch; by experimentation I worked out that ear
twitching started at a lower level of distortion than I noticed it. If I
made an adjustment to a level at which the twitching stopped, then I knew
the distortion was lower.
Cue for a bellringers' joke about Stedman Doubles.
Has a familiar ring to it but then, most jokes will take their toll.
--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-05-18 11:42:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 08:15:05, Mike <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[]
Post by Mike
In the 1980’s, I remember reading a paper in the Audio Engineering Society
Journal about a proposal to adopt a process dubbed ‘Dialnorm’; this related
to the raging war for higher sound levels in cinemas. The proposal included
recommendations to allow the dialogue to be clearly heard above music &
effects and thus the replay did not need the ear-splitting levels some
cinemas were wont to use.
SumRats may be interested to know that I was once building a stereo
compressor which I hoped to use on music where a narrower dynamic range was
required; having built the unit, I was making adjustments to optimize the
circuitry to lower distortion artifacts and was in a room in the presence
of our Siamese cats. As I tweaked the settings I observed that the cat’s
ears would start to twitch; by experimentation I worked out that ear
twitching started at a lower level of distortion than I noticed it. If I
made an adjustment to a level at which the twitching stopped, then I knew
the distortion was lower. Unfortunately, lowering the distortion to a level
that didn’t bother pussy cats meant the compressor did not have as much
effect on the dynamic range!
You should post those paragraphs in uk.tech.broadcast; I think they'd be
interested in the cats' distortion sense. (And they could almost
certainly comment on "Dialnorm". [Though probably not encouragingly.
Some years ago the Radio Times reprinted a letter from their archives
complaining about the level of background music: IIRR, it was from
1921.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

_IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS_ BEFORE ALL TECHNICAL INTERVENTION ON THE [CASE CUT THE
ELECTRICAL FEEDING REGULAR MAINTENANCE PROVIDES THE GOOD WORKING OF A CASE (SEE
INSTRUCTIONS BOOK) [seen on bacon cabinet in Tesco (a large grocery chain)]
Mike
2020-05-18 12:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
In the 1980’s, I remember reading a paper in the Audio Engineering Society
Journal about a proposal to adopt a process dubbed ‘Dialnorm’; this related
to the raging war for higher sound levels in cinemas. The proposal included
recommendations to allow the dialogue to be clearly heard above music &
effects and thus the replay did not need the ear-splitting levels some
cinemas were wont to use.
SumRats may be interested to know that I was once building a stereo
compressor which I hoped to use on music where a narrower dynamic range was
required; having built the unit, I was making adjustments to optimize the
circuitry to lower distortion artifacts and was in a room in the presence
of our Siamese cats. As I tweaked the settings I observed that the cat’s
ears would start to twitch; by experimentation I worked out that ear
twitching started at a lower level of distortion than I noticed it. If I
made an adjustment to a level at which the twitching stopped, then I knew
the distortion was lower. Unfortunately, lowering the distortion to a level
that didn’t bother pussy cats meant the compressor did not have as much
effect on the dynamic range!
You should post those paragraphs in uk.tech.broadcast; I think they'd be
interested in the cats' distortion sense. (And they could almost
certainly comment on "Dialnorm". [Though probably not encouragingly.
Some years ago the Radio Times reprinted a letter from their archives
complaining about the level of background music: IIRR, it was from
1921.])
Feel free to cut and paste any of the posting Jpeg - just let me know if
there is any reaction please.
--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-05-18 13:55:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
You should post those paragraphs in uk.tech.broadcast; I think they'd be
interested in the cats' distortion sense. (And they could almost
certainly comment on "Dialnorm". [Though probably not encouragingly.
Some years ago the Radio Times reprinted a letter from their archives
complaining about the level of background music: IIRR, it was from
1921.])
Feel free to cut and paste any of the posting Jpeg - just let me know if
there is any reaction please.
No, too much hard work given what I feel about UMRA's
Catholics-in-heaven attitude to crossposting (which I mostly now
respect, but don't admire).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to
be doing at the moment. -Robert Benchley, humorist, drama critic, and actor
(1889-1945)
Nick Odell
2020-05-18 19:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 18 May 2020 14:55:17 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
You should post those paragraphs in uk.tech.broadcast; I think they'd be
interested in the cats' distortion sense. (And they could almost
certainly comment on "Dialnorm". [Though probably not encouragingly.
Some years ago the Radio Times reprinted a letter from their archives
complaining about the level of background music: IIRR, it was from
1921.])
Feel free to cut and paste any of the posting Jpeg - just let me know if
there is any reaction please.
No, too much hard work given what I feel about UMRA's
Catholics-in-heaven attitude to crossposting (which I mostly now
respect, but don't admire).
Cut-n-paste is not crossposting. I often do it when I want to ask the
same question or give the same information to more than one group. The
point is about writing to each group s e p a r a t e l y.

Nick
Dumrat
2020-06-14 19:12:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
You should post those paragraphs in uk.tech.broadcast; I think they'd be
interested in the cats' distortion sense. (And they could almost
certainly comment on "Dialnorm". [Though probably not encouragingly.
Some years ago the Radio Times reprinted a letter from their archives
complaining about the level of background music: IIRR, it was from
1921.])
Feel free to cut and paste any of the posting Jpeg - just let me know if
there is any reaction please.
No, too much hard work given what I feel about UMRA's Catholics-in-heaven attitude to
crossposting (which I mostly now respect, but don't admire).
You're going to have to explain the "Catholics-in Heaven attitude" to this lapsed Catholic
Umrat, please, Jpeg!
--
Salaam Alaykum,
Anne, Exceptionally Traditionally-built Dumrat
steveski
2020-06-15 00:15:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dumrat
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
You should post those paragraphs in uk.tech.broadcast; I think they'd
be interested in the cats' distortion sense. (And they could almost
certainly comment on "Dialnorm". [Though probably not encouragingly.
Some years ago the Radio Times reprinted a letter from their archives
complaining about the level of background music: IIRR, it was from
1921.])
Feel free to cut and paste any of the posting Jpeg - just let me know
if there is any reaction please.
No, too much hard work given what I feel about UMRA's
Catholics-in-heaven attitude to crossposting (which I mostly now
respect, but don't admire).
You're going to have to explain the "Catholics-in Heaven attitude" to
this lapsed Catholic Umrat, please, Jpeg!
In a nutshell, when people (of all creeds and races) enter Heaven they
wonder what the huge brick wall is across it and are told "the Catholics
are on the other side of it - they like to believe that they're the only
ones here".

Yes, JPG?
--
Steveski
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-06-15 20:58:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by steveski
Post by Dumrat
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
You should post those paragraphs in uk.tech.broadcast; I think they'd
be interested in the cats' distortion sense. (And they could almost
certainly comment on "Dialnorm". [Though probably not encouragingly.
Some years ago the Radio Times reprinted a letter from their archives
complaining about the level of background music: IIRR, it was from
1921.])
Feel free to cut and paste any of the posting Jpeg - just let me know
if there is any reaction please.
No, too much hard work given what I feel about UMRA's
Catholics-in-heaven attitude to crossposting (which I mostly now
respect, but don't admire).
You're going to have to explain the "Catholics-in Heaven attitude" to
this lapsed Catholic Umrat, please, Jpeg!
In a nutshell, when people (of all creeds and races) enter Heaven they
wonder what the huge brick wall is across it and are told "the Catholics
are on the other side of it - they like to believe that they're the only
ones here".
Yes, JPG?
Yes. "Be quiet when you go past it ..."
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.
Mike
2020-06-16 07:40:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by steveski
Post by Dumrat
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
You should post those paragraphs in uk.tech.broadcast; I think they'd
be interested in the cats' distortion sense. (And they could almost
certainly comment on "Dialnorm". [Though probably not encouragingly.
Some years ago the Radio Times reprinted a letter from their archives
complaining about the level of background music: IIRR, it was from
1921.])
Feel free to cut and paste any of the posting Jpeg - just let me know
if there is any reaction please.
No, too much hard work given what I feel about UMRA's
Catholics-in-heaven attitude to crossposting (which I mostly now
respect, but don't admire).
You're going to have to explain the "Catholics-in Heaven attitude" to
this lapsed Catholic Umrat, please, Jpeg!
In a nutshell, when people (of all creeds and races) enter Heaven they
wonder what the huge brick wall is across it and are told "the Catholics
are on the other side of it - they like to believe that they're the only
ones here".
Yes, JPG?
Yes. "Be quiet when you go past it ..."
Is there mortar it than that?
--
Toodle Pip
Loading...