On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:07:01 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
PeterC wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:41:55 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

There's no reason why a TV shouldn't have reasonable power amps and
the ability to use just external speakers - indeed this was fairly
common once at the upper end. And a decent pair of speakers will
outlast many generations of TV sets.

I wish that were so - I've a pair of KEF speakers that must be close on
40 yeras old and, the last time that I used them a few years ago, still
sound good. I might investigate an amp. that can be fed by the TV and
drive the KEFs.

Shouldn't be difficult. Look at your local Freecycle. Older even decent
separate Hi-Fi amps aren't in fashion these days. I've knocked up a couple
of very decent sounding systems for a local community centre with bits
from FreeCycle. One with a Cyrus1 amp, the other using a Cambridge A60.

Hadn't thought of that route - thanks.
I've a Sony amp. but accidently dropped the end of a live wire straight into
the speaker output! Something inside didn't like that!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article om,
Rob wrote:
What I don't understand is why they don't try a bit harder - I have a
JBL ipod dock, flatish and the size of a large saucer, with what look to
be 1cm speakers. It sounds pretty good, and fills a room. For the sake
of a few quid, why can't the TV makers manage it?

For the sake of a few quid sums it up.

Basically, TV makers have never given a toss about the sound quality from
the internal speakers - so why would they be bothered now?


Not quite true - I had a 29" Philips CRT from the mid 90's, which had a
decent woofer and reasonable sound. OTOH when anything worthwhile came on
(film, music etc.) we would put it into the AV amp and decent speakers.


There will be tears shed here when my 1998 JVC 32" expires. This has a
superb picture and excellent sound with a separate woofer, and I will
prolong it's life as long as possible.

On 15/12/2011 11:37, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In , charles
wrote:
In , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In raweb.com,
wrote:
What I don't understand is why they don't try a bit harder - I
have a JBL ipod dock, flatish and the size of a large saucer,
with what look to be 1cm speakers. It sounds pretty good, and
fills a room. For the sake of a few quid, why can't the TV makers
manage it?

For the sake of a few quid sums it up.


No it doesn't really. It's the size of the box and the saleabilty of
the resultant product. If the majority of Joe (or Jo) public wanted
better sound, manufacturers would provide it.

The size of the box probably is a very real cost on a TV - to provide a
pair of decent sized forward facing speakers would make it very much
larger, and needs to be solid. And of course fashion dictates they are
all screen *and* slim - so banishing the tiny speakers to the back. With
all that implies.

Of course one or two makers did attempt selling TVs with better than
average speakers - but they were still poor compared to even the most
modest of music centres etc, let alone Hi-Fi.

The bottom line is that TV makers have concluded they can easily flog their
products without having to care much about sound quality. This is because
most buyers neither know nor care. I guess their belief is well founded. I
doubt most people have even heard genuine stereo sound from speakers.[1]

The minority who *do* care will get some external audio kit to sort out the
problem. And if you care about sound quality you won't be deterred by the
added boxes, wiring, or cost. Chances are, you'll happily spend far more on
the audio kit than on a mere display. :-)

Does that mean you can more clearly hear the muffled sound apparent in
so many TV productions these days? :-)

--

Jeff

In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:
Does that mean you can more clearly hear the muffled sound apparent in
so many TV productions these days? :-)

Indeed. To save money - or perhaps for other reasons, most dramas use
concealed personal mics these days. Which mean you start out with poor
vocal quality which no amount of post production can sort. No matter how
good the equipment placing a mic in totally the wrong place and then
covering it with layers of clothing isn't a good start.

--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Jeff Layman
wrote:
On 15/12/2011 11:37, Jim Lesurf wrote:


The minority who *do* care will get some external audio kit to sort
out the problem. And if you care about sound quality you won't be
deterred by the added boxes, wiring, or cost. Chances are, you'll
happily spend far more on the audio kit than on a mere display. :-)

Does that mean you can more clearly hear the muffled sound apparent in
so many TV productions these days? :-)

Not sure, as I don't know which programmes you have in mind. TBH don't
watch much of the 'fiction' or 'entertainment'. However I do notice a
variety of things. Mostly due to poor level setting, etc.

So for example, the documentaries where the voiceovers are too loud, too
compressed, and too 'close'. So I keep wanting to turn the level up and
down to be able to hear the bulk of the content without being overpowered
by the voiceovers.

Also sometime find voiceovers too chesty or boomy. Presumably for the
traditional 'radio 4' reasons.

I don't worry too much about the above, though. My main concern is that
things like music and the sounds in 'wildelife' types of programmes come
across well. Provided the speech is clear and non-distracting, and isn't
flooded with background noise or idiotic 'background music' it does the
job.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
So for example, the documentaries where the voiceovers are too loud, too
compressed, and too 'close'. So I keep wanting to turn the level up and
down to be able to hear the bulk of the content without being overpowered
by the voiceovers.

There does seem to be a tendency to record these voice overs in a 'studio'
manner when the same person is mainly heard on location, most frequently
via a personal mic. So there is absolutely no chance of the two being even
an approximate match. In some cases almost like the dubbing mixer saying
'hey - I'll show these location types how it should sound.' Which is easy
enough in a studio. ;-)

I have used a personal mic on for voiceovers on occasion, although more
usually to repair location sound on a drama. (ADR)
But as regards docos there are arguments pro and against this.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, December 16th, 2011 at 11:09:11h +0000, Dave Plowman explained:

To save money - or perhaps for other reasons, most dramas use
concealed personal mics these days.

Are on location sound boom microphone operators a dying species?

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
So for example, the documentaries where the voiceovers are too loud,
too compressed, and too 'close'. So I keep wanting to turn the level
up and down to be able to hear the bulk of the content without being
overpowered by the voiceovers.

There does seem to be a tendency to record these voice overs in a
'studio' manner when the same person is mainly heard on location, most
frequently via a personal mic. So there is absolutely no chance of the
two being even an approximate match. In some cases almost like the
dubbing mixer saying 'hey - I'll show these location types how it should
sound.' Which is easy enough in a studio. ;-)

I'm not bothered when voiceovers have that 'into a studio mic' sound. It
just makes clear they are added voiceover for editorial purpose.

The problem is the relative level. And in some cases the voiceover is
compressed and clipped.

I did once record 5 mins of one of the 'Tony Robinson narrates a
documentary' progs on C4 and then did stats on the dynamics. His voiceovers
were clearly clipping, and at a level well above the rest of the audio.

Mind you, I suppose I should not be surprised. I've also read magazine
articles that give 'advice' about what 'professionals' do that essentially
told the reader to compress up into clipping for that 'punchy' effect.
sigh So the deaf lead the deaf, I fear. Just the TV audio equivalent of
all the wobblycam/oversaturation/etc.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Friday, December 16th, 2011 at 11:09:11h +0000, Dave Plowman explained:

To save money - or perhaps for other reasons, most dramas use
concealed personal mics these days.

Are on location sound boom microphone operators a dying species?

Yes - unless willing to work for free. ;-)

--
*Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.