Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 22:11:06 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote: snip I understand it's down to insufficient bandwidth or maybe video processing power (most stressed when the frame data is completely changing and rapidly, as with a panned scene) and I tend to see it when others (typically) can't. But then I spent a lot of time playing FPS and tuning the settings to minimise such issues. ;-) Years ago (when Reservoir Dogs was released) I used to spend a lot of time programming as a hobby and had become used to spotting a line of code as I scrolled through at speed. When I was working for Kodak as a 'walking engineer' in the City, working on their range microfilm and fiche filmers, processors and viewers, I was amazed at how some of the 'old hands' could run though a roll of microfilmed cheque's on one of the viewer / printers at a fairly high speed and stop on the right one. Part of our job was to set the electronic brake and they were very quick to spot when it wasn't 'just right'. ;-) I along with one other (who was a professional programmer) found the film unwatchable as it was jumping about as if not properly on the sprockets - the two girls with us didn't see any problem and, apparently, no-one else in the cinema complained. I wonder if that's a mix of being familiar with the sorts of things that can go wrong (and so looking out for them) and being 'aware' of stuff around you in general? It's the same when traveling in other peoples cars and hearing noises that I think aren't right but they might not have even heard, let alone considered or hearing noises from stuff to a level that I couldn't tolerate in my own house but they seem completely oblivious of (like a humming mains transformer or a whistling light or PSU). I remember when colour TV's first came out and people had the colour turned right up to increase the effect! ;-) We were invited up to dinner with the in-laws and to 'see if I could get their new soundbar working with their new 3D TV'. Once I'd sorted the soundbar (selected the right output mode on the TV and the right input port on the soundbar shrug) I asked if I could see the 3D TV in action. We put on the glasses and they put in DVD and they were going on about how good it looked but to me it just looked all wrong. I asked if they had some 3D material and they seemed to think that *any* video would work? So I put on a 3D BD and they then were amazed and once they realised there really was a difference! ;-) To be fair I think they only got it because it was offered to them at the same price of the 2D TV they wanted that was out of stock so may not have done any research into the best models (assuming they would have done that etc). Cheers, T i m |
#82
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
Capitol wrote: Having worked on digital phone systems, I was always amazed that they worked as well as they do. My original analogue mobile phone had generally miles better audio quality than most digital. -- *DON'T SWEAT THE PETTY THINGS AND DON'T PET THE SWEATY THINGS. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#83
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote: Whilst that is true, I notice a big difference between the same presenter on FreeView radio and FreeView TV, both fed through the same broadcast quality sound system. TV seems no longer bothering to EQ a personal mic to make it sound closer to a decent one. While radio don't seem to bother matching the levels of guest and presenter mics - no problem when sitting listening to the radio at home, but with all the wind, engine and road noise in a car, the quiet guest can't be heard without cranking the volume up and then the presenter ends up deafeningly loud. Can't say I've ever noticed that. What radio station? Sure you're not just hearing one channel of stereo? -- *i souport publik edekashun. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#84
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
Steve Walker 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. 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 London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#85
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On 18/09/2017 23:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Steve Walker wrote: Whilst that is true, I notice a big difference between the same presenter on FreeView radio and FreeView TV, both fed through the same broadcast quality sound system. TV seems no longer bothering to EQ a personal mic to make it sound closer to a decent one. While radio don't seem to bother matching the levels of guest and presenter mics - no problem when sitting listening to the radio at home, but with all the wind, engine and road noise in a car, the quiet guest can't be heard without cranking the volume up and then the presenter ends up deafeningly loud. Can't say I've ever noticed that. What radio station? Sure you're not just hearing one channel of stereo? 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 |
#86
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
"T i m" wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 22:11:06 +0100, Steve Walker wrote: snip I understand it's down to insufficient bandwidth or maybe video processing power (most stressed when the frame data is completely changing and rapidly, as with a panned scene) and I tend to see it when others (typically) can't. But then I spent a lot of time playing FPS and tuning the settings to minimise such issues. ;-) Years ago (when Reservoir Dogs was released) I used to spend a lot of time programming as a hobby and had become used to spotting a line of code as I scrolled through at speed. When I was working for Kodak as a 'walking engineer' in the City, working on their range microfilm and fiche filmers, processors and viewers, I was amazed at how some of the 'old hands' could run though a roll of microfilmed cheque's on one of the viewer / printers at a fairly high speed and stop on the right one. Part of our job was to set the electronic brake and they were very quick to spot when it wasn't 'just right'. ;-) I along with one other (who was a professional programmer) found the film unwatchable as it was jumping about as if not properly on the sprockets - the two girls with us didn't see any problem and, apparently, no-one else in the cinema complained. I wonder if that's a mix of being familiar with the sorts of things that can go wrong (and so looking out for them) and being 'aware' of stuff around you in general? It's the same when traveling in other peoples cars and hearing noises that I think aren't right but they might not have even heard, let alone considered or hearing noises from stuff to a level that I couldn't tolerate in my own house but they seem completely oblivious of (like a humming mains transformer or a whistling light or PSU). I remember when colour TV's first came out and people had the colour turned right up to increase the effect! ;-) We were invited up to dinner with the in-laws and to 'see if I could get their new soundbar working with their new 3D TV'. Once I'd sorted the soundbar (selected the right output mode on the TV and the right input port on the soundbar shrug) I asked if I could see the 3D TV in action. We put on the glasses and they put in DVD and they were going on about how good it looked but to me it just looked all wrong. I asked if they had some 3D material and they seemed to think that *any* video would work? So I put on a 3D BD and they then were amazed and once they realised there really was a difference! ;-) To be fair I think they only got it because it was offered to them at the same price of the 2D TV they wanted that was out of stock so may not have done any research into the best models (assuming they would have done that etc). I'm still looking for my next TV to replace an ~11yo 42" Panny Viera (TH42PX70) and have no idea what to get. You think you've found one from reviews then the next comment reckons it's ****e. So anyone who's found the bees-knees please report. |
#87
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On 18/09/2017 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Steve Walker 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. 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. Unfortunately, it seems that the cinema mix is totally unsuitable to normal TV watching then - unless you live alone and in a detached house! SteveW |
#88
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote: On 18/09/2017 23:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Steve Walker wrote: Whilst that is true, I notice a big difference between the same presenter on FreeView radio and FreeView TV, both fed through the same broadcast quality sound system. TV seems no longer bothering to EQ a personal mic to make it sound closer to a decent one. While radio don't seem to bother matching the levels of guest and presenter mics - no problem when sitting listening to the radio at home, but with all the wind, engine and road noise in a car, the quiet guest can't be heard without cranking the volume up and then the presenter ends up deafeningly loud. Can't say I've ever noticed that. What radio station? Sure you're not just hearing one channel of stereo? 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. 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 London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#89
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote: On 18/09/2017 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Steve Walker 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. 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. Unfortunately, it seems that the cinema mix is totally unsuitable to normal TV watching then - unless you live alone and in a detached house! Quite. It could be some do a different mix for TV, though. But then some love the music and FX to be loud even at home. And if they were user adjustable most would soon get tired of having to fiddle all the time. -- *All men are idiots, and I married their King. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#90
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:17:08 +0100, "bm" wrote:
snip I'm still looking for my next TV to replace an ~11yo 42" Panny Viera (TH42PX70) and have no idea what to get. You think you've found one from reviews then the next comment reckons it's ****e. And that's often the thing 'these days'. You have something that has been ideal for your needs and after a good period, fails (as such things do). So you use the opportunity to replace it, in the case of TV's, possibly with something slightly bigger and when you try you find (as you say) something you assumed was 'normal', then appears to become a Holy Grail. Like, the sound is worse, or the startup is slower or the EPG has a smaller point size, less informative or the UI is very slow. And then you find the thing is over-complicated with features you don't use but constantly get in the way, are un intuitive or get in the way. Or you go to replace some white goods that you assumed were pretty std, only to find they don't make *anything* that size or format any more ... and any modern alternatives are inferior in every way (build quality, functionality, reliability), but not in what someone somewhere thought would be 'more stylish' (but isn't). You can often see this in others when (say) helping them get and set up a new TV (something I hate doing for all the reasons stated so far) and you are just hoping the hours you spent trying to research the best option for them based on their key criteria aren't shot down by some gotcha you didn't know about or missed. ;-( That said, *sometimes* you can get lucky and find a modern replacement that actually is better than what you had previously. ;-) Cheers, T i m |
#91
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On 18/09/2017 14:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 2, DerbyBorn wrote: Some old "Good Sound" was a bit lacking in treble as I recall. 'Treble' has rather gone out of fashion these days, judging by speech quality on much TV output. Perhaps a reaction to 'digital' sound? Reckon so. To my ears at least, highly compresssed digital audio really mangles treble the most noticeably. |
#92
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On 19/09/2017 00:19, Steve Walker wrote:
On 18/09/2017 23:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Â*Â*Â* Steve Walker 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. 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. Unfortunately, it seems that the cinema mix is totally unsuitable to normal TV watching then - unless you live alone and in a detached house! SteveW Yes, generally, which is why I use headphones for movies if my OH is in bed. It's impossible to get dialogue loud enough and effects quiet enough without waking her. |
#93
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On 18/09/2017 12:32, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/09/2017 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Â*Â*Â* Capitol wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Â*Â*Â*Â* Tim Streater wrote: Rubbish. Much better picture quality, especially in HD, no pincushion or barrel distortion, no colour registration problems, no focus problems. I've yet to see any LCD which can match a really good CRT for flesh tones. But don't know if a oLED can - I suspect not either. Of course very few indeed have ever seen TV on a Grade 1 monitor. Â*Â*Â*Â*Agreed. having been involved in the industry for some years I've yet to see a modern YV with decent resolution adequate brightnessÂ* good near black level performance or sound quality. Yes. I'm retired now, but a few years on location drama shot on video - even after tape days - the person racking the camera stuck with a Grade 1 CRT, despite LCDs being both cheaper and lighter and longer battery life, etc. I've never seen any domestic LCD set which gives the same detail etc on a face as a decent analogue CRT. Although some of that could well be down to digital transmission too. The compression of terrestrial TV and the artefacts created are near criminal. Motion in a CRT with a very short phosphor persistence is/was far better than any LCD. It seems to me that the broadcasters are gradually squeezing the bitrate of SD channels down: some of them are absolutely shocking, and there's still quite noticeable artefacts on HD. That's before we get into the horros of streamed content. |
#94
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On 18/09/17 20:31, Capitol wrote:
Â*Â*Â*Yes, it's called compression. It always distorts the original source. No, it doesnt always. Fore axmple a ZIP file does not distiret anythung. Lossless compression is possible, BUT for video, it takes a heck of a lot of doing and results ion a hige delay ...consider for example a systemn where you obly send CHANGES to a picture, and the actual picture itself perhaps less than once a second. That will give you very good quality no loss low bandwith video. Until someone does a series of rapid cuits from scene to secne, where it simply cant cope. So in reality most stuff is good on stills and deteriorates on action, simply because the amount of *new* informations goes up as scene changing goes up. I suspect, but do not know, that MP2 and other TV strandards are veryu accurate for stills and lose nothing, the loss being in transient stuff. It's the same with audio. Delta modulation reduces bandwith enormously, but cannot cope with very rapid treble transients like the clash of cymbals. I dont know exactly hwo mp2,3 and 4 do the compressing, but it doesnt have to be lossy. It tends to GET lossy when you try and push more information - real genuine information that the receiver can't guess - down a too narrow pipe. Bu thats how te modulatins schemas are constructed One of the best ways to understand it is to look up the detailed analysis of HDMI systems.Â* I'm sure there are other sources of data on digital systems if you look closely. Having worked on digital phone systems, I was always amazed that they worked as well as they do. -- Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend. "Saki" |
#95
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Capitol wrote: Having worked on digital phone systems, I was always amazed that they worked as well as they do. My original analogue mobile phone had generally miles better audio quality than most digital. Less compression. |
#96
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On 18/09/17 21:18, T i m wrote:
My question was, when you see the jerking on a video when a scene is being panned (the most typical scenario), what is it down to. I understand it's down to insufficient bandwidth or maybe video processing power (most stressed when the frame data is completely changing and rapidly, as with a panned scene) and I tend to see it when others (typically) can't. For once I suspect you are completely correct. AIUI the video encoding inb DVB-T abd DVB-S will when it mneets rapidly cahning scenes, engione a generalsied 'big blocks' of the new scene first, so that you get a flash of lower resolution 'pixellated' stuff all over the place. That fills in with finer detail once the scene stabilises. If the display hardware is overstressed, whilst that new scene may be built up correctly, it may take time to updatre the screen memory. That tends to lead to pictures of which whole parts are delayed. -- "If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the news paper, you are mis-informed." Mark Twain |
#97
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
T i m wrote: You have something that has been ideal for your needs and after a good period, fails (as such things do). So you use the opportunity to replace it, in the case of TV's, possibly with something slightly bigger and when you try you find (as you say) something you assumed was 'normal', then appears to become a Holy Grail. Thing that annoyed me was my new TV didn't have the usual twin phono analogue sound output. Just Toslink. That would be fairy nuff if analogue had disappeared from domestic Hi-Fi too. But it did have a SCART, which I wanted. Which cost me quite a bit of time etc running in an optical feed to the Hi-Fi and providing a converter box (didn't want even more clutter behind the TV). FFS - how much extra would a pair of phonos cost, given it has things like a headphone output? -- *Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#98
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
Capitol wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Capitol wrote: Having worked on digital phone systems, I was always amazed that they worked as well as they do. My original analogue mobile phone had generally miles better audio quality than most digital. Less compression. I hate the use of that word for a data signal. As it actually means data reduction. It is gone and can never be recovered. True compression can be expanded again. In theory with zero artifacts. -- *Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#99
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , T i m wrote: You have something that has been ideal for your needs and after a good period, fails (as such things do). So you use the opportunity to replace it, in the case of TV's, possibly with something slightly bigger and when you try you find (as you say) something you assumed was 'normal', then appears to become a Holy Grail. Thing that annoyed me was my new TV didn't have the usual twin phono analogue sound output. Just Toslink. That would be fairy nuff if analogue had disappeared from domestic Hi-Fi too. But it did have a SCART, which I wanted. Which cost me quite a bit of time etc running in an optical feed to the Hi-Fi and providing a converter box (didn't want even more clutter behind the TV). FFS - how much extra would a pair of phonos cost, given it has things like a headphone output? I found the same problem. Also the TV remote does not control the volume. |
#100
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:35:08 +0100
Capitol wrote: Thing that annoyed me was my new TV didn't have the usual twin phono analogue sound output. Just Toslink. That would be fairy nuff if analogue had disappeared from domestic Hi-Fi too. But it did have a SCART, which I wanted. Mine has a SCART, but it always sends out the audio from the tuned TV channel, even if a different input is in use. So you could be watching Formula 1 on the PVR, while listening to Jeremy Kyle. -- Davey. |
#101
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On 19/09/17 12:49, Davey wrote:
So you could be watching Formula 1 on the PVR, while listening to Jeremy Kyle. I am struggling to contemplate exactly whats sort of life a person who might do such a thing, lives. -- To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote. |
#102
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
Capitol wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , T i m wrote: You have something that has been ideal for your needs and after a good period, fails (as such things do). So you use the opportunity to replace it, in the case of TV's, possibly with something slightly bigger and when you try you find (as you say) something you assumed was 'normal', then appears to become a Holy Grail. Thing that annoyed me was my new TV didn't have the usual twin phono analogue sound output. Just Toslink. That would be fairy nuff if analogue had disappeared from domestic Hi-Fi too. But it did have a SCART, which I wanted. Which cost me quite a bit of time etc running in an optical feed to the Hi-Fi and providing a converter box (didn't want even more clutter behind the TV). FFS - how much extra would a pair of phonos cost, given it has things like a headphone output? I found the same problem. Also the TV remote does not control the volume. Yes. Would be nice if the mute worked as well. Even better if you could select it in software. Luckily, my pre-amp has a remote so I don't have to get out of my chair. ;-) -- *Life is hard; then you nap Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#103
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
Davey wrote: On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:35:08 +0100 Capitol wrote: Thing that annoyed me was my new TV didn't have the usual twin phono analogue sound output. Just Toslink. That would be fairy nuff if analogue had disappeared from domestic Hi-Fi too. But it did have a SCART, which I wanted. Mine has a SCART, but it always sends out the audio from the tuned TV channel, even if a different input is in use. So you could be watching Formula 1 on the PVR, while listening to Jeremy Kyle. I suspected something like that so didn't even try it. Needed the SCART for the old Toppy and an S-VHS recorder. I had a Philips set with 3 SCARTS that allowed you to select what they did independently - ie to dub between them. But only one was RGB. -- *There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#104
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:12:08 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 19/09/17 12:49, Davey wrote: So you could be watching Formula 1 on the PVR, while listening to Jeremy Kyle. I am struggling to contemplate exactly whats sort of life a person who might do such a thing, lives. I have no idea, as I don't do it. Let us know if you find out. -- Davey. |
#105
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 14:32:56 UTC+1, Davey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:12:08 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 19/09/17 12:49, Davey wrote: So you could be watching Formula 1 on the PVR, while listening to Jeremy Kyle. I am struggling to contemplate exactly whats sort of life a person who might do such a thing, lives. I have no idea, as I don't do it. Let us know if you find out. I can just about understand recording formula 1 but no reason the listen to Jeremy Kyle. I've watched football and even the olympics while listening to a podcast, I find it quite easy to do this as there's little of interest a football commentator has to say although I like it when a player gives 110% or more. So I can easily work it out for myself i.e who's winning. I tend to listen to the TV when doing stuff on the computer. |
#106
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
... On 19/09/17 12:49, Davey wrote: So you could be watching Formula 1 on the PVR, while listening to Jeremy Kyle. I am struggling to contemplate exactly whats sort of life a person who might do such a thing, lives. I have no idea, as I don't do it. Let us know if you find out. I can just about understand recording formula 1 but no reason the listen to Jeremy Kyle. I've watched football and even the olympics while listening to a podcast, I find it quite easy to do this as there's little of interest a football commentator has to say although I like it when a player gives 110% or more. So I can easily work it out for myself i.e who's winning. I tend to listen to the TV when doing stuff on the computer. You are lucky. I find that if I try to listen to anything speech-based while I'm trying to do a task like watching an unrelated video or typing a document, one or other suffers - usually I find that my brain quickly switches off the words that I am hearing. It's the same when I'm driving: music is OK, but I quickly lose the thread of anything speech-based (a play, an Audible talking book) and heave to keep going back (if it's a recording) to listen again to the bits I've missed. I suppose on the multi-tasking scale I'm at single-task end :-) My wife likes to doodle in boring meetings because it helps her concentrate on what it being said. I tried it and found was concentrating so much on what I was drawing that I missed what was being said in the meeting - so for some people it *helps* whereas for other people it very definitely *hinders*. Trying to concentrate on reading a book when there's noise (especially conversations) going on in the background is a definite no-no: in this case my brain does the opposite and what is being said dominates and I lose the thread of what I'm trying to read. It's always the unwanted background task that seems to dominate over what I want to do, never the other way round :-( Music is fine - it's only speech that I find either distracts me from what I'm trying to do or else I can't concentrate on if I'm doing anything else. |
#107
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 15:22:52 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message ... On 19/09/17 12:49, Davey wrote: So you could be watching Formula 1 on the PVR, while listening to Jeremy Kyle. I am struggling to contemplate exactly whats sort of life a person who might do such a thing, lives. I have no idea, as I don't do it. Let us know if you find out. I can just about understand recording formula 1 but no reason the listen to Jeremy Kyle. I've watched football and even the olympics while listening to a podcast, I find it quite easy to do this as there's little of interest a football commentator has to say although I like it when a player gives 110% or more. So I can easily work it out for myself i.e who's winning. I tend to listen to the TV when doing stuff on the computer. You are lucky. I find that if I try to listen to anything speech-based while I'm trying to do a task like watching an unrelated video or typing a document, one or other suffers - usually I find that my brain quickly switches off the words that I am hearing. well that is true to some extent for me there's always a priority, and I can always pause either if I loose the plot. I;ve had no problems painting sanding, plastering while listening to a podcast. Although I did need to stop and rewind on hearing about a new millipead with 4 penises, or when mexicain finches were colelcting fag butts, I passed teh football. I can't do both things if they are equally interesting to me as I would miss soemthing. It's the same when I'm driving: music is OK, but I quickly lose the thread of anything speech-based (a play, an Audible talking book) and heave to keep going back (if it's a recording) to listen again to the bits I've missed. I can understand that and it's why I can't see how hands free phone calls get around the problem of using a mobile when driving, I guess it depends on who's talking at what it's about. I suppose on the multi-tasking scale I'm at single-task end :-) When playing a driving game I also try to do mental arithmatic at the same time it's suprisingly difficult considering how unrelated they two things are. Multi-tasking time-slicing or visiting another parellel universe . My wife likes to doodle in boring meetings because it helps her concentrate on what it being said. I tried it and found was concentrating so much on what I was drawing that I missed what was being said in the meeting - so for some people it *helps* whereas for other people it very definitely *hinders*. yes I agree some men can listen to their wives and say yes and no at the correct time while still watching the football. I managed that with my french flatmate. Trying to concentrate on reading a book when there's noise (especially conversations) going on in the background is a definite no-no: in this case my brain does the opposite and what is being said dominates and I lose the thread of what I'm trying to read. Lots of peole read on buses and trains whether on electrnic devices or books I find withe rdifficult as I like being aware of what's going on around me. Hence seeing lots of car washes and not many using them. It's always the unwanted background task that seems to dominate over what I want to do, never the other way round :-( I guess soem peole are more easily distracted than others, and why astronauts are picked that can do mor ethan one thing without being distracted too much. Music is fine - it's only speech that I find either distracts me from what I'm trying to do or else I can't concentrate on if I'm doing anything else. I can quite easily sit through a departmental meeting without hardly hearing anything that' s said. :-D |
#108
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
"NY" wrote in message news "whisky-dave" wrote in message ... On 19/09/17 12:49, Davey wrote: So you could be watching Formula 1 on the PVR, while listening to Jeremy Kyle. I am struggling to contemplate exactly whats sort of life a person who might do such a thing, lives. I have no idea, as I don't do it. Let us know if you find out. I can just about understand recording formula 1 but no reason the listen to Jeremy Kyle. I've watched football and even the olympics while listening to a podcast, I find it quite easy to do this as there's little of interest a football commentator has to say although I like it when a player gives 110% or more. So I can easily work it out for myself i.e who's winning. I tend to listen to the TV when doing stuff on the computer. You are lucky. I find that if I try to listen to anything speech-based while I'm trying to do a task like watching an unrelated video or typing a document, one or other suffers - usually I find that my brain quickly switches off the words that I am hearing. It's the same when I'm driving: music is OK, but I quickly lose the thread of anything speech-based (a play, an Audible talking book) and heave to keep going back (if it's a recording) to listen again to the bits I've missed. I dont. I dont bother with music and prefer to listen to podcasts when driving and when out walking for exercise. I suppose on the multi-tasking scale I'm at single-task end :-) Yeah, very likely. I never just watch a TV program, I always play freecell pro while listening to the soundtrack and just pause the TV program when things are getting very complicated in the freecell game. My wife likes to doodle in boring meetings because it helps her concentrate on what it being said. I tried it and found was concentrating so much on what I was drawing that I missed what was being said in the meeting - so for some people it *helps* whereas for other people it very definitely *hinders*. Yeah, you do appear to have a problem. Trying to concentrate on reading a book when there's noise (especially conversations) going on in the background is a definite no-no: in this case my brain does the opposite and what is being said dominates and I lose the thread of what I'm trying to read. I dont find that when reading an ebook on my phone in a doctors waiting room etc. Quite capable of ignoring the conversations between the other people close to me. It's always the unwanted background task that seems to dominate over what I want to do, never the other way round :-( Music is fine - it's only speech that I find either distracts me from what I'm trying to do or else I can't concentrate on if I'm doing anything else. Like I say, I much prefer podcasts to music, in fact dont bother with music. |
#109
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article , Steve Walker
writes On 18/09/2017 23:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Steve Walker wrote: Whilst that is true, I notice a big difference between the same presenter on FreeView radio and FreeView TV, both fed through the same broadcast quality sound system. TV seems no longer bothering to EQ a personal mic to make it sound closer to a decent one. While radio don't seem to bother matching the levels of guest and presenter mics - no problem when sitting listening to the radio at home, but with all the wind, engine and road noise in a car, the quiet guest can't be heard without cranking the volume up and then the presenter ends up deafeningly loud. Can't say I've ever noticed that. What radio station? Sure you're not just hearing one channel of stereo? 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 In my Defender I turn up the radio to drown out the rattles -- bert |
#110
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
Steve Walker wrote:
radio don't seem to bother matching the levels of guest and presenter mics - no problem when sitting listening to the radio at home, but with all the wind, engine and road noise in a car, the quiet guest can't be heard 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. |
#111
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: Steve Walker wrote: radio don't seem to bother matching the levels of guest and presenter mics - no problem when sitting listening to the radio at home, but with all the wind, engine and road noise in a car, the quiet guest can't be heard 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. 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 London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#112
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus In article , wrote: On Sunday, 17 September 2017 17:13:43 UTC+1, Davey wrote: On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:15:44 +0100 "Brian Gaff" wrote: Oh and one tradition of tvs has not changed. They all still have crap sounds speakers in them. To me, the sound of modern TV sets is vastly inferior to what the old ones had. We had a Pye, I believe, with a 6" loudspeaker, which weighed A LOT. I don't see that on modern skinny units. But go back further to the 1950s and the sound was horrid. When I got my current 50s set I didn't expect middling sound, but it's worse than I thought it would be. 405 line (VHF) sound was AM, so rather more difficult to design a decent receiver for. Lucky to get to even 10kHz. But that didn't stop the makers using the cheapest possible power amp and indifferent speakers too. IIRC according the a BBC engineering monograph they did get to 15 kHz but it was BT or rather GPO line allowing! Seems Crystal place was very wideband!.. With modern sets, it's the fashion of having the front all screen - so no room for forward facing speakers. But then they want to sell you a 'sound bar' or other such overpriced rubbish. Indeed;(.. -- Tony Sayer |
#113
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article , Steve Walker steve@walker-
family.me.uk scribeth thus On 18/09/2017 23:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Steve Walker wrote: Whilst that is true, I notice a big difference between the same presenter on FreeView radio and FreeView TV, both fed through the same broadcast quality sound system. TV seems no longer bothering to EQ a personal mic to make it sound closer to a decent one. While radio don't seem to bother matching the levels of guest and presenter mics - no problem when sitting listening to the radio at home, but with all the wind, engine and road noise in a car, the quiet guest can't be heard without cranking the volume up and then the presenter ends up deafeningly loud. Can't say I've ever noticed that. What radio station? Sure you're not just hearing one channel of stereo? 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 Thats what the err, Optimod is designed for... -- Tony Sayer |
#114
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article ,
tony sayer wrote: 405 line (VHF) sound was AM, so rather more difficult to design a decent receiver for. Lucky to get to even 10kHz. But that didn't stop the makers using the cheapest possible power amp and indifferent speakers too. IIRC according the a BBC engineering monograph they did get to 15 kHz but it was BT or rather GPO line allowing! Seems Crystal place was very wideband!.. I doubt there were many receivers capable of reproducing that 15kHz, though. Much the same as few AM radios ever did justice to the transmitted signal - in the days before it was band limited. BBC TV Theatre in Shepherd's Bush had off air feeds from a BBC check reciever. (TVC had line feeds) The 405 line BBC 1 sound off air was very noticeably lacking in top compared to the FM BBC2 one. You don't get a better comparison than doing an A/B on a live prog. ;-) -- *I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#115
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus In article , Tim Streater wrote: Rubbish. Much better picture quality, especially in HD, no pincushion or barrel distortion, no colour registration problems, no focus problems. I've yet to see any LCD which can match a really good CRT for flesh tones. Are they any really good CRT's left and is anyone still making them?... But don't know if a oLED can - I suspect not either. Maybe.. Https://www.sony.co.uk/pro/products/...ional-monitors https://www.dveo.com/Test-Equipment/...-Monitors.html No CRT's.. Of course very few indeed have ever seen TV on a Grade 1 monitor. I have !... -- Tony Sayer |
#116
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Old TVs
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus In article , Andrew wrote: When HD transmissions started, all the broadcasters had to revamp their news and panel-show 'furniture' because the better quality of the image revealed the flaws of the old studio furniture that that analogue and SD digital masked out. Complete ********. Any decent designer checks the condition of his set and has it touched up (if necessary) before any transmission. And does that by eye - not on camera. And HD transmissions you see today are nothing like as good as the original test HD transmissions in CRT days. Well who is to blame for that broken biscuit co?... -- Tony Sayer .. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Looking for old GE portable B&W 16" tube style tvs... | Electronics Repair | |||
what's up with old tvs and cable channels? | Electronics Repair | |||
BURN-IN on SONY REAR PROJECTION TVs | Electronics Repair | |||
Repairing new TVs isn't easy | Electronics Repair | |||
Who made Wards' Signature TVs? | Electronics Repair |