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

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

"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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

..