'Tant pis' indeed....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I don't know if my ears are being poisoned by the fullrange speakers I'm
using atm, but the sound off the telly (external amp Sony, Ruark
speakers) was almost unlistenable with the Mahler 1 on tonight's Prom.
Are we being compressed again (digital channel)?

I only caught the first half as I wanted to watch Poirot which started at
9. On Freeview, I thought the dynamics quite reasonable. But there's a
good chance they were squeezed somewhat for telly compared to R3 - and it
was probably a different balance given the vast number of spot mics out
there. I've seen fewer used on a pop orchestra. ;-)



They'll be needing those for the 'PA System'....!! ;-)

'Tant pis' indeed....
 

"Pat Wallace" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

Anybody catch the Mahler just now?

I don't know if my ears are being poisoned by the fullrange speakers I'm
using atm, but the sound off the telly (external amp Sony, Ruark speakers)
was almost unlistenable with the Mahler 1 on tonight's Prom. Are we being
compressed again (digital channel)?
:

I agree. From a Sony Digibox the BBC 4 sound was just plain distorted -
clearly something wrong. It was especially obvious whenever there was an
enthusiastic thwack on the bass drum; the system audibly ducked, and
never cleaned up even during more even passages.

I wish we could return to the good old simulcast days when you could
substitute R3 sound, but the asynchronism between pictures and sound -
anything from seconds to minutes - now rules that out.


So much for the 'new digital era' eh? ;-)

(Or: 'Tant pis' again!!)

'Tant pis' indeed....
 

"Keith G" wrote


You may be interested to know (if you don't already) that your 'own'
Barber Olly* is/was considered one of the most important of *the*
Mahlerian conductors and that his 5th (EMI 5 66910-2) recorded in 1970 (I
think) with the New Philharmonia at Watford Town Hall 'set the standard
for decades to come - both musically and technically' according to the
guff in HiFi+...??


Er, hokay then.....

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/page7/page7.html

:-))

'Tant pis' indeed....
 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:06:31 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Malcolm Stewart
writes
"Keith G" wrote in message
om...

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...

We thought the sound was OK, but then we were comparing it with what we
endured last night at Kenwood, where the sound was dire.

****-poor sound quality is becoming a modern epidemic....

I wonder if one of my fellow residents, Marshall, in Milton Keynes is
responsible? In a recent local TV review of his company and career, I
remember people being interviewed saying that they liked the "thicker" sound
of his amplifiers. I think that was referring to amplifying electric
guitars, but it now seems to be everywhere as the norm. (Didn't see any
labels at Kenwood so don't know whose gear it was, but it certainly didn't
do anything for the music. Makes the discussions about MP3 versus ATRAC
compression seem somewhat pointless.)

Yes but isn't the amp part of the sound of the guitar?....

Yes, and you do *not* want that kind of thing when *reproducing* the
sound of a Marshall stack! Malcolm is of course quite wrong, the
notable thing aboput modern amps is how *good* are the majority of
them. Keith is of course a "valves 'n vinyl" guy, so his opinion of
what constitutes '**** poor sound' is hardly reliable!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

'Tant pis' indeed....
 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:20:05 +0100, "Malcolm Stewart"
wrote:

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Yes but isn't the amp part of the sound of the guitar?....
--
Tony Sayer

I guess it is, but it's certainly not normally the sound of a classical
orchestra playing opera excerpts.
I suppose the fabric "tent" behind the orchestra reflects so little of the
orchestra's sound that some amplification is needed.

I've been to many outdoor classical concerts, and the sound does
indeed tend to be very 'dry' due to the lack of room ambiennce and
reverberation, but I'd agree that using poor-quality PA (presumably
with added reverb) to compensate, doesn't seem like a good idea. Baby,
dogs *and* goldfish out with the bathwater..............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

'Tant pis' indeed....
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
:
As far as I know, BBC4 takes a straight R3 audio feed for the music part
and just adds its own presenters.

Did I mean BBC2? Anyway, whatever TV channel the broadcast was on.
The audio in my case went Sony Digibox - JVC telly - Audiolab amp -
Sennheiser HD600 cans. And it sounded grainy. I attempted an A/B
comparison with R3 but the radio broadcast was several minutes ahead of
the TV.

Patrick Wallace
__________________________________________________ ________________________

'Tant pis' indeed....
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
:
...but the radio broadcast was several minutes ahead of
the TV.

Err, not minutes, surely?

Yes, a couple of movements - presumably through the magic of hard disk (or
RAM?). I see the R3 broadcast was 1830-2030, while on BBC2 it was
1900-2100.

I'm not sure how good the audio circuitry in your TV is - not all are
beyond reproach. If you could feed your STB direct to the amp, this would
soon proove things.

I may try this, though on other televised proms the sound has been OK.
The only effect of the TV being in the chain that I've observed so far is
a small amount of background noise, which sounds like video breakthrough.

Patrick Wallace
__________________________________________________ ________________________

'Tant pis' indeed....
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:06:31 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Malcolm Stewart
writes
"Keith G" wrote in message
. com...

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...

We thought the sound was OK, but then we were comparing it with what
we
endured last night at Kenwood, where the sound was dire.

****-poor sound quality is becoming a modern epidemic....

I wonder if one of my fellow residents, Marshall, in Milton Keynes is
responsible? In a recent local TV review of his company and career, I
remember people being interviewed saying that they liked the "thicker"
sound
of his amplifiers. I think that was referring to amplifying electric
guitars, but it now seems to be everywhere as the norm. (Didn't see any
labels at Kenwood so don't know whose gear it was, but it certainly
didn't
do anything for the music. Makes the discussions about MP3 versus ATRAC
compression seem somewhat pointless.)

Yes but isn't the amp part of the sound of the guitar?....

Yes, and you do *not* want that kind of thing when *reproducing* the
sound of a Marshall stack! Malcolm is of course quite wrong, the
notable thing aboput modern amps is how *good* are the majority of
them. Keith is of course a "valves 'n vinyl" guy, so his opinion of
what constitutes '**** poor sound' is hardly reliable!


It gets worse - now I'm even poncing about with homebrew horns (or 'back
horn-loaded' fullrange-driver speakers, to be more accrit).... ;-)

(See other post...)

'Tant pis' indeed....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:


Well, I thought it was the 'Eurovision verson' segued into one long
undulating, tune with very limited dynamics (not the band's fault - it,
was so small) and none of the real drama (the anticipation, thunderous
crescendos/ensuing tranquility) of the *real thing*. I know Barenboim's
association with Mahler goes back half a century when, as pianist......


Now there's an interesting comparison. Listening to Mahler's own piano
reduction performances (recorded on the Welte Mignon piano rolls) he doesn't
half trap on a bit compared to what we became used to more recently.

Roy.

'Tant pis' indeed....
 

In article , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:06:31 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Malcolm Stewart
writes
"Keith G" wrote in message
. com...

"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in
message ...

We thought the sound was OK, but then we were comparing it with what we
endured last night at Kenwood, where the sound was dire.

****-poor sound quality is becoming a modern epidemic....

I wonder if one of my fellow residents, Marshall, in Milton Keynes is
responsible? In a recent local TV review of his company and career, I
remember people being interviewed saying that they liked the "thicker" sound
of his amplifiers. I think that was referring to amplifying electric
guitars, but it now seems to be everywhere as the norm. (Didn't see any
labels at Kenwood so don't know whose gear it was, but it certainly didn't
do anything for the music. Makes the discussions about MP3 versus ATRAC
compression seem somewhat pointless.)

Yes but isn't the amp part of the sound of the guitar?....

Yes, and you do *not* want that kind of thing when *reproducing* the
sound of a Marshall stack! Malcolm is of course quite wrong, the
notable thing aboput modern amps is how *good* are the majority of
them. Keith is of course a "valves 'n vinyl" guy, so his opinion of
what constitutes '**** poor sound' is hardly reliable!


I seemed to have missed a post somewhere about this. Seems some marshal
stacks were being used for sound reinforcement was this at a classical
gig?.....
--
Tony Sayer