tony sayer wrote:

Had a listen on D-SAT for the first time and reasonable.. just a
pity that Auntie BBC couldn't give us a few more bits and she'd have
an ardent digital convert;!...

I'm surprised you think so. I found the gain-riding that the BBC were
doing, combined with close miking, really weird. At times the gain on
the soloist was so high you could hear him breathing, and then the
orchestra came in and was not that much louder. Bizarre.

This was the D-SAT TV version, by the way. I don't know if the radio
sound was any different; I certainly hope so!

Andrew.

In article , Andrew Haley andrew29@
littlepinkcloud.invalid writes
tony sayer wrote:

Had a listen on D-SAT for the first time and reasonable.. just a
pity that Auntie BBC couldn't give us a few more bits and she'd have
an ardent digital convert;!...

I'm surprised you think so. I found the gain-riding that the BBC were
doing, combined with close miking, really weird. At times the gain on
the soloist was so high you could hear him breathing, and then the
orchestra came in and was not that much louder. Bizarre.

This was the D-SAT TV version, by the way. I don't know if the radio
sound was any different; I certainly hope so!

Andrew.

I think on the proms you can be a bit forgiving, after all it is a live
broadcast warts and all!. I don't know quite what their instructions
were from the producer, but I rather suspect that the staff on the
ground were doing their best.

Of course the results are under other constraints and thats the bigger
problem.

And the RAH isn't the -best- acoustic around...

And .. last nite there was quite a bit of drop out don't know if that
was weather related or not!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , tony sayer

wrote:


I think on the proms you can be a bit forgiving, after all it is a live
broadcast warts and all!. I don't know quite what their instructions
were from the producer, but I rather suspect that the staff on the
ground were doing their best.

I agree. However there have been some odd 'faults' during the first few
proms this year on BBC4. The weirdest being the cbeebies animated logos
during the Berio item! This seems to me like carelessness - or perhaps
someone on 'work study' playing a joke, and expressing their opinion on
Berio.

Of course the results are under other constraints and thats the bigger
problem.

And the RAH isn't the -best- acoustic around...

I'm not sure of that. I find the results via the BBC often sound quite
enjoyable - particularly since the invasion of the saucers... :-)

However during the last few days I have been comparing some BBC4 recordings
from the 2004/5/6 proms with the first few of this year. There do seem to
be variations in the 'sound' attributable to microphone placement, balance,
etc. Bit early to say because it tends to vary from one concert to another
anyway as they adapt to the changes in forces on the platform. But I am
wondering if they have newer people involved this year, and the results are
different for that reason. Or if they have new equipment that behaves
differently. But the results so far have seemed a bit 'closer' and more
likely to zoom a bit in balance, etc, during the performance.

At least they haven't got the movements in the wrong order, so the people
who made the recent trailer for the programme about the queen aren't
involved. 8-]

Despite all of which, I've found the results enjoyable. So my quibbles are
minor ones thus far. :-) My main worry is that they may fail to avoid
further incidents where the sound/picture breakup or we are given cbeebies
animations, etc. ;-

Mind you, the cbeebies incident wasn't as alarming as the Mozart symphony
in 2004 where a long ad for a programme on another channel appeared just
into the third movement - on both sound and vision! Still, at least -
unlike the recent effects during the Campra - it *didn't* affect the repeat
broadcast.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html

On 2007-07-22, tony sayer wrote:
...
And the RAH isn't the -best- acoustic around...

When did the flying saucers go up? I started regularly visiting the RAH
in the late 1970s or early 1980s. I did know the hall's reputation but
I never found it that bad. I have a feeing the acoustic treatment may
have been there aleady when I first went.

I had been used to the intimacy of the Turner Sims concert hall in
Southampton so the RAH was clearly not the same. However BBC does a
very good job of getting the best out of the RAH, IME.

I've had mostly stalls seats at the RAH. Some of those do provide a
slightly strange audio perspective [1], especially compared to the Royal
Festival Hall (now re-opened with its new acoustics). But I have only
visited the RFH occasionally.

[1] But not as strange as the seats right up at the top. Promenading in
the gallery presumably is even stranger.

--
John Phillips

On 23 Jul 2007 18:42:45 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

On 2007-07-22, tony sayer wrote:
...
And the RAH isn't the -best- acoustic around...

When did the flying saucers go up? I started regularly visiting the RAH
in the late 1970s or early 1980s. I did know the hall's reputation but
I never found it that bad. I have a feeing the acoustic treatment may
have been there aleady when I first went.

I had been used to the intimacy of the Turner Sims concert hall in
Southampton so the RAH was clearly not the same. However BBC does a
very good job of getting the best out of the RAH, IME.

I've had mostly stalls seats at the RAH. Some of those do provide a
slightly strange audio perspective [1], especially compared to the Royal
Festival Hall (now re-opened with its new acoustics). But I have only
visited the RFH occasionally.

[1] But not as strange as the seats right up at the top. Promenading in
the gallery presumably is even stranger.

The worst problem I find in the RAH these days is the horrendously
noisy ventilation system. The next worst problem is that they find it
necessary to amplify everything regardless of the fact that it is
supposed to be acoustic.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article , John Phillips
writes
On 2007-07-22, tony sayer wrote:
...
And the RAH isn't the -best- acoustic around...

When did the flying saucers go up? I started regularly visiting the RAH
in the late 1970s or early 1980s. I did know the hall's reputation but
I never found it that bad. I have a feeing the acoustic treatment may
have been there aleady when I first went.

Sometime in the late 60'd IIRC!...


I had been used to the intimacy of the Turner Sims concert hall in
Southampton so the RAH was clearly not the same. However BBC does a
very good job of getting the best out of the RAH, IME.

Yes in the main they so tho its quite a job to record the Organ well..


I've had mostly stalls seats at the RAH. Some of those do provide a
slightly strange audio perspective [1], especially compared to the Royal
Festival Hall (now re-opened with its new acoustics). But I have only
visited the RFH occasionally.


Depends theres a good old echo in the circle..

[1] But not as strange as the seats right up at the top. Promenading in
the gallery presumably is even stranger.


Not been up there, isn't that the place to go if you've got a lady
friend?...
--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

[1] But not as strange as the seats right up at the top. Promenading in
the gallery presumably is even stranger.


Not been up there, isn't that the place to go if you've got a lady
friend?...

I used to go to the topmost place (was it called the gallery?) you didn't
have seats, it was all 'promenading'. Not many people wanted to go there
(presumably as it was almost literally out of the limelight g) the
acoustics were awfull but the atmosphere was the same.

On 23 Jul 2007 18:42:45 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

On 2007-07-22, tony sayer wrote:
...
And the RAH isn't the -best- acoustic around...

When did the flying saucers go up? I started regularly visiting the RAH
in the late 1970s or early 1980s. I did know the hall's reputation but
I never found it that bad. I have a feeing the acoustic treatment may
have been there aleady when I first went.

I find it bad for smaller 'period' ensembles. One of the problems
appears to be that the performers cannot hear each other properly, so
tuning and timing suffer.

I had been used to the intimacy of the Turner Sims concert hall in
Southampton so the RAH was clearly not the same. However BBC does a
very good job of getting the best out of the RAH, IME.

This is my preferred venue. I have given up on the RAH - the extra
time, effort and expense involved in getting there from Southampton
and then being disappointed by the sound is just not worth it. The
broadcast sound from the RAH is generally better in my experience.

Maybe it is just my personal bias, but the performers generally seem
more and ease and better rehearsed at the Turner Sims than at the
proms.

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

In article , Andrew Haley
wrote:
tony sayer wrote:

Had a listen on D-SAT for the first time and reasonable.. just a pity
that Auntie BBC couldn't give us a few more bits and she'd have an
ardent digital convert;!...

I'm surprised you think so. I found the gain-riding that the BBC were
doing, combined with close miking, really weird. At times the gain on
the soloist was so high you could hear him breathing, and then the
orchestra came in and was not that much louder. Bizarre.

I found that particularly noticable during the Campra item (via DTTV).
Mostly when a mic was wound up 'late' so you could hear the volume and
direct/reverb ratio change as they started to sing.

However that bothered me far less that the flaws during the first 10-15
mins that produced picture and sound breakup.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html