Proms last night.
 

"_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote in message
o.uk...
I hope I'm allowed to disagree. Yes, in modern TV programmes dialogue
is frequently drowned out by loud effects or music, but not in the
case of Jamaica Inn. Much of the uninteligible dialogue was adequately
loud and not accompanied by any spurious effects. Also, the fact that
some *actors* were perfectly clear while some weren't suggests to me
that intelligibility was a function of their diction and not the
technology.

Agreed. There have been plenty of cases of music and effects being mixed too
loud for the level of the dialogue. But Jamaica Inn was not one of them. I
got the impression that some of the actors were just mumbling, pure and
simple. You could have been stood right next to them, in a quiet room, and
still struggled to work out what they were saying.

Strong regional accents and archaic speech patterns and sentence structure
didn't help, but poor enunciation and nasal all-vowels-and-no-consonants
diction was the killer.

I remember when Inspector Lewis first started filming and I went to watch
them filming, I happened to get chatting to Kevin Whately and Laurence Fox
between takes. And while Whately was perfectly easy to understand, Fox
mumbled and swallowed his words - exactly as his character Hathaway did in
the first series of Lewis, before (I imagine) his father, uncle and cousin
(James, Edward and Emilia) had a quiet word with him!

Proms last night.
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 10:28:02 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:


I do really know what I really heard with my own ears - some
actors as
clear as anything and others so unintelligble I had to spool back
and
switch on the subtitles to discover what they'd said. If some
actors
can make themselves understood and some can't, how can that be a
function of the technology?

I didn't watch the programme, so can only take a theoretical
viewpoint.
If the assumption made is that this was a 5.1 recording with just
two
channels broadcast, some actors would by chance be standing in the
place
which was broadcast and some would be peripheral to it. That would
give
a mix of speech clarity depending on where the actor was placed in a
scene.

I didn't make any assumptions. I just listened. Some actors were as
clear as anything and some of them mumbled.

I also listened to the episodes that were broadcast *after* the
complaints, and presumably after whatever adjustments had been made.
Nobody sounded as if they were off-mic or badly recorded, but some
of
them sounded as if they weren't saying the words clearly. Maybe it
was
a misguided attempt at a local accent in the name of "authenticity"
or
something, but if so, I could hear it well enough but could only
make
out what was being said by means of the subtitles.

Jamaica Inn is not the only programme I've seen that had this
problem,
just one of the worst examples I can recall. When I find myself
reaching for the remote control to switch on the subtitles, yet
again,
when a particular actor starts talking, I don't suspect the
technology. Logic says it's something to do with that actor.



Another example is New Tricks. We normally need our TV volume at 35 or
40, but for NT we need to be around 55 - not far off full volume.

What is the (TV) world coming to?


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

Proms last night.
 

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:08:55 +0100
"Woody" wrote:
Another example is New Tricks. We normally need our TV volume at 35 or
40, but for NT we need to be around 55 - not far off full volume.

Until they suddenly turn the background music up to 11 and you have to turn
the volume down again so the neighbours arn't banging on the walls.

--
Spud

Proms last night.
 

In message , Woody
writes

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 10:28:02 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:


I do really know what I really heard with my own ears - some
actors as
clear as anything and others so unintelligble I had to spool back
and
switch on the subtitles to discover what they'd said. If some
actors
can make themselves understood and some can't, how can that be a
function of the technology?

I didn't watch the programme, so can only take a theoretical
viewpoint.
If the assumption made is that this was a 5.1 recording with just
two
channels broadcast, some actors would by chance be standing in the
place
which was broadcast and some would be peripheral to it. That would
give
a mix of speech clarity depending on where the actor was placed in a
scene.

I didn't make any assumptions. I just listened. Some actors were as
clear as anything and some of them mumbled.

I also listened to the episodes that were broadcast *after* the
complaints, and presumably after whatever adjustments had been made.
Nobody sounded as if they were off-mic or badly recorded, but some
of
them sounded as if they weren't saying the words clearly. Maybe it
was
a misguided attempt at a local accent in the name of "authenticity"
or
something, but if so, I could hear it well enough but could only
make
out what was being said by means of the subtitles.

Jamaica Inn is not the only programme I've seen that had this
problem,
just one of the worst examples I can recall. When I find myself
reaching for the remote control to switch on the subtitles, yet
again,
when a particular actor starts talking, I don't suspect the
technology. Logic says it's something to do with that actor.



Another example is New Tricks. We normally need our TV volume at 35 or
40, but for NT we need to be around 55 - not far off full volume.

What is the (TV) world coming to?

It's nothing new. ITV's "Hill Street Blues" (at least 25 years ago?)
always used to have unbelievably low sound. It needed the volume to be
set just short of maximum.

Our TV was pre-remote control, and it was an absolute pain having to
leap up in time to turn the sound down before the frequent adverts
started - and, of course, to turn it up again when the programme
resumed.



--
Ian

Proms last night.
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 10:28:02 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:


I do really know what I really heard with my own ears - some actors as
clear as anything and others so unintelligble I had to spool back and
switch on the subtitles to discover what they'd said. If some actors
can make themselves understood and some can't, how can that be a
function of the technology?

I didn't watch the programme, so can only take a theoretical viewpoint.
If the assumption made is that this was a 5.1 recording with just two
channels broadcast, some actors would by chance be standing in the place
which was broadcast and some would be peripheral to it. That would give
a mix of speech clarity depending on where the actor was placed in a
scene.

I didn't make any assumptions. I just listened. Some actors were as
clear as anything and some of them mumbled.

Depends where they were intended to be in the 2D soundscape.

Again, it may have been the case that actor A was meant to be prevalent in
the centre ground.
Whilst actor B somewhere to the left.
Result would be that actor A would be quite lost in the 'atmos' on both left
and right, and sound muffled. The 'next hotel room' even.
Whilst actor B would be prevalent on left, and inteligable.



I also listened to the episodes that were broadcast *after* the
complaints, and presumably after whatever adjustments had been made.
Nobody sounded as if they were off-mic or badly recorded, but some of
them sounded as if they weren't saying the words clearly. Maybe it was
a misguided attempt at a local accent in the name of "authenticity" or
something, but if so, I could hear it well enough but could only make
out what was being said by means of the subtitles.

Jamaica Inn is not the only programme I've seen that had this problem,
just one of the worst examples I can recall. When I find myself
reaching for the remote control to switch on the subtitles, yet again,
when a particular actor starts talking, I don't suspect the
technology. Logic says it's something to do with that actor.

Viewers logic that is.

Look, no matter how inconceivable you find it that this was a technical cock
up caused by humans, it was.
The BBC transmitted FL + FR components of a 5.1 soundscape.
Without the presence of the (minimum) other three components, it WILL sound
dreaful.
End of.


Just look at all the other discussions that go on in here, whereby end users
complain about the way something has been produced.
Yet if the end user knew why it was produced in such a way, and how it
should be recreated in the home, then they would not complain.

You're the end user here. And, you're doing exactly that.

It was produced for 5.1 presentation.
Unfortunately the public were given the worst part of 5.1, rather than a
produced Lt Rt fold down mix.



Rod.

Proms last night.
 

wrote in message ...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:08:55 +0100
"Woody" wrote:
Another example is New Tricks. We normally need our TV volume at 35 or
40, but for NT we need to be around 55 - not far off full volume.

Until they suddenly turn the background music up to 11 and you have to
turn
the volume down again so the neighbours arn't banging on the walls.

--
Spud




Have you (complaining about NT) all checked the audio settings on your
telly?
Any processing going on?
Such as 'ambience'?

In _some_ situations this can actually make things sound worse.
......all it does is amplify any stereo difference.
Dialogue being purely mono is unaffected.
Produced/stereo music.... suddenly gets louder.... because the stereo
difference is amplified.

Proms last night.
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:37:17 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:

inteligable.

FFS, get a dictionary will you. It's "intelligible".
I let it go the first 5 times I read it, but enough's enough.

Proms last night.
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:43:23 +0100
"_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote:
wrote in message ...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:08:55 +0100
"Woody" wrote:
Another example is New Tricks. We normally need our TV volume at 35 or
40, but for NT we need to be around 55 - not far off full volume.

Until they suddenly turn the background music up to 11 and you have to
turn
the volume down again so the neighbours arn't banging on the walls.

--
Spud




Have you (complaining about NT) all checked the audio settings on your
telly?
Any processing going on?
Such as 'ambience'?

In _some_ situations this can actually make things sound worse.
......all it does is amplify any stereo difference.
Dialogue being purely mono is unaffected.
Produced/stereo music.... suddenly gets louder.... because the stereo
difference is amplified.

The only thing ambient about my TV is the view out the window nearby. It
doesn't have any of that sort of thing built in.

--
Spud

Proms last night.
 

wrote in message ...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:43:23 +0100
"_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:08:55 +0100
"Woody" wrote:
Another example is New Tricks. We normally need our TV volume at 35 or
40, but for NT we need to be around 55 - not far off full volume.

Until they suddenly turn the background music up to 11 and you have to
turn
the volume down again so the neighbours arn't banging on the walls.

--
Spud




Have you (complaining about NT) all checked the audio settings on your
telly?
Any processing going on?
Such as 'ambience'?

In _some_ situations this can actually make things sound worse.
......all it does is amplify any stereo difference.
Dialogue being purely mono is unaffected.
Produced/stereo music.... suddenly gets louder.... because the stereo
difference is amplified.

The only thing ambient about my TV is the view out the window nearby. It
doesn't have any of that sort of thing built in.

Furry muff.
_Most_ tellys do (but not all).

Its like 17 years back when we were moving from 4:3 to 16:9.
You'd go round someones house who's boasted they've got a 28" wide screen
telly.
Only to find theyre watching a 4:3 programme.... spread full width!!!

It was either:
-"Didnt notice" (Yes, genuinely)
-"Don't know how to stop it doing that"
-"Fiddled with it, cant get it back"
-"Cant be arsed"

Still the same with many other settings now.





--
Spud

Proms last night.
 

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:37:17 +0100, _Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:

inteligable.

FFS, get a dictionary will you. It's "intelligible".
I let it go the first 5 times I read it, but enough's enough.


You failed to mention the complete lack of apostrophes.

Please do accept my sincerest of apologies.
Only completed a twelve hour day at work before writing that, and had the
privilege of driving eighty miles to do so.



Hope everyone else takes note:
ALL items posted to this newsgroup should have no spelling mistakes, at all.
For added benefit, please ensure your spell checker is set to UK English.