BBC deliberately distorts the audio?

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:07:50 GMT
pamela wrote:

On 00:23 9 Jan 2016, Graham. wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:26:24 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
On 07/01/2016 23:03, wrote:
On Thursday, 7 January 2016 10:49:55 UTC, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Don't know about that, but I have noticed that all channels
audio for news items seems to have the engineering prowess of
a 1970s Woolies cassette recorder of late.

As a former operator of a 1970s Woolies cassette recorder

Weren't they reel to reel? Speed of the tape increasing as the
take up reel filled?

I don't think any tape recorder ever worked like that. The speed
of the tape was governed by the capstan and that was driven at
constant speed.

Bill is correct. There were some as he described.


Absobloominglutely!

This was my first portable reel-reel. No capstan.

http://www.dustygizmos.com/images/ga...ernational.jpg

Many of these likewise

http://www.dustygizmos.com/photos2.htm

What a lovely web site. So many charming products like these crystal
radios.

http://www.dustygizmos.com/crystal.htm


I can't see, at a quick glance, the Ferrograph ex-Navy Reel-to-Reel
Tape Recorder I once had. It weighed 56 lbs. The two channels were
physically offset, which might have been standard, I don't know.
It's moved on long ago now.

--
Davey.

On 09/01/2016 00:23, Graham. wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:26:24 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In , Norman Wells
wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
...
On 07/01/2016 23:03, wrote:
On Thursday, 7 January 2016 10:49:55 UTC, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Don't know about that, but I have noticed that all channels audio
for news items seems to have the engineering prowess of a 1970s
Woolies cassette recorder of late.

As a former operator of a 1970s Woolies cassette recorder

Weren't they reel to reel? Speed of the tape increasing as the take up
reel filled?

I don't think any tape recorder ever worked like that. The speed of the
tape was governed by the capstan and that was driven at constant speed.

Bill is correct. There were some as he described.


Absobloominglutely!

This was my first portable reel-reel. No capstan.

http://www.dustygizmos.com/images/ga...ernational.jpg

Many of these likewise

http://www.dustygizmos.com/photos2.htm


I have spotted the one I had as a kid: Junior Corder (aka Benkson)

It had a single motor with a long spindle coming out both sides; the
Play speed was set by the spindle rubbing on the take-up platform rubber
edge, and the Rewind speed was faster because a brass sleeve was fitted
to the other end of the spindle rubbing on the rewind platform rubber
edge.

The motor was mounted on a spring assisted pivot controlled by the
selector switch, so that in the off position the motor was unpowered and
pressed on both platforms, and operated as a brake. On Play or Record,
the motor tipped anticlockwise and was powered as was the amplifier. On
Rewind, the motor tipped clockwise but the amplifier remained unpowered.

The sound was nothing special through the internal speaker, but was
quite acceptable through an earphone.

Jim

On 09/01/2016 09:26, NY wrote:
Well I've learned something today. I never knew that tape recorders were
ever made without a capstan to control the tape speed.

+1

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 09/01/2016 18:49, Mark Carver wrote:
On 09/01/2016 09:26, NY wrote:
Well I've learned something today. I never knew that tape recorders were
ever made without a capstan to control the tape speed.

+1

If you want to know anything about the olden days just ask Uncle Bill

Bill

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:45:35 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

On 09/01/2016 18:49, Mark Carver wrote:
On 09/01/2016 09:26, NY wrote:
Well I've learned something today. I never knew that tape recorders were
ever made without a capstan to control the tape speed.

+1

If you want to know anything about the olden days just ask Uncle Bill

Bill

Another crudity about my machine, this one
http://www.dustygizmos.com/images/ga...ernational.jpg
is that the erase head was nothing more than a permanent magnet swung
into contact with the tape when record was selected.

The motor ran off 1.5V provided my two HP11 cells in parallel and the
amp ran off a PP3.




--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:22:17 -0000, "NY" wrote:

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Brian-Gaff
writes
Don't know about that, but I have noticed that all channels audio for
news
items seems to have the engineering prowess of a 1970s Woolies cassette
recorder of late. To start with the audio of outside broadcasts seems to
be
very gritty like a low bit rate digital feed, and then you have the abuse
done by over use of limiters etc.
Brian


The fact that the news media think that cell phone video/audio is
broadcast quality has been obvious for a couple of years now.

It shows how little they really care.

I doubt whether they they think that cell phone video/audio is broadcast
quality, but *any* footage, no matter how bad the quality, is better (from a
news-coverage point of view) than no footage.

What amazes me is the number of people who hold their phone in portrait mode
when taking video. This means that if it is broadcast on TV, broadcasters
have to either crop it heavily or use huge borders left and right, to make
it fit a landscape screen.

At this point it is customary for someone to post this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:37:02 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

The fact that the news media think that cell phone video/audio is
broadcast quality has been obvious for a couple of years now.

It shows how little they really care.

That's unfair. They probably figure, low quality but authentic video of
an important event is better than none at all, which is fair enough.
Recent smartphones have quite decent video quality though. Many are HD,
and often better than what was considered broadcast quality just a few
years ago.

True.

With a good operator they can produce decent output. Of
course many laypeople aren't, as witnessed by the flood of vertical
videos on youtube.

There's the weakness. It's no use having a smart phone if you haven't
also got a reasonably smart operator. It baffles me too that so many
users of these things apparently don't even know which way up to hold
them. Presumably these people also watch television from time to time,
so you'd think they'd notice what the screen looks like. I've watched
three year olds playing with those shape sorting toys, so what is it
that they forget when they grow up and acquire smartphones?

Rod.

when they grow up and acquire smartphones?

The same applies to newsgroup Top Posters :-)
--

Martin in Zuid Holland


Sometimes we do it to help Brian.