Or the Bee Gees...you never know.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
- Status
Technically a Polanski.
tommye
Player Valuation: £100m
I can't help but think everyone I see in big headphones is autistic.
Don't mean that in a bad way, but the Autism schools etc I work in a load of the kids wear big headphones to combat the noise around them.
So...
I told my missus i was autistic...thats why I wear them round the house to block out her noise.
That’s a bit highbrow for TalkSPORT
Rita_Poon
Player Valuation: £90m
reverb? a mic and speakers don't get on so well. You built fancy mahogany speakers of your own, you've never encountered this?
I honestly can't believe I'm going to spend Saturday morning minutes doing this but I'm going to explain.
Both radio and TV use what are called condenser microphones. I won't go into the science of these, but suffice to say condenser microphones capture a lot of audio detail, making them ideal for talk based presentations.
However there is a slight difference, in that the microphones typically used on TV are "lapel" microphones ie. those that can clip on the inside of your jacket. They use these microphones on TV because they can be hidden away and not detract from the visual presentation. These are what we would call small diaphragm condensers. They pick up great audio detail, but not much else.
On radio, they typically use large diaphragm condensers. These not only pick up audio detail, but add warmth and colour to the tone of the speaker. These would also be used for recording professional singers, and different types of large diaphragm microphone will add subtle enhancement and richness to the voice. These are considered ideal for radio because they translate much better to speakers, "shape" the voice and are more impactful for a format that is solely reliant on sound. Their relative bulkiness traditionally didn't matter in radio, because people didn't watch radio.
Similar with the headphones. In a TV studio, they use in ear monitors so they can clearly hear other panel members and whatnot without wearing bulky apparatus that might detract from the overall visual presentation. These are purely functional and won't really deliver anything beyond the basic compressed audio signal of the broadcast while being as invisible as possible to the viewer. Remember now Chris, TV is a visual format, which means they are making tradeoffs in overall audio quality to ensure that the visual presentation remains sleek.
In radio, they traditionally never had those concerns, because up until recently, people never really watched radio. So radio stations have been equipped with high quality headphones with which the presenter can have their own voice and broadcast transmitted in the highest quality possible, because that's better than listening to a low quality version of your own broadcast. I hope the reasons for this are obvious.
Which brings us to the present. In an online and content-driven age, radio has now spread its wings and can be found on Youtube and similar visual mediums, while TV likewise has found its way on to podcasts and other purely audio-based formats. However, they are still what they are. TV programs are still a visual presentation and are mostly going to be consumed by a viewer. Radio programs are still a sound-based presentation and are mostly going to be consumed by a listener. So they use the best tools for those respective purposes
I hope this has helped
Better noise dampening and equalisation while still being able to easily control the sound input/output levels, to go with an easier setup.
TV setup is with brooches that cost a lot, earpieces that cost a lot, are wireless and you need to put them on someone physically which takes time to go with the money for the setup. Also they have the bonus of having a sound engineer monitor it most the time and acoustics in the studio being setup so you hear the people in it.
Radio setup is "put headphones on, say "test test 1-2-3 ts ts ts ts" and you're ready to go, the only downside being it's a static setup. You get to hear your voice (if you want to), the other guests/host's voice(s) as you would on radio - clearly and not in an audio blasting in the studio as they're usually just sound dampened anyway, and also get instructions for ads/breaks etc.
TV reporters filming on location also have a bunch of hardware you don't see as it's under coats and all and have to travel with someone who knows how to set it all up, usually the operator, FWIW.
Also what @Prevenger17 said - I was in IT in a huge media company and we setup the hardware side of things and basically got told why the rest is done in laymen's terms lol
The lesson here is that a basic level of sound quality is woke
Have libs ruined sound? Can we get a centrist answer?
I fear that, despite the time and effort we have put in, Chris is still going to be grumbling about woke headphones
chrismpw
Player Valuation: £70m
I have - I've done loads of audio stuff with mics and I know it can be managed without it all being in show.
chrismpw
Player Valuation: £70m
Thank you - interesting answer.
But as somebody clearly obsessed with audio fidelity this opens a few other cans of worms for me....
Why is it still considered necessary to "add warmth" and therefore distort the original signal?
Why do they go to all that trouble for sound fidelity just to go and then broadcast it at the low bit rate / compression used by many DAB and youtube broadcasts.
I think sound quality on TV, with lapel mics is at least on par with that of radio - and they still manage well enough. Maybe expense is also a factor with miniaturisation. Hollywood seem to have an issue though, with the new breed of actors who love to mumble and whisper their lines rather than annunciate. But that's a different gripe.
- Status