Molly McCann is a treasure

[chrismpw]

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

Good answer - thanks. Agree - less faff and expense if you don't have to hide it.

 

[chrismpw]

I fear that, despite the time and effort we have put in, Chris is still going to be grumbling about woke headphones

I haven't a problem with headphones- I recently eschewed of uncomfortable and forever falling out earbuds for a cracking pair of noise cancelling senhheisers for use in my workshop / mowing the lawn. Can't imagine how they'd be an advantage to anyone on a radio show who isn't using them to cue up the next track that's all.

Also headphones can't be woke. It's what you hear on them that cam be woke. And being woke isn't necessarily a bad thing - I've been woke in most things for half a century. It just gets tiresome and irritating when people like to use it to advertise their virtue all the time.

Go them - they're a functioning social human. Also a self advertising narcissist.

Sake

 

[Rita_Poon]

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.

Given up on the radio as well as TV. Just such narrow boring content every day. I'm immersed in streaming music of my own choice and get my news from GOT.

Everybody should be valued for their skills and their humanity - not their colour nor gender. There should be no discrimination, positive nor negative based on colour or gender either.

It's a sign of the toxic patriarchy though that women only get a day, whereas men get the remaining 364.25 days - and a sign of misogyny that everyone in this thread is celebrating that fact. You're all very very bad Teds.

Somebody round these parts is telling porkies. Hmmm.

 

[Prevenger17]

I think sound quality on TV, with lapel mics is at least on par with that of radio

Quality in terms of fidelity? Maybe. But quality in terms of richness, tone and impact, absolutely not. Again, they are set up for what is considered best practice within their respective industries and formats

Your assertion is that they wear those headphones and use those big microphones for fashion reasons. I have a question about this:

I did some work in a Dublin-based, mostly volunteer, radio station before the advent of livestreams and similar. What equipment do you think I was using, bearing in mind the station barely had listeners let alone viewers, thereby rendering fashion a complete non-consideration?

 

[chrismpw]

Somebody round these parts is telling porkies. Hmmm.

I can remember things you know!

Sometimes.

 

[Rita_Poon]

I haven't a problem with headphones- I recently eschewed of uncomfortable and forever falling out earbuds for a cracking pair of noise cancelling senhheisers for use in my workshop / mowing the lawn. Can't imagine how they'd be an advantage to anyone on a radio show who isn't using them to cue up the next track that's all.

Also headphones can't be woke. It's what you hear on them that cam be woke. And being woke isn't necessarily a bad thing - I've been woke in most things for half a century. It just gets tiresome and irritating when people like to use it to advertise their virtue all the time.

Go them - they're a functioning social human. Also a self advertising narcissist.

Sake

Come on, let's get to the crunch...

 

[chrismpw]

Quality in terms of fidelity? Maybe. But quality in terms of richness, tone and impact, absolutely not. Again, they are set up for what is considered best practice within their respective industries and formats

Your assertion is that they wear those headphones and use those big microphones for fashion reasons. I have a question about this:

I did some work in a Dublin-based, mostly volunteer, radio station before the advent of livestreams and similar. What equipment do you think I was using, bearing in mind the station barely had listeners let alone viewers, thereby rendering fashion a complete non-consideration?

Fair point.

Actually you've made me remember ... I've known a few audio technicians and I know of their drive for perfection (I share it) and obsession with getting the absolute best kit they can - especially if it's on the firm's expense - far better than is needed in reality, but don't tell the boss that.

I wonder how much consideration is given to how often people sharing headphones pass on nits.

 

[chrismpw]

Come on, let's get to the crunch...

And for sometimes having an excuse to not hear the female.

 

[Rita_Poon]

And for sometimes having an excuse to not hear the female.

There he is.
Reckon that guy built the Taj Mahal to get him out of the house? Dedication.

 

[Prevenger17]

Can't imagine how they'd be an advantage to anyone on a radio show who isn't using them to cue up the next track that's all.

To hear where you are in the show, to hear the producer's cues, to hear the ad breaks, to hear guests and broadcast partners, to hear the music breaks, to hear how your own voice is coming through, to hear audio equipment issues, to be able to stay in the rhythm of a presentation that is only audio and therefore needs to be packed with sound every second. Are you actually serious?

 

[Prevenger17]

Fair point.

Actually you've made me remember ... I've known a few audio technicians and I know of their drive for perfection (I share it) and obsession with getting the absolute best kit they can - especially if it's on the firm's expense - far better than is needed in reality, but don't tell the boss that.

I wonder how much consideration is given to how often people sharing headphones pass on nits.

The other side of it is, those lapel mics are small and designed to move around inside someone's clothes. Obviously useful for a visual broadcast, but I'm sure you've seen those microphones cut out and need to be replaced on live television. They are extremely fragile, whereas in radio, where they don't need to move an inch, the large diaphragm condensers have an obvious advantage of being very robust and rarely in need of replacement

 

[chrismpw]

To hear where you are in the show, to hear the producer's cues, to hear the ad breaks, to hear guests and broadcast partners, to hear the music breaks, to hear how your own voice is coming through, to hear audio equipment issues, to be able to stay in the rhythm of a presentation that is only audio and therefore needs to be packed with sound every second. Are you actually serious?

Other tham the director I'd imagine all that is enormously distracting. Are you saying those are advantages? Surely just talk - like they manage to do so in xhat shows ... let the sound engineers sort out the rest.

 

[Prevenger17]

Other tham the director I'd imagine all that is enormously distracting. Are you saying those are advantages? Surely just talk - like they manage to do so in xhat shows ... let the sound engineers sort out the rest.

Chris, I've done live radio broadcasts, you absolutely do need to be able to hear yourself and all the segments leading in and out of yours. If you were a lone broadcaster whose entire show was a 2 hour ad-free talkathon with no guests, you might not need a monitor.

But the fact is, even in lone formats, most talk show hosts much prefer the sound of their compressed, processed voice that the audience hears then speaking into a sterile sound-proofed vacuum. Again, I feel like the reasons for this should be obvious

 

[Rita_Poon]

I hope the boys in blue can hear my thoughts today, in radiant technicolour. They'll cotton on quite quick. Mic or no mic. Get at evans double lively!

 

[heatmeiser]

No idea who she is but the name Molly always brings back good memories of that rough brass from Higher Broughton