I might have either met him or studied with him at Wood Norton, but my memory of TV chaps was that they looked down on radio staff; I remember one who visited Bush saying to me condescendingly; "Do they still do radio?"
Location: Seaford UK
Posts: 1,861
I'm Dennis.
I might have either met him or studied with him at Wood Norton, but my memory of TV chaps was that they looked down on radio staff; I remember one who visited Bush saying to me condescendingly; "Do they still do radio?"
G17 or G14, Phil? Either way, it's a great shame and mandatory for R3, I'd say, because of the lower output. Not sure whether you're saying R3 is better or worse than Classic FM, but although (i.m.o.) Classic FM has improved in s.q. terms over past years, nothing touches R3 for music.
I get mine via a 6 element from Tacolneston near Norwich (9 miles or so) and although I only listen to Sat. afternoon jazz generally, s.q, is very good. In fact, going from 'Requests (1600 to 1700) to 'J to Z' featuring studio stuff, the uplift in s.q. is marked. Used to have a serviced 01 but am surprised how my cheap Ebay NAD 402 lacks little in comparison.
We receive Rf signals from different transmitters for FM: Newhaven for you and Wrotham for me. I'm listening to R4 right now, and can tell you there is nothing wrong with the quality of the speech: there is significant content above 7kHz coming from my speakers.
Perhaps there is a problem with your transmitter?
Barry
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 68
I'm Jim.
Location: Seaford UK
Posts: 1,861
I'm Dennis.
"We receive Rf signals from different transmitters for FM: Newhaven for you and Wrotham for me. I'm listening to R4 right now, and can tell you there is nothing wrong with the quality of the speech: there is significant content above 7kHz coming from my speakers.
Perhaps there is a problem with your transmitter? "
Well I think that there may be a problem with the transmitters, but unlikely.
Ashley James of AVI said that he listened to a pair of ADAMs without any adjustments recently, and that they were not good on voice and piano.
Currently I am unhappy with voices on both R4 and films from DTV*, but these problems were evident with my own ESS/Rogers redesign, and even on my old CRT Sony TV several years ago with an oval 3 or 5" speaker.
Differences on voice with my ADAMs are more marked, and their (referred to in an earlier post), dynamics may be revealing mic techniques in a more revealing way. Intermittently the R4 voices are very good, but often on intensive news not so, eg. the Today programme.
In the studio they have a large round table surrounded by large diaphragm mics, and a computer screen directly in front of each presenter which will produce a cavity, and when they talk to each other they turn their heads at right angles to the mic axes, and so lose top and presence.
I notice the cavity effect if I am singing as I walk up to the kitchen units to wash up, an increase in volume in the few hundred Hz range.
I'm hoping like hell that my speakers are not a failed design in the voice respect, and that their extrememly fast response is just revealing stuff previously missed on monitors.
A recent writeup by Keith Howard of the ATC 100s stating a slight mid range 'BBC dip' may be an accurate description of what they use, although they now use Genelec monitors.
This 'BBC dip' was called the 'Gundry dip' after the designer.
*Films on TV show cultural change with various decades, many current are American mumble, and many late 60s and early 70s have good sound.
A good test IMO is the nature of voices on films showing open air scenes, eg. cowboys in a desert, where they should not be thick and boxy, but thin and open.
Location: Seaford UK
Posts: 1,861
I'm Dennis.
I measured the spls this morning on R4 at 9.30, and it peaked 60dB, and much of the speech was poor, but from experience live speech in my room typically peaks 70dB, so Munsen curves may be a factor here because broadcast O/Ps vary so much in level.