Randy Marsh calling strikes

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Okay, remember that when you next attend a live basketball game. I'm sure the ball going through the net sounds like a cork popping.

Remember that the next time you attend a PGA event, where each T-shot is accompanied by a loud crescendoing "whoosh".

Remember that the next time you watch a baseball game on FOX. Rest assured that the fans at the park hear all the same identical sounds that come out your television set. Quel imbécile.

Having spent 30 years in Live TV sports production I would say when you use the words "Quel Imbecile" to please look in the mirror.

The sounds heard at home may be easier to hear , but they are the same sounds you would hear being close to the action at a live event. They are never altered or changed.

Randy Marsh on TV is what you would hear Randy Marsh say if you were close enough to him at the ball field.

If you want to say it isn't you would be incorrect.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Having spent 30 years in Live TV sports production I would say when you use the words "Quel Imbecile" to please look in the mirror.

If true, you aren't the first person to do something for 30 years and not learn anything new.

The sounds heard at home may be easier to hear , but they are the same sounds you would hear being close to the action at a live event. They are never altered or changed.

Patently false. Are you really going to tell me that when the announcers talk about the added sound on the tee shots on PGA broadcasts that they are lying?

Do you really believe that hock pucks make a swooshing sound in real life?

Do you really think that a made basket sounds like a cork popping?

What color is the sky in your world?

Randy Marsh on TV is what you would hear Randy Marsh say if you were close enough to him at the ball field.

I never claimed that what Marsh said was altered. I said that the capability existed to do so and that sound sweetening had been done in other sports. Both true statements.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by GarthB

If true, you aren't the first person to do something for 30 years and not learn anything new.



Patently false. Are you really going to tell me that when the announcers talk about the added sound on the tee shots on PGA broadcasts that they are lying?

Do you really believe that hock pucks make a swooshing sound in real life?

Do you really think that a made basket sounds like a cork popping?

What color is the sky in your world?



I never claimed that what Marsh said was altered. I said that the capability existed to do so and that sound sweetening had been done in other sports. Both true statements.

Ah, the capability exists. Certainly it does, but it is not used to change the sounds of the game.

Why would it be?

The sound may be easier to hear at home, espeically in theater set-ups and and more sophisticated systems..

But it is not changed.

The swoosh at the tee is what you would hear standing next to Tiger.
The same for the ball going through the basket it you were sitting underneath, although you contend it sounds like a cork popping? Maybe you are a lush.

I don't know what hockey games you watch...but the sound of the sticks hitting the ice and the puck, and the skates, the puck hitting the glass and the pipes, the players crashing into the boards are all what you hear at a game....but the "swoosh of a Puck? Are you serious?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Ah, the capability exists. Certainly it does, but it is not used to change the sounds of the game.

Why would it be?

The sound may be easier to hear at home, espeically in theater set-ups and and more sophisticated systems..

But it is not changed.

The swoosh at the tee is what you would hear standing next to Tiger.
The same for the ball going through the basket it you were sitting underneath, although you contend it sounds like a cork popping? Maybe you are a lush.

I don't know what hockey games you watch...but the sound of the sticks hitting the ice and the puck, and the skates, the puck hitting the glass and the pipes, the players crashing into the boards are all what you hear at a game....but the "swoosh of a Puck? Are you serious?

Once again, I can't tell if you're really that dumb or purposefully misprepresnting the truth.

I have worked live events with ESPN and I know for a fact that live sounds are sweetened "in the truck."

I have been to the Masters and I know for a fact that the sound heard at on the tee is not the sound the home viewers are treated to.

Hockey broadcasts, back when they added the electronic "trail" to the puck (or, I suppose you'll say that never happened either) also added a "swooshing sound" after the puck was struck. They have since eliminated both.

Networks have long "sweetened" even the crowd noise to give the impression of larger attendance.

Ah, bien, vous reviendrez à la liste d'ignorer. C'est une honte. Parfois vous êtes drôle.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Once again, I can't tell if you're really that dumb or purposefully misprepresnting the truth.

I have worked live events with ESPN and I know for a fact that live sounds are sweetened "in the truck."

I have been to the Masters and I know for a fact that the sound heard at on the tee is not the sound the home viewers are treated to.

Hockey broadcasts, back when they added the electronic "trail" to the puck (or, I suppose you'll say that never happened either) also added a "swooshing sound" after the puck was struck. They have since eliminated both.

Networks have long "sweetened" even the crowd noise to give the impression of larger attendance.

Ah, bien, vous reviendrez à la liste d'ignorer. C'est une honte. Parfois vous êtes drôle.

The electronic trail of the puck was a short lived experiment to help follow the visual path of the puck on TV. The "swoosh of the puck" sound never existed.

What then is the sound home viewers are treated to at a tee of the Masters, "Gentlemen, start your engines?"

Networks have "sweetened" the crowd noise? You mean a crowd did not exist?

And were the strike calls of Randy Marsh actually dubs of the voice of Ron Luciano?

I can tell you for a fact that no American network broadcast alters or changes the actual sounds heard at an event. That practice is self defeating and easily seen trhough by the audience,,,,which is word from the latin derviative of " to listen".

[DG]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Mikes of course can be directed at an audio source, the cup and tee in golf, the net in basketball, etc. But those sounds cannot be alterted on a live broadcast....enhanced in volume,,,but not altered...and certainly no umpire's strike call can be changed to something it is not.

With not much effort I believe the umpire's first strike call could be recorded and replaced thereafter on a live broadcast with "BULLSH*T", if one was so inclined to do so. Computers man, computers.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by DG

With not much effort I believe the umpire's first strike call could be recorded and replaced thereafter on a live broadcast with "BULLSH*T", if one was so inclined to do so. Computers man, computers.

Well, there is certainly that.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

With not much effort I believe the umpire's first strike call could be recorded and replaced thereafter on a live broadcast with "BULLSH*T", if one was so inclined to do so. Computers man, computers.

I just got off the phone with a friend who works for a CBS affiliate who provides production assistance at west coast events. He confirmed they sweeten the audio from the tee mic... "slightly, but not unnaturally" according to him. He stated that they alter the sound to match what "viewers expect to hear.'

"The natural sound of a golf swing, even a pro's does not coincide with the visual perception of the power of the swing. We make the swing and the contact with the ball sound more powerful."

He will send me an email in the AM and I'll cut and paste it here. He'll address the crowd noise issue as well.

I may have to take the pyana man off the ignore list long enough to see if he's still covering his ears and singning la la la la la la la la la.

Edited to add: Yep...he is.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I just got off the phone with a friend who works for a CBS affiliate who provides production assistance at west coast events. He confirmed they sweeten the audio from the tee mic... "slightly, but not unnaturally" according to him. He will send me an email in the AM and I'll cut and paste it here.

LOL


"slightly, but not unnaturally"

So a swoosh becomes a swoooosh?

A kiss is still a kisss?

Randy Marsh's strike beomes a strikee?

LOL

Tell me, when you were in the ESPN truck were you there to empty the trash? Or the "sweetened gar bage' ?

LOL

[GarthB]

You should change you name from jimpiano to some other instrument. A lyre would be good.

It’s amazing what you’ve learned in your thirty years of broadcast:

From post #6:

"How in the world can any technology "doctor" sounds in a live event"?
That is called EDTING, but, to do that, it first has to be recorded."

At first a total ignorance of the capability of audio technology, which you displayed again in post #9

"But those sounds cannot be alterted on a live broadcast."

Then you seem to accept that it could be done, but insisted that it was never done:

"But TV does not change sounds.
…sports broadcasts are about giving the viewer the sounds of the game as heard by those in attendance."

In post 17 you insisted again that broadcasters would never alter sounds at a sporting event:

"The sounds heard at home may be easier to hear , but they are the same sounds you would hear being close to the action at a live event. They are never altered or changed."

Finally, in post 22 you admitted the existence but denied the utilization:

"Ah, the capability exists. Certainly it does, but it is not used to change the sounds of the game."

"The swoosh at the tee is what you would hear standing next to Tiger."

In post 23 you told us:

"I can tell you for a fact that no American network broadcast alters or changes the actual sounds heard at an event."

Finally, you joke that the alterations that exist are basically meaningless.

What a wonderful route you took from being completely wrong to justifying being completely wrong.

Then, you sarcastically asked:

"Tell me, when you were in the ESPN truck were you there to empty the trash? Or the "sweetened gar bage' ?"

Well, unlike you, I stick to the truth. I never said I was in the truck. I said I worked at live events with ESPN. I remained at the event site and communicated with the truck.

But, regardless…it seems that I learned more working two events than you did in 30 years. Tomorrow I’ll post Larry's email and I'll ask him to use small words so you can keep up.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by GarthB

You should change you name from jimpiano to some other instrument. A lyre would be good.

It’s amazing what you’ve learned in your thirty years of broadcast:

From post #6:

"How in the world can any technology "doctor" sounds in a live event"?
That is called EDTING, but, to do that, it first has to be recorded."

At first a total ignorance of the capability of audio technology, which you displayed again in post #9

"But those sounds cannot be alterted on a live broadcast."

Then you seem to accept that it could be done, but insisted that it was never done:

"But TV does not change sounds.
…sports broadcasts are about giving the viewer the sounds of the game as heard by those in attendance."

In post 17 you insisted again that broadcasters would never alter sounds at a sporting event:

"The sounds heard at home may be easier to hear , but they are the same sounds you would hear being close to the action at a live event. They are never altered or changed."

Finally, in post 22 you admitted the existence but denied the utilization:

"Ah, the capability exists. Certainly it does, but it is not used to change the sounds of the game."

"The swoosh at the tee is what you would hear standing next to Tiger."

In post 23 you told us:

"I can tell you for a fact that no American network broadcast alters or changes the actual sounds heard at an event."

Finally, you joke that the alterations that exist are basically meaningless.

What a wonderful route you took from being completely wrong to justifying being completely wrong.

Then, you sarcastically asked:

"Tell me, when you were in the ESPN truck were you there to empty the trash? Or the "sweetened gar bage' ?"

Well, unlike you, I stick to the truth. I never said I was in the truck. I said I worked at live events with ESPN. I remained at the event site and communicated with the truck.

But, regardless…it seems that I learned more working two events than you did in 30 years. Tomorrow I’ll post Larry's email and I'll ask him to use small words so you can keep up.

Please do.

Please keep us all posted on swooshes.

And sweetened but not unnatural.

And Randy Marshs' syllables.

I, for one, can't wait to hear the sound of ball going through the hoop during a televised basketball game and the sound of the "cork popping".

Or that elusive "swoosh of the puck".

Keep up the good work creating sounds in the theater.

I am sure the audience loves the sound of a saxaphone coming from a trumpet.

But for the rest of us,,,,the real sounds on a live TV sports broadcast will continue to be what we expect and cherish.

[bobbybanaduck]

i like small words.

[whitecane]

How 'bout a boxing match? You hear all kinds of suspicious sounds that seem to have no correlation to the onscreen action.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I can do it instaneously as well. I can set a trumpeter on stage in front of a live audience, have him play into a microphone and have the sound of a saxophone come out the speakers....instantaneously.

I can have jimbopyana speak into a microphone and have the sound of a jackass braying come out of the speakers instead of his, no doubt, mellifluous voice.

I can set up a mic to capture the sound of a baseball bat hitting the ball and altering it to a cat screaming, right now, this mini-second, as it occurs, immediately, before the swing is complete.

We agree and I'm arguing semantics. It can be perceived as instantaneous but there is a lot going on between the time you receive your input signal and the time that the final audio is ready for broadcast. Of course, we're talking about high-speed processors that can accomplish these feats in milliseconds but just because we can't detect it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Live closed captioning always has some lag time, because the person has to hear the dialogue and then type it. It's very similar to court reporting, equipment-wise. The only time closed captioning doesn't have lag time is on pre-recorded shows or movies, when the captioner has access to the script. Even then, the captioning doesn't show all the words from the dialogue whereas in live captioning, the poor soul is trying to type EVERY word.