Randy Marsh calling strikes

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by twisterdad

I know everyone has there own style of calling strikes,but i have never heard strikes called the way Randy Marsh does.At first i thought he was saying Strike one,Strike two but the closer i listen it sounded like (HI HI).
Can anyone tell me what he is saying when calling a strike on a batter?
I think hes a great umpire and just wanted to know what his style is for calling a strike on a batter.
Thank you in advance!!!
twisterdad

He's saying "strike". With the mask in place, and the "forceful utterance" used, the sound coming from many (most?) umpires only bears a small resembance to the sound of "strike" when spoken. Some drop the "k" sound. Some change the "str" to "h". Some do both.

:shrug:

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

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.

Most newscasts are closed captioned via the written scripts fed to the anchors via the teleprompter.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by twisterdad

I know everyone has there own style of calling strikes,but i have never heard strikes called the way Randy Marsh does.At first i thought he was saying Strike one,Strike two but the closer i listen it sounded like (HI HI).

Perhaps it was Japanese.

[gordon30307]

If the PU say something comes up points left or right or uses the hammer no matter what you hear it's a strike. Stays down and you hear nothing (from a distance) it's a ball.

Silly post. Someone had to say it. Kind of like the childrens story The Emperors New Clothes.

[David B]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Most newscasts are closed captioned via the written scripts fed to the anchors via the teleprompter.

That is simply not true also. You really need to give this up as Garth suggested you obviously don't understand the technology of TV or sound.

Closed caption is done usually off site and the feed is captioned back live. They listen to what's being said and feed it back to the TV stations.
You can't go by a teleprompter because the newsreporter might change what's on the prompter or they might cut away to a network broadcast etc,.

We used the same company that does all of ESPN and Fox news and they did our captioning for our TV broadcasts and its pretty neat how accurate they actually are.

The 5-7 seconds of lag time allow numerous types of editing to the sound that is broadcast. We simply think its live.

Turn on a radio broadcast of the game that is on TV and listen to the difference - then turn on the TV broadcast and you will see an abundance of edited sounds, etc.,

I can do the same on my MAC computer as we broadcast our TV each week - add reverb, sound effects, what ever I can think of, it can be added.

Thansk
David

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Most newscasts are closed captioned via the written scripts fed to the anchors via the teleprompter.

Newscasts that do not utilize real-time captioning are doing this. This leaves out the banter between the anchor and the weatherperson or the sports anchor, or the live feeds. Not really 100 percent accessible to Deaf people. You'll have to excuse my rantings on this captioning topic because I do have a hearing loss myself and use captioning all the time.

Originally Posted by David B

That is simply not true also. You really need to give this up as Garth suggested you obviously don't understand the technology of TV or sound.

Closed caption is done usually off site and the feed is captioned back live. They listen to what's being said and feed it back to the TV stations.
You can't go by a teleprompter because the newsreporter might change what's on the prompter or they might cut away to a network broadcast etc,.

We used the same company that does all of ESPN and Fox news and they did our captioning for our TV broadcasts and its pretty neat how accurate they actually are.

The 5-7 seconds of lag time allow numerous types of editing to the sound that is broadcast. We simply think its live.

Turn on a radio broadcast of the game that is on TV and listen to the difference - then turn on the TV broadcast and you will see an abundance of edited sounds, etc.,

I can do the same on my MAC computer as we broadcast our TV each week - add reverb, sound effects, what ever I can think of, it can be added.

Thansk
David

What he said!

[Tim C]

I LOVE IT when people call jimpiano's bluffs.

Regards,

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Newscasts that do not utilize real-time captioning are doing this. This leaves out the banter between the anchor and the weatherperson or the sports anchor, or the live feeds. Not really 100 percent accessible to Deaf people. You'll have to excuse my rantings on this captioning topic because I do have a hearing loss myself and use captioning all the time.

Which are most local newscasts in the country since it is much cheaper for the computer to power closed captioning than a human.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by David B

Turn on a radio broadcast of the game that is on TV and listen to the difference - then turn on the TV broadcast and you will see an abundance of edited sounds, etc.,

I can do the same on my MAC computer as we broadcast our TV each week - add reverb, sound effects, what ever I can think of, it can be added.

Thansk
David

The difference in audio is the number of audio sources between TV and radio.
TV adds different sounds by miking more sounds of the game, not by creating them.

[Rcichon]

Very few 'live broadcasts' are actually live. There is a delay inherent to the video processors as well as an editorial delay which is introduced to allow quick editorial deletions (profanity, etc.) while broadcasting. You're only fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

And I thought Randy was saying, "stee-riike".

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by David B

We used the same company that does all of ESPN and Fox news and they did our captioning for our TV broadcasts and its pretty neat how accurate they actually are.

The 5-7 seconds of lag time allow numerous types of editing to the sound that is broadcast. We simply think its live.

Editing reports in a newscast by adding sounds that did not occur at an event is a violation of the Broadcast Standards of any reputable TV news organization. It is not permitted even on taped reports.

If there is a 5-7 second lag on the closed captioning appearing on the screen from when the words are actually spoken it is due to the time it takes for the captioner to hear the words and type them. If the words are appearing as the newscaster reads then the captions are coming from the teleprompter.

Check it out the next time you are in a bar and the TVs show captioning.

[David B]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Editing reports in a newscast by adding sounds that did not occur at an event is a violation of the Broadcast Standards of any reputable TV news organization. It is not permitted even on taped reports.

If there is a 5-7 second lag on the closed captioning appearing on the screen from when the words are actually spoken it is due to the time it takes for the captioner to hear the words and type them. If the words are appearing as the newscaster reads then the captions are coming from the teleprompter.

Check it out the next time you are in a bar and the TVs show captioning.

That is simply not true. Obviously you dont' deal with closed captioning for a living, I do. We close caption live each week and then we closed caption an edited show.

In a live event, there is hardly a delay, they are hearing the words as they are spoken and the lag might be maximum one or two seconds.

In a taped event, the captioning is actually recorded onto the tape and thus you have the captioning appear just as soon as it is read or spoken.

The technology is very very expensive and simply hasn't caught up yet to the demands of the FCC through the laws that actually made any broadcast over 15 minutes have closed captioning.

You can provide the captioner with a script of what you are going to say and they can go along with you for the most part, however, if you deviate any the captioner is lost thus most quality programs do not use that type of service.

The best way is to let the captioner do it on the fly, they are accurate and there are companies who are very good at it.

As for TV, NFL or MLB owns the broadcasts and they can add anything they want. Just watch ESPN a while and you will see it every single day.

Thansk
David

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by David B

That is simply not true. Obviously you dont' deal with closed captioning for a living, I do. We close caption live each week and then we closed caption an edited show.

In a live event, there is hardly a delay, they are hearing the words as they are spoken and the lag might be maximum one or two seconds.

In a taped event, the captioning is actually recorded onto the tape and thus you have the captioning appear just as soon as it is read or spoken.

The technology is very very expensive and simply hasn't caught up yet to the demands of the FCC through the laws that actually made any broadcast over 15 minutes have closed captioning.

You can provide the captioner with a script of what you are going to say and they can go along with you for the most part, however, if you deviate any the captioner is lost thus most quality programs do not use that type of service.

The best way is to let the captioner do it on the fly, they are accurate and there are companies who are very good at it.

As for TV, NFL or MLB owns the broadcasts and they can add anything they want. Just watch ESPN a while and you will see it every single day.

Thansk
David

There is no argument with your explanation of closed captioning.

But sounds are not created and added to live televised sporting events and newscasts. That would be a violation of any network's broadcasting standards.

It is simply not done.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

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

Garth:

I don't want to get into a semantics battle of "altered" versus "sweetened." I know you know what I mean by those.

Yes, we sweeten the sounds of the tee shot on PGA broadcasts. As I said last night the natural sound of a golf swing, even a pro's, even Tiger's, does not coincide with the visual perception of the power of the swing. We have long tinkered with that. We make the swing and the contact with the ball sound more powerful by upping the low mid-range a bit (800 Hz-1 KHz), dropping off the brightness of the upper range just a little (2.5 KHz-5KHz) and increasing the decay time of the impact with the ball very, very slightly.

This "darkens" the sound a bit and makes it come across more forceful. This is not unlike what is done in tennis.

I don't believe we mislead the viewers and we certainly don't affect the game. We are, after all, in the entertainment business and we are simply addressing the perceptions of the viewer. I also think it makes the game feel more aggressive at times which addresses a weakness the broadcasts of the 60's had. The broadcasts then made the game seem even "weaker" than it was.

As for the basketball question, yes we mic the hoops and, again, we darken the sound a bit. That "popping" sound you referred to was something that the NBA played with for a few seasons about 20 years ago. I haven’t heard it in a long time.

Sweetening sounds in sports is not done with any intention to deceive, but entertain. As for the thought you relayed expressed by someone on the internet that the home viewer hears what the on-site fan hears, that's nonsense. The home viewer hears so much more than what the on-site fan hears, both "actual" sounds and sweetened or enhanced sounds.

The potential for trouble I see down the road is that some of the golf pros, through their agents have suggested the possibility of having their own specific sound enhancement to their swing...sort of an audio trademark. Even with today's technology hat could cause some mild havoc in the truck, particularly if someone brought up the wrong settings when Tiger's on the tee.

So, do we sweeten live sounds? Sure. Do we do this to deceive? No. Again, we are in the entertainment business.

Larry

Edited to add: Back to ignore jim.