Randy Marsh calling strikes

[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.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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.

Thanks.

Glad to know the sounds of the game are created by the players.
I can see why garth wants to stop.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Thanks.

Glad to know the sounds of the game are created by the players.
I can see why garth wants to stop.

I love how you can completely and utterly lose an argument yet claim victory.

Fact: You said networks do not alter sounds of live sporting events.
Fact: They do.


Fact: Tee has been right about you all along. You're either a poser or a liar, though there is not much difference between the two.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I love how you can completely and utterly lose an argument yet claim victory.

Fact: You said networks do not alter sounds of live sporting events.
Fact: They do.


Fact: Tee has been right about you all along. You're either a poser or a liar, though there is not much difference between the two.

Your buddy's first line tells us all we need to know.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Your buddy's first line tells us all we need to know.

Yes...that when you said that those things NEVER happened in live broadcasts, you had no idea of what you were talking about or were lying through your teeth.

Try as you might, no one with an ounce of brains will accept your attempt to claim you were right. Your own words prevent that.

Remember these? Everyone else does.


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."

From post #9

"But those sounds cannotbe alterted on a live broadcast."

From post 14

"But TV does not change sounds."

"…sports broadcasts are about giving the viewer the sounds of the game as heard by those in attendance.""

From post 17

"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."

From post 22

"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."

From post 23

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

Trust me, it is the rest of us who are LOL.

[bobbybanaduck]

http://forum.officiating.com/profile...ignore&u=12530

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Yes...that when you said that those things NEVER happened in live broadcasts, you had no idea of what you were talking about or were lying through your teeth.

Try as you might, no one with an ounce of brains will accept your attempt to claim you were right. Your own words prevent that.

Remember these? Everyone else does.


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."

From post #9

"But those sounds cannotbe alterted on a live broadcast."

From post 14

"But TV does not change sounds."

"…sports broadcasts are about giving the viewer the sounds of the game as heard by those in attendance.""

From post 17

"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."

From post 22

"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."

From post 23

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

Trust me, it is the rest of us who are LOL.

Your buddy explained it all.
Maybe you should reread his comments.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Your buddy explained it all.
Maybe you should reread his comments.

Yes, lets. In fact, let's line them up with yours.

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

His: So, do we sweeten live sounds? Sure.

Yours: "But TV does not change sounds."

His: Yes, we sweeten the sounds of the tee shot on PGA broadcasts.

Yours: "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."

His: 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.

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

His: 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.

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

His: Yes, we sweeten the sounds of the tee shot on PGA broadcasts.

I know, I know. Now you will claim that you and Larry agree. You will somehow in your little mind find a way to convince yourself that you never really said all those things.

You need help.

[rookieblue]

This is so old, I'm surprised no one brought it up.

washingtonpost.com

TV Golf, Botching the Birdies
Sharp-Eared Viewers Hear False Notes in 'Ambient Sound'
By D'Vera Cohn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 2, 2000; Page C01


The Buick Open golf tournament was in Michigan, so why was the silvery song of a canyon wren--a bird never seen east of Texas--heard on the TV broadcast?

Later last month, during a broadcast of the PGA Championship in Kentucky, birders picked up the thin whistle of a white-throated sparrow, not a bird of summer in the South. Last weekend, that sparrow called again in a place it does not belong--Ohio, during the NEC Invitational.

E-mails flew, between friends and on birding chat lists. Did you hear what I heard? Was it possible that CBS, which broadcast those tournaments, was dubbing in taped bird calls for viewers at home?

Well, yes.

"They have used a [taped] cartridge at one time or another," said Leslie Ann Wade, vice president of communications for CBS Sports. Producers try to use local bird sounds--even putting out a dish of birdseed next to a microphone at tournament sites--but cannot always get "ambient sound," and therefore turn to tapes, she said.

(Spokesmen for ABC and NBC deny their networks use taped calls or even bird mikes, although some viewers say they heard some out-of-place birds during the ABC prime-time broadcast on Monday from California featuring Tiger Woods and Sergio Garcia.)

It is hard to know what to think about this. Some birders are thrilled that networks want to broadcast any bird sounds--and so what if they are misplaced? Everyone knows that TV dresses up the real world. Others, already down on golf courses because their manicured lawns are not bird-friendly, are more ambivalent. A few, though, are ticked off.

"It's deceitful and overkill--just how perfect do they want us to think it is out there?" Gaithersburg birder John Malcolm groused. "Why not dub in harp music and rainbows for certain crucial holes?"

"Besides," he added, "it messes up our harmless little hobby"--keeping lists of birds heard during golf tournaments.

Yes, lists. Birders are fanatic list-keepers. Lists are a way of pinning down a fleeting, sensory experience. They are a means of collecting birds, just as some people collect stamps or antiques, but without bringing them home. For some, they offer a vehicle to compete with other list-keepers.

A list of the types of lists birders keep would fill this newspaper, but here are a few: Birds in their yards. Birds in parking lots. Birds on telephone poles, outside the office window, on the commute to work.

Birds in commercials or movie soundtracks are a special favorite because they are so often wrong for the time or place. Birders know, for example, that the movie "The Last of the Mohicans," set in New York, was made in North Carolina because they can identify the calls. It was like seeing palm trees at the North Pole.

It is a special thrill to spot a mistake--a "kind of birders' one-upmanship," in the words of veteran Bethesda birder Lola Oberman. It shows they know their stuff. And these days, with good quality bird-song tapes so widely available, the fashion is to bird by ear, not just by sight.

YuLee Larner, a past president of the Virginia Society of Ornithology who lives in Staunton, became convinced something odd was going on when she noticed the sparrows at recent golf tournaments sang "the same thing over and over and over again."

Birds just don't do that. They vary their song. Besides, she pointed out, sparrows do not sing much in summer, after the springtime competition for territory and mates.

"It just seems funny to me," she said. "They try to make things sound natural, but a little bit of research would tell producers where birds would be. They probably didn't think people were paying any attention."

North Carolina birder Patricia Moore, who regularly leads bird walks, said she would rather hear no bird songs during golf tournaments than hear the incorrect ones.

"A wrong bird song would be the same as a misidentification of a Beethoven symphony," she said. "It would rub a musician the wrong way to have something in his music misidentified."

© 2000 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

jimpiano, maybe Garth got the Post's writers to "sweeten" this story seven years after the fact.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by rookieblue

This is so old, I'm surprised no one brought it up.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

jimpiano, maybe Garth got the Post's writers to "sweeten" this story seven years after the fact.

LOL

Thanks for the story.