Randy Marsh calling strikes
 

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

I believe it was more like "Stir-Ri-Ike"

that's funny ...

thanks
David

Jicecone,
Man i dont know,it sounds more like the same word twice.I am not sure of the word,but he says it twice.I turned the tv up pretty loud so i could try to make it out,and i still say he is saying something like"HI HI" it is two words that sound totally the same.If it was stir-ri-ke you could hear the stir and the ike as two different sounds.
Thanks for the reply!!!
twisterdad

I also heard the same thing and assumed that was what was said considering how they doctor up the sounds for TV. (Eg. Each pitch has some sound added to it, like the swish of the wind. Maybe it was just my ears though.)

Say what?

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.

Not true.

They can, for example as the PGA does, direct a microphone to pick up a particular sound. (The swing and impact on tee shots)

They can run that signal through the board and "sweeten" it or alter it in, depending on the technology they are using, thousands of ways. Live. Right now. As it happens.

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.

Oh, my gawd.

You are either living in the 1950's, technologically retarded or purposefully misrepresenting the truth,

Sounds can and often are altered on live broadcasts, in real time. I have seen it first hand as part of my job with a symphony orchestra and I know it to be done in many other situations. It is not difficult to tamper or alter a live sound as it goes through the board.

Some time back the NBA sweetened the sound of the basketball going through the net with a "popping sound" during live broadcasts and he NFL added an impact sound plus a swishing sound to hocky games.

Live broadcasted concerts often have additional tracks added to the live track to give the music that "studio" presence rather than the comparatively thin sound live performances often have.

It would no problem no alter an umpire's verbalization as he makes it. The decision as to what sound to use is made before the broadcast and the line carrying the umpire's voice is fed into a pre set board.

If you don't understand this simple technology, you should step back away from your computer or the magical spirits that make the pictures appear might get angry.

I immediately thought of the swishing sound from hockey games. The problem is that Jim believes that 'live' means instantaneous. Not true, of course. Ever see a live broadcast that's been closed captioned?

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.

Close captioning is done by feeding the scripts the announcers read to the close captioning video source or by someone actually typing the words they hear.

What that has to do with altering sounds I do not understand.

Well good for you.

But TV does not change sounds.

And it certainly does not alter the voice of Randy Marsh as he calls strikes.

You may be a bang up audio man for live musicial productions where creativity is part of the artistic process. But sports broadcasts are about giving the viewer the sounds of the game as heard by those in attendance.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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.

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?

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".

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.

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.

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

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.

Realtime Sports Audio
 

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

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.

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:

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

Perhaps it was Japanese.

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.

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

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.

What he said! :cool:

Hehehehe,
 

I LOVE IT when people call jimpiano's bluffs.

Regards,

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

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.

consider this jim
 

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

"""The place where I come from is a small town
They think so small, they use small words
But not me, I'm smarter than that,
I worked it out
I'll be stretching my mouth to let those big words come right out""

Peter Gabriel, "Big" from "So" (1986).

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.

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.

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.

English seems to be a second language for you.

And you and the truth are, at best, very occasional acquaintances.

It appears from comments from your peers that is more a problem for you.

Thx twisterdad all 3 postss :D :D

First, you would have to know me to know what a peer of mine would be.

On the other hand, we can just let your words speak for themselves:

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

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

[giggle] I love that one.

You should...since your bud confirmed what you deny.

So Garth, slow football season for ya?

Btw
 

Garth was an attorney (Litigation nonetheless) in another life.

:D